No Big Bang--Just gentle whisper

Gravity varies with the square of distance. So it seems to me that if red shift was purely due to distance we shoudl see the following things:
1) Sunlight should show a significant red shift. The major contribution should be from the star where the light originates.2) For the same reason we should see stronger red-shifts from more massive stars.3) The red-shift within a distant galaxy should also vary - the stars nearest us on the rim should show less red shift than stars near the core.To the best of my knowledge, none of these are true. Instead red shift is strongly correlated with distance.How would you answer these points ?

I know that you didn't say that the red shift is CAUSED by distance - as I saiid you attribute it to gravity. I mentioned the fact that red-shift IS correlated with distance. WHich wouldn't be expected if it were simply due to gravitational interactions.The problem as I have said is that gravitational force decays with an inverse square law. Closer objects have a far greater effect than more distant ones. So the effects I noted shoudl be seen if gravity is the main factor.And as I understand it we can measure the mass of a galaxy by looking at the motion of the stars within it. There doesn't seem to be enough mass for the effect that you suggest.

quote:

---

Like Dr. adequate cited, the force of gravity between two objects is inversely proportional to the distance between them.

---

You probably know this, but it is important to remember that it is the inverse square of the distance.

quote:

---

Like I mentioned in my original message, this action from all masses from all sides has the affect of holding and securing the original object in one place-at the center of the universe

---

No, no, no. Firstly this really only applies if the mass is evenly distributed. Since this is not the case local concentrations of mass will have a far greater effect (thanks to the inverse square law). Adding Relativity makes it worse because even Special Relativity denies that there is a meaningful "centre" to the universe.

quote:

---

This universal force provides inertia to the object which has a value we call mass.

---

No. Inertia is another thing entirely. It is not a force at all as your idea would require. Again you only need Newtonian mechanics to understand this.

quote:

---

...why isn’t the mass of the object changing in response to the change in the distances of an expanding universe

---

It hasn't been checked because it makes no sense. Weight - not mass - is the effect of gravity. And that is usually dominated by local mass concentrations. On the Earth's surface weight is overwhelmingly due to the attraction of the mass of the Earth - the rest of the universe has a negligible effect in comparison. (True, the moon has enough of an effect to cause tides, but even that is relatively small - and other bodies, even in aggregate, have even less effect).

You really have set my baloney detector off. The problem is not that we have an exaggerated respect for Einstein. The problem is that you don't understand what you are talking about.I'm sorry but you can't expect us to take your ideas seriously when you can't even manage high-school level physics.