Bulldrek v3.0

Is it possible that the persistent redshift we see wherever we look into the universe, which is statistically greater the greater the distance the object is from us, is not from expansion, but from a property of spacetime that acts to decelerate objects with mass, such as the "resistance" one faces accelerating closer and closer to the speed of light? Could those two effects have a common cause?

3278 wrote:Is it possible that the persistent redshift we see wherever we look into the universe, which is statistically greater the greater the distance the object is from us, is not from expansion, but from a property of spacetime that acts to decelerate objects with mass, such as the "resistance" one faces accelerating closer and closer to the speed of light? Could those two effects have a common cause?

I have read and re-read this post so many times I've lost count. And, even after doing some reading on the topic, I'm pitifully ignorant about it. So much so, that for me to even attempt to discuss this would be futile. I've typed several responses to the question you posed, but they always sound like I'm off on an unrelated tangent. However...

Assuming the foundation of your query is based on Hubble's Law, all the modern physics material I've read ONLY attributes the redshift to galactic expansion. I know there's no consensus on the "forever expansion" vs. "eventual slowdown" camps, but it's my understanding that gravity alone is not enough to cause the universe to stop/slow the expansion process. If the measurements eventually conclude that there is (or will be) a deceleration, I think it's entirely plausible that there is some other phenomenon at work, for which we currently have no explanation.

I suspect I'm not nearly as well-read as you are on the subject, so my pitiful paragraph above probably only further exposes my ignorance. I suspect I'm missing some recent discovery evidence that shows some opposition to the "forever expansion" theory.