Another Theory

 Note from Shannon Sims

By reviewing my original theory and the follow-up discussions below it is easy to see how difficult it is to reconcile a universe in which gravity is the dominant force.  But in a universe where electromagnetism dominates, the processes that shape its formation and structure are much easier to understand and duplicate.  I encourage you to visit my new website, Plasma Pics, which hosts a growing collection of astounding images of plasma, the fourth state of matter, at multiple scales and in various states throughout the Universe.

It is obvious that the Big Bang Theory will become obsolete if it is proven that extragalactic redshifts are not caused by an expanding universe and do not accurately measure acceleration or distance.  Although the Discordancy Report was created to catalog and discuss discordant redshifts between visibly related extragalactic bodies, the question of what is causing this discordance will eventually have to be addressed.  So, I present the following ideas to get things started.  Please feel free to add your comments below after thoroughly reading through the material.

Astronomers have long observed that smaller and more compact celestial objects tend to have higher redshifts than larger and more diffuse objects.  For example, objects such as quasars can appear as extremely compact points of light and possess the highest redshifts of all extragalactic bodies.  The next highest redshifts belong to other, larger Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) such as BL Lac objects.  Next are compact sources and galaxies which are often found in close visual proximity to larger spiral and elliptical galaxies.  These larger galaxies appear to be the most developed but also have the lowest redshifts compared to other extragalactic bodies.  So why do smaller objects have higher redshifts if redshifts are not indicative of distance?

One theory postulated by English astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle and Indian astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar is the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory of conformal gravity.   This theory proposes that the inertial mass of a particle of matter starts at zero and increases as it interacts with an increasing number of surrounding particles with time.  According to this theory, younger and more recently created electrons will have smaller masses than older, less recently created electrons.  These less massive electrons will emit lower energy photons with the resulting light redshifted in comparison to the photons emitted by older electrons.  If it is presumed that smaller more compact extragalactic bodies are younger objects then this theory nicely explains why these younger objects are more redshifted.

I personally find the Hoyle-Narlikar Theory to be a bit esoteric and ambiguous.  Particles don’t have mass until they interact with other particles?  How does a particle start with zero mass?   This sounds like a theory that can be more readily proven with mathematics than with observation.  I personally theorize that particles of matter are drawn to points in the universe by highly focused and extremely powerful gravity wells.  These particles accumulate in denser and denser concentrations until they eventually ignite into stars.  The light emitted from these stars is highly redshifted as it passes through this intense gravitational field.  As more particles accumulate and more stars are formed the gravity well expands and loses strength in proportion to its size.  The accumulation of stars continues to grow as the gravitational pull on their emitted light continues to weaken, resulting in decreasing redshifts.  This theory explains how the smallest visible extragalactic objects, quasars, have the highest redshifts while the largest and most well developed galaxies have the lowest redshifts.

This theory could also describe a system of development from quasars to the aforementioned BL Lac objects, then compact companion galaxies, and finally larger and more diffused galaxies.  An American astronomer by the name of Halton Arp has already outlined a very similar method of extragalactic object development in his books Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (Interstellar Media, 1987), Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science (Apeiron, 1998) and Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations (Apeiron, 2003).  A diagram of this outline can be viewed on Dr. Arp’s website here.  It should be noted that while making observations for his well known Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, Halton Arp was one of the first astronomers to notice and report discordant redshifts between extragalactic objects.  Dr. Arp’s diagram shows the ejection of high redshift objects along the minor axis of a parent galaxy.  Here quasars decrease in redshift and fall back to the parent galaxy as companion galaxies.  X-Ray QSO’s (Quasi-stellar objects) and BL Lac objects are ejected and in turn eject secondary high redshift objects and thereby continue the cycle.

This diagram clearly illustrates not only how small high redshift objects develop into larger less redshifted objects, but also where small high redshift objects originate.  However the diagram does neglect to show a couple of other aspects of extragalactic object development that I feel should be included in any theory on the subject. The first is the budding or splitting off of higher redshift quasars and other compact objects from larger and lower redshift galaxies.  There are more visually apparent examples of this process  in the  observed universe than there are of ejections along the minor axis of extragalactic bodies.  The second aspect describes what happens to compact galaxies later in their development.  I believe that these galaxies, many of which have become companion galaxies to larger galaxies, will themselves grow into larger galaxies.  They will continue to grow and become more diffuse until, when viewed from Earth, they become barely distinguishable from the night sky itself.  Astronomers are puzzled as to how these Low Surface Brightness (LSB) galaxies can maintain a coherent shape while becoming so diffuse.  I theorize that even though their gravity wells are extremely weak and greatly spread out at this point, they are still stronger than the gravitational pull of surrounding bodies.  Eventually, however, the gravitational pull of nearby objects will become stronger than that of the gravity wells holding the LSB galaxies together and they will be pulled apart. Their matter will be drawn into intergalactic space to perhaps one day again be pulled into one or more tiny but powerful gravity wells and begin the cycle all over again.

Of course my theory does not explain how these small focused points of intense gravity originate or what causes them to expand and eventually disperse into space.  However, I am certain that with further observation and research not only will we begin to understand the action of these gravity wells but we might one day discover their origins and meanings.  But that’s enough theorizing for one page.  Maybe one day this page will become the start of a long and interesting discussion.  In the meantime I encourage you to peruse my posts of discordant redshift examples and help contribute to the collection and its true explanation.

Shannon Sims

17 Responses to “Another Theory”

  1. nelson falcon says:

    Gracias por tu portal, me interesa mucho el tema, pienso tambien como tu, que algo anda mal en la cosmologia standars, pero la idea de Arp trae mas problemas que soluciones. te ruego veas este enlace y me des tu opinion acerca de el.
    Nelson falcon Astrofisico.
    Thank you web site, I think that your web is very interesting and, as you, I think the cosmology standards Big bang is bad.
    Please look the link:
    best regards
    Proff. Nelson Falcon (IAU members)

    • sbsims says:

      Professor Falcón,

      Thank you for taking the time to visit my website and post a comment. It is always a relief to see that there are still others out there who are not satisfied with the convenient theories of dark matter and dark energy used to explain galaxy formation. However, I personally see a major problem with the theory of Modified Newtonian dynamics (MoND) that tends to make me think it is not the best explanation for observed galaxy rotation curves.

      The problem for me is that the theory makes the assumption that the vast majority of a galaxy’s gravitational pull originates from a pinpoint source of enormous gravity, such as a supermassive black hole, located in the center of the galaxy. It is also assumed that this centralized gravity source is exerting an equal pull in all directions and the gas, dust and stars of the galaxy are being dragged along with it as it rotates, creating its observed shape.

      I hypothesize that a galaxy is a mass of gas and dust that is all rotating together at pretty much the same orbital velocity. The shape of a galaxy, specifically a spiral galaxy, is due to the twisting of space-time itself by some as yet unidentified force or structure that originates from the central axis of a galaxy. This intense twisting of space-time manifests itself as gravity, condensing the dust and gas which ignites into stars, thus creating the shape and structure of the galaxy. In other words, I do not believe the arms of a spiral galaxy are formed by rotation around a centralized source of gravity. I believe they are the result of the twisting of space-time within a rotating mass of gas and dust and are sources of enormous gravity themselves.

      But again, this is only my personal theory. Which is easier? To reinterpret general relativity or rewrite the laws of gravity? At least we are both trying to look at things from a different perspective rather than follow with blind acceptance. Also, my theories are not meant to distract from the primary goal of this website, which is to demonstrate that the Big Band theory and theory of universal expansion are based upon incongruent and conflicting extragalactic redshift observations.

      Thank you again for your feedback, it is much appreciated!


      • My late father the well published physicist James Paul Wesley who wrote the book “Ecophysics” also wrote a series of books such as “Selected Topics in Fundamental Physics” and “Causal Quantum Mechanics” that explain galaxy formation as the result of collisions between super massive black bodies which rupture as the approach due to the gravity null between them. This causes them to spew out hot matter like rockets and thus decelerating braking and reversing leaving behind the spiral arms of a new born galaxy with a smaller black body in the center where the two jets collided, during the initial braking phase they are quasars, the intense red shift due to the gravitational effects of the s two close by super massive black bodies. the differing sizes trajectories speeds and spins of the colliding super massive black bodies accounts for the variety of galaxies observed. His books refute the big bang, Relativity and Copenhagen quantum Mechanics and posit a much simpler model than any other, yet justify it thoroughly with rigorous mathematical treatments of all these ideas

  2. D R Lunsford says:

    Hello Shannon,

    Thanks for this website and please do keep it updated and stocked with fresh objects.

    If I might make a suggestion – keep the theoretical discussion about explanations of the phenomenon to a minimum. At this point there it is far more important to conclusively demonstrate that objects with discordant redshift are definitely physically associated – the theorizing can start later. Of course those with a head start will be in a better place 🙂 But one wants to eliminate speculation in favor of observed facts. Speculation is fine if done in a forum format – but not as part of the main development.

    Good luck,


    • sbsims says:


      I completely agree with you. I struggled for quite some time with the decision of whether or not to include a page discussing cosmological theories on this website. I ultimately concluded that eventually someone would broach the subject so I might as well at least attempt to funnel any discussions through this one page. If this page becomes lengthy, I may convert it to a blog or forum though I certainly do not want to distract from the main purpose of this site.

      I really appreciate the encouragement. Between running a business and raising a family, it has been difficult to find time to keep this site updated as much as I had hoped. I do plan to post at least one discordant redshift example per month starting with a new one in the next few days. I am also still working to obtain viewing time on a large telescope for at least a couple of the examples I have already posted. However, so far it is looking like an uphill battle.


  3. D R Lunsford says:

    Shannon, good luck! Are you in contact with Lopez-Corredoira and his collaborators? One needs a concerted effort with contributions all around.


    • sbsims says:

      I was hoping to wait until I had a few more examples on the site before I began contacting anyone. I didn’t realize he had a book published a couple of years ago, I definitely need to get a copy. I had been following the posts of the Anomalous Redshift Investigator site authored by Ari Jokimäki, but there hasn’t been any activity there for almost a year. ~Shannon

  4. “I had been following the posts of the Anomalous Redshift Investigator site authored by Ari Jokimäki, but there hasn’t been any activity there for almost a year.”

    Sorry about that. I have been busy with work, other hobbies, etc. I intend to continue postings there in near future.

    Nice site you have here! 🙂

    • sbsims says:

      No problem, I completely understand. When I first started my site I thought I would be adding posts at least once every couple of weeks. But between work, family, etc. I am lucky if I can post a new example every couple of months. I’m glad you like the site. I wish I could include all of the details I see in your examples! It is good to hear from a fellow investigator and I look forward to future posts on your site!

      • Those details are not that difficult to find out – basically all you need is NED and ADS (and SDSS SkyServer helps too), but it does take some hard work and lot of time. Hence the long silence. I would post a lot if it would just take few minutes to compose those posts.

  5. JP May says:

    This is a great web site. Perhaps you could add a “paypal” -type “donations box” to allow people to support the site. It takes money and time to run a site and your supporters want to support you! Cheers Johnnie

    • sbsims says:

      Thank you very much! If I thought I could collect enough money to quit my day job I would certainly consider it! But as for now I am only able to update this site sporadically in my spare time so I’m not sure if it would be fair to ask for money. I am however always interested in donations of discordant redshift examples. I have promised myself that if I can post at least a dozen I will go more public with this site and then try to see what kind of real support I can muster. ~Shannon

  6. John Hunter says:

    great idea…please keep it updated and accumulate as many good examples of discordant redshifts as possible!

    John H.

    • sbsims says:

      Thank you! It was a busy summer so I was only able to post one new example back in July. But with the addition of two new posts in the past week alone I have been able to catch up my quota for the season. I am preparing to reveal something very interesting so I may only be able to post one new example before the end of this year. But it will be a very important example and well worth the wait, so be sure to keep an eye out or subscribe to my RSS feed! Thanks for reading!


  7. Lloyd Kinder says:

    * Wal Thornhill, an Australian Electric Universe astronomer and physicist, works with Halton Arp’s findings to provide further details for his model of galaxy formation from quasars. He considers quasars to be highly ionized bodies and such ionization to cause the redshift of light from them. As they lose ionization and become mature galaxies, their light becomes decreasingly redshifted.
    * Dave Talbott works with Thornhill to support the Thunderbolts website and make videos, organize a scientific forum and Pictures of the Day, such as these on redshift:
    * See also:

    • sbsims says:

      Thank you for sharing these links! I am a huge fan of the Thunderbolts website and applaud their courage in questioning the status quo. ~Shannon

  8. Steven says:

    Have you looked at Paul Marmet’s theory about redshift? It seems to explain the discrepancies, as well as matches the redshift observed from the sun’s outer limbs.

Leave a Comment