Introduction

(2-24-2017) The key to understanding our Universe is in understanding the characteristics of light. Many scientists and astronomers have attempted to explain our Universe by using the characteristics of light to substantiate their evolutionary theories. Unfortunately, many of these scientists and astronomers either did not understand some of these characteristics of light, especially Dopplar shift, or they deliberately mis-led the World in their explanations, or they just did not care enough to think about the implications of their own statements. I think a little of each. Take a great observer like Edwin Hubble... he was the first to notice Dopplar redshift from the stars, and by it, concluded that the Universe is expanding. This lawyer turned astronomer, while keen in his observations, was lacking in his comprehension of Dopplar redshift. You'll see why as we progress. We do not mean to demean such a wonderful observer as Edwin Hubble, but we are determined to give you an accurate picture of a spectacular Universe that could only have come into existence by a loving and compassionate God. This first treatise on Redshift will be the anchor article for all of the other treatises presented here. Without a comprehensive understanding of Dopplar Redshift you will not be able to comprehend some of the other treatises presented herein, which is why we have taken the time to explain these complex concepts so that anyone with basic comprehension skills will be able to understand them. This is actually the fourth pass in the writing of this subject. I've left many previous paragraphs intact so that you can see the progression of discovery. Each new paragraph or concept is (usually) prefaced with the date that the article was started. That date may carry through several paragraphs and you should assume that the paragraph you are reading was part of the concept that was dated, even though that may not always be true. In the excitement of discovery I sometimes forgot to date a new paragraph. The following paragraph is the Introduction to the third pass at explaining Redshift, abridged.

(1-18-2011) This article is finished, however, there may be dated inserts from time to time. I may publish an article on the nature of light at some future date, that should be helpful in understanding this phenomenon. This will be the third pass through as I re-write everything previously posted. There are three reasons for the re-writes. The first reason is that I originally started this article as a rebuttal to an article written in Scientific American. It had a few errors that I wanted to correct, but I don't really like the personal nature of a rebuttal so I thought I would just re-write the thing as a semi-independent treatise, addressing the issues in passing. The second reason I've restarted the article is that many of the fundamental theories surrounding these concepts that have been in place for decades and almost universally accepted, I have found to be hopelessly errant as I research the theories in greater detail. Also, some of my own theories that I have proposed have been hopelessly flawed. I usually have good theories, but since many of my theories are based on universally accepted concepts, and since some of those concepts are incorrect, I have found that as I investigate these concepts in greater detail that both they and I are wrong, or, at least, not quite right. Thirdly, the thing has grown large enough, as a treatise, that I need more time to 'work it out'. That just means that I did not spend enough time pondering all of the details before I started writing, so, you have my apologies for my ineptness. Hopefully, this time through I will not rush through the concepts because that's when I make most of my mistakes. Many of the pages will be completed in the next few weeks but the article itself will probably not be finished until the end of the year (2011).

(6-28-2011) I've made a few (cosmetic mostly) changes that should enhance the reading of these posts. I will eventually make the same changes to the entire web site. The changes are as follows: when a link will take you away from this web site, it will be underlined; when a link takes you to another location on this web site it will not be underlined and there will be a return button at the end of the linked material; and when the link is a pop-up, it will be a slightly different shade of blue and it will not be underlined.

I have to say that at least some of the concepts put forth in science are deliberate attempts at mis-information. Any scientist who has a security clearance will be 'obligated' to distort some theories in an effort to protect secrets. I don't really have a problem with that except that when you're trying to learn how everything works, it makes it difficult to see clearly when someone is muddying the waters. Basically, the way things work nowadays, you shouldn't completely believe everything that any scientist with a security clearance says, but just accept the probability that they will pass on mis-information as part of their job, and then investigate what they say thoroughly. Admittedly, I don't like having to say this, but my desire to know how everything works is so intense that I will do almost anything (reasonable... and legal) to garner the information I seek. I want us to be able to go to the stars, but I am fully aware that one of the biggest hindrances to that endeavor is the secrets community and the steady stream of mis-information from it, discounting some of the really arrogant people with doctorate degrees in Physics who have no idea what they're talking about. 'In the last days they shall be...' ...Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. - II Timothy 3:1, (paraphrased) & 7. We owe at least some of that to the myriad of mis-information managers. It's gotten so bad that even the people in the know, are often mis-informed by the flow of mis-information. It reminds me of the classic line in the film, Sneakers, starring Robert Redford: "Too many secrets."

(2-25-17) In a truely good World, there would be no need of secrets. Nations would not try to conquer other nations; people would not steal; they would not desire the death of others of different beliefs; all of which is proof positive that this World is not good, and justifies the need for secrets for the defense of the nation. But, as some discovered that making some technologies secret was good for the pocket book, we started seeing many new technologies being kept secret for the money. We wrongfully built a global economy on oil, making the oil barons way too rich, and corrupting everything, including even the patent office, setting the stage for the worst form of fuedlism the World will ever know. Well, that's a soapbox that I really don't want to stand on, so let's get on with our treatise.

Questions or comments should be submitted to ncbonding@gmail.com.

Redshift, Page 1