Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.astro
Subject: Re: Red shift
Message-ID: <1344@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 4-May-84 06:24:12 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.1344
Posted: Fri May  4 06:24:12 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 5-May-84 01:20:38 EDT
References: <337@oliveb.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 15

1 - No, there is nothing other than the Hubble effect to indicate that
distant objects are receding from us at a speed proportional to their
distance from us, and then only if the assumption is made that the
observed red shift is a Doppler effect.

2 - Yes, alternative explanations of the Hubble effect have been
proposed.  Please note that the Hubble effect is predicted for the
DeSitter cosmological model, which is the natural solution for the
Einstein-Schr"odinger field equations.  The nice thing about this
cosmology is that it describes a static universe (no expansion in any
real sense) obeying the "perfect cosmological principle" (i.e. the
universe looks the same (on a large scale) everywhere AND everywhen).
Down with the Big Bang!  Down with blindly applying General Relativity
in domains where we know the field equations are wrong!  Comes the
revolution!