In reply to H LV's message of Wed, 31 Aug 2022 11:04:43 -0400: Hi, 1) This is an interesting idea. 2) Light bounces off particles anyway, regardless of whether or not people believe this causes the red shift. Images *are* blurry to some extent, however, if most of the scattering occurs soon after the light is emitted, then from a great distance the source will appear to be a point source anyway. 3) Most of the scattering does happen locally, because there is a gradient in the density of particles. Greatest near stars, and decreasing into intergalactic space.
>When a wave pulse encounters a change in the density of a medium some of >the energy of the pulse is transmitted and some of it is reflected. > >Suppose it is possible for a wave pulse to partially self-reflect by >inducing a local change in the density of the medium as it travels through >it. >If this is possible then the difference between the cosmic microwave >background (CMB) and the Hubble redshift would literally be a function of >perspective. > >The CMB would be the reflected energy from our own local emanations, and >the Hubble red shifted light from a distant galaxy would represent the >energy lost as it is reflected back to the originating galaxy on its >journey to us. > >This would mean the CMB is not an echo of the entire universe as it was in >the past according to the expanding universe hypothesis. Rather the CMB >contains a historical sequence of echoes from _our part_ of the universe. > >(I know the theory of special relativity says there is no need for light to >have a medium or an aether, but then again no one has looked for >reflections from an aether. Also reflections from the aether would not >result in blurry images as is the case when the Hubble redshift is >explained as light scattering off particles) > >Harry Regards, R. van Spaandonk Crops, not towns, should be planted on floodplains. Even the ancient Egyptians knew this.
