>>14361764>what we know as galaxies are being red-shiftedcorrect
>This is attributed to the doppler effect.incorrectly attributed, yes
>This stretching of the wavelength is also found to be proportional to the relative distance to a given galaxy.correct, just as I already pointed out
>current theory of the big bang theorizes that if these galaxies are red shifted, then they were closer beforethat is the completely fallacious and erroneous non sequitur I'm pointing out
redshift is intrinsic
it's based on distance alone
the further away a galaxy is, the more redshifted its light will be
again, read the work of Halton Arp on intrinsic redshift
>More evidence for the big bang is that further away and older galaxies look different than newer and closer galaxies. The same goes for stars.this is simply a matter of statistics
it's not universally true at all
>Early stars have a similar make-up to what is predicted in the big bang.nonsense, that's the diametric opposite of the truth
see the work of Lerner above
