Opinions on Red Shift? Discuss Here

[Gabe21]

in my simple opinion the red shift is caused by the increasing distance of the light source and the light destination. its accepted by everyone that light has a constant speed in space, but i think that the constant speed is relative to the source object (kinda like sound). so to keep it simple if the light source and the viewer are moving apart at 4 mph then the light coming from the source is moving 2mph slower than the constant speed of light. this equals out to the light wave being stretched((4mph/speed of light in mph)100)%. If light always accelerated to the same constant speed in space, no matter the speed or direction of the source object, the light wavelength would have only stretched((2mph/speed of light in mph)100)%, or half as much.​

lets say light does have the same constant speed in space no matter rate of source object. ​

this means the speed of the source object does not effect the rate of light leaving it. so unless light can travel faster than the constant speed of light,(if an object is moving 5 mph through space and you shoot a beam of light opposite the direction of the object, that beam of light would have to travel the speed of light +5mph to achieve the constant light speed) when the light leaves the source object, it does so in a manner to assume that the source object isn't moving at all(because it leaves in all directions at the same constant speed). the only way to make the source object not move at all would be to freeze time, and unless photons can generate without time passing this doesn't seem possible.​

back to assuming light travels at a constant speed relevant to the source object​

this means that there is no “speed limit” of the universe. everyone knows that gravity has an effect on light. This means that light has some sort of mass no matter how minuscule. Its well accepted that if something has mass it can't achieve Einstein’s constant light speed( the “speed limit” of the universe). That’s my reason for ignoring the speed limit of space.

Please no links, just opinions

 

[Janus]

The constancy of light is not as measured "relative to space" (In fact, to say that something has a speed "relative to space" is meaningless.), but as measured relative to the frame from which it is being measured. In other words, the source always measures light as moving at c relative to itself and the reciever of that light always measures the speed of light as being c relative to itself regardless of the relative velocity between source and reciever. So the proper term is "invariant" rather than constant, as it does not vary when measured by anyone.
It is the invariant nature of the speed of light that leads to it being the speed limit for the universe (logically it can be shown that if such an invariant speed exists, it must by necessity be the speed limit.

As to light having to have mass to be effected by gravity. Gravity also couples with energy and momentum, which light has without having to possesses rest mass (and it's non-zero "rest mass" objects that cannot travel at c.)

So all in all, I'd say that your opinions are based on misconceptions.

 

[Naty1]

Sorry, Gabe but your "opinion" is not observed experimentally...

basically the speedof light is observed to be fixed, invarient, in all flat space...no curvature...different inertial observers will all measure "c"...this means regardless of the source or the observer they will measure a constant velocity, "c"...

if you want to learn about redshift, here is one recent discussion:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=476946