Could Red Shift Be Influenced by Gravitational Effects Over Long Distances?

[PoeticMine]

I too have wondered about the theories and conclusions derived from "only" the Red Shift observation. What lead me to even ponder this was that they say, the further away a galaxy is, the faster it appeared to be moving away. I was bothered by how the Universe could be expanding away from us, in all directions equally and with distance this expansion uniformly increases in speed.

Had it been considered that the Red Shift was more of an optical effect caused by the Gravitation Lensing of a Galaxy's Halo and a "Galactic Black Hole" at the center of the distant galaxy?
To say, if you think of a galaxy as a clear glass sphere. Up close, we can see the stars are casting their light independently. As the sphere moves further away from us, the collective light would become more intensely focused toward the center of the sphere, magnifying all the light within and in our observed direction. This focused light is now caught between it's "Galactic Black Hole," pulling the light back (Red Shift) and our observations.

Until this observation, those single points of light we now know to be galaxies, were merely thought to be regular stars.

Just a thought.

 

[Chronos]

Perhaps light passing the galactic core gets blueshifted on the way in, then redshifted on the way out. Your explanation does not work for me.

 

[PoeticMine]

Perhaps light passing the galactic core gets blueshifted on the way in, then redshifted on the way out. Your explanation does not work for me.

From the point of view of the observer, any starlight beyond and behind the galaxy being observed, would be push away curving around that galaxy and can sometimes have a mirror image on both sides of that galaxy.
I thought, if Gravitational Lensing is causing such a huge optical effect on starlight outside that galaxy, would not it be worth considering that it also could have a possible inverse effect on starlight within the galaxy?

I was suggesting that only the starlight "within" a distance galaxy, is possibly observed to be more intensely focused with distance, by the convex shaped halo of the galaxy as with gravitational lensing and then also red shifted along the line of sight of the observer due to the gravitation force of galaxy's galactic core.
Line of sight being; the gravitational force of the galactic core, starlight within the galaxy focused by the convex sphere of the halo and red shifted by the galactic core.

I apologize if my first comment was not clear and Thank You for the term "galactic core."

 

[inflector]

I know this particular quote is a bit old but I am trying to make sure that I understand the issues properly.

The one example you give is flawed:
For example, we might extend the equations to explain something that GR fails to explain, galactic rotation curves,...

GR does a beautiful job of explaining galactic rotation curves. It was a recent triumph of the theory.
Based on the rotation curves, GR predicted DM.

Isn't it also valid to say that in order for GR to be valid without modification there needs to be something that supplies the mass required to fit the observed data, and that Dark Matter is currently the most widely accepted explanation for this missing mass, for various reasons that have been expounded upon here quite rigorously and with continuing frequency.

Then it was found that DM was also needed to stabilize clusters.

Another way of saying this is that clusters were not stable in a way that matched observations using the equations of GR alone without supplying additional mass.

Then it was found that DM was also useful in explaining largescale structure formation in the early universe.

Could one not likewise say that GR without Dark Matter does not explain the largescale structure formation in the early universe?

So GR predicted DM on the basis of several different kinds of data. Then Dark Matter was IMAGED and maps of it are being made. This was a remarkable triumph. The theory predicted something, which seemed dubious and unintuitive, and the theory was vindicated by observation.

It was show to NOT require modification, one more time. Eventually we will find some way to trip the theory up and it will have to be modified (that's how science progresses) but the galactic rotation curves thing you mentioned is not it.

Could it not still be the case that Dark Matter is a placeholder for a consistent set of unseen (electromagnetically anyway) gravitational effects, and that GR is incomplete in so far as it does not account for these effects? Much like Newtonian Gravity was incomplete before GR?

I'm trying to determine if the statement that ahhaha made:

Also, no one can say that "tired light" is a false theory. What is false about it is the form of tiredness so far submitted. There may be a drag or coupling between photons and the metric that springs from Einstein's field equations when they're slightly modified. There's nothing wrong with extending GR's field equations in a way that doesn't disturb existing evidence. For example, we might extend the equations to explain something that GR fails to explain, galactic rotation curves, and in doing so we find there's a slight residual effect that accumulates over distances where the photon donates some of its energy to the metric. It can be shown that this isn't the case, but this gives you an idea how redshift explanations and the nature of the cosmological expansion are still open questions.

is possibly true or not. I realize that the vast majority would say this idea is extremely unlikely, but is it POSSIBLE? Have we ruled out the possibility of a modification to gravity that fits the data AND that could result in a photon donating some portion of its energy to the metric? I'm sure most would consider this extremely unlikely, but I like to keep the impossible and unlikely in separate compartments.

Finally, on the subject of redshifts, has anyone looked at the idea of whether or not the acceleration of the expansion itself is being caused by the energy that is given up during the process of redshifting itself? i.e. that dark energy is nothing more than energy lost to the metric of spacetime during photon travel? If this idea has been refuted, can anyone point me to the relevant papers?

I tried a few google searches and didn't come up with anything useful. As ahhaha pointed out, most of the "tired light" theories are pretty naive and easily refuted so the literature seems to consider them as a sort of "stupid" idea that is easily brushed off, from my reading.