The Doppler Shift of light is the change in frequency of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source. It was named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842. Light waves from a moving source experience the Doppler shift as either a redshift or blueshift in the light's frequency. When an object approaches the observer its light will blueshift, and when it recedes from the observer its light will redshift.
Discussions on this topic typically ask how the galaxies can be redshifted if they are not receding away from the observer at very high velocities, as is suggested by the traditional expanding universe model which postulates that space is expanding in every direction. An answer to this query is that since in FE it is acknowledged that the Sun is a different entity than a galaxy, the properties of those entities, or the properties of the mediums the light must pass through to reach the observer, may be entirely different.
Indeed, the Doppler Shift of light is only one interpretation for the redshifts. In Highlights of Astronomy, Vol 9, the International Astronomical Union explains:
“ It just turns out that redshift does not mean velocity. Many scientists have suggested other interpretations of the redshift over the past 60 years. The velocity interpretation has always been the unprovable extrapolation. ”
Physics Professor Jacques Moret-Bailly of the University of Burgundy has written a number of papers on the mechanism of Raman scattering as an interpretation of redshift, which is related to Releigh scattering.
“ It appears that Raman scattering in extremely low-pressure gases shifts the frequency of the incident light, is space coherent and thus may be confused with the Doppler effect: the Raman scattering produces at least a part of the galactic redshift; the expansion of the universe is reduced or possibly cancelled. ”
“ A notable minority of astrophysicists think that the Doppler effect cannot explain all observed redshifts [7, 8], but they were unable to find an alternative physical effect because usual studies of optics consider time-coherent waves: considering that a wavelength is a unit of length, a lineshift with the condition of space and time coherence can only be produced by a Doppler effect. We have described a possible alternative which also produces low energy radiation ”
“ This linear effect named ”Incoherent Light, Coherent Raman Scattering” (ILCRS) may be confused with a Doppler effect in astrophysics; it explains all optical properties of the quasars, including the debatable ones, in particular the width of the BAL lines, the infrared thermal radiation attributed to hot dust, and the spectral discrepancies attributed to a variation of the hyperfine constant. ”
“ The relative frequency shifts of coherent Raman effect on incoherent light (CREIL) described in this paper are independent on the intensity of the ordinary incoherent light that it uses, and, in a first approximation, on the frequency of the light. Since CREIL does not blur images or alter the spectral pattern, CREIL effect may be confused with Doppler frequency shifts. ”
“ I believe that, starting in the early 1908, the work on the model of the universe lost its way. The introduction of the mysteries of dark energy and dark matter should have alerted people that the model of the universe needed correction. Observations must take priority over theories and speculations if there is no agreement. I also believe that the use of singularities in theories is also a sign of a lack of associated knowledge.
Many of the errors in the model of the universe are based upon the belief that Edwin Hubble’s observations in the early 1903 of redshift as a linear function of distance can be used to determine and demonstrate the receding velocity of galaxies and the expansion of the universe. He called redshift an apparent Doppler effect but later expressed doubt about this interpretation.
Actually, there were no reports of direct observations of the receding velocity of galaxies.
There are other causes for redshift such as the gravitational redshift of light from the sun and the loss of photon energy by interaction of photons in moving low-mass gas and dust by gravitational attraction, which extracts energy without needing actual collisions while traveling large distances to the observer through interstellar space. ”
Alternative Redshift Theories
“ Alternative redshift theories are those that are presumed to have not been caused by one of three generally accepted causes of redshift (i.e. 1. Cosmological, 2. Doppler and 3. Gravitational). In 1981, French cosmologist and astrophysicist Henri Reboul discovered that over thirty categories of redshift theories have been proposed over the years in over 200 papers. Alternative theories still appear in peer-reviewed literature (see examples below), and alternative redshift theories are discussed in conferences  . Such theories have been proposed for many reasons, such as dissatisfaction with the explanation of cosmological redshift , and as an alternative interpretation of astromomical and laboratory observational data. ”
Several researchers claim that there are anomalous redshifts which contradict the standard theory. The following author also explains that current cosmological distances depend on redshift.
Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance
Hilton Ratcliffe, Ph.D., Journal of Cosmology
“ One of the greatest challenges facing astrophysics is derivation of remoteness in cosmological objects. At large scales, it is almost entirely dependent upon the Hubble relationship between apparent brightness and spectral redshift for large luminous objects. The comparison of galaxian redshifts with distances estimated by other means has yielded a useable curve, but unfortunately to a not yet entirely satisfactory confidence level. The assumption of scale invariance and universality of the Hubble law allowed the adoption of redshift as a standard calibration of cosmological distance. However, there have been several fields of study in observational astronomy that consistently give apparently anomalous results from ever-larger statistical samples, and would thus seem to require further careful investigation. ”
“ The physical association between objects with different redshifts has been made clear in observation. If we find in observation that the Hubble redshift relationship is subject to notable exceptions, which certainly appears to be the case, it is to be hoped that they would attract careful scrutiny. Just one such exception, reasonably verified, would suffice to cast doubt upon the reliability of redshift/distance theory, with far reaching consequences for astrophysics. ”
Anomalous Redshift of Some Galactic Objects
Yi-Jia Zheng, National Astronomical Observatory, Chinese Academy of Sciences
“ Anomalous redshifts of some galactic objects such as binary stars, early-type stars in the solar neighborhood, and O stars in a star clusters are discussed. It is shown that all these phenomena have a common characteristic, that is, the redshifts of stars increase as the temperature rises. This characteristic cannot be explained by means of the Doppler Effect but can by means of the soft-photon process proposed by Yijia Zheng ”
Redshift researchers complain of censorship in science:
Astronomical Society of the Pacific
“ Hoyle, Burbidge, & Narlikar (2000) have discussed the cosmological problem and why we think that the standard model of a hot big bang universe, believed by so many, is unlikely to represent reality. Of course we could be wrong.2 Rather than debate that issue here, I will concentrate on the redshift problem where the observational evidence is so strong that I believe ignoring it is wrong. ”
“ But whatever is said or done, the evidence described here cannot be avoided. It tells us that noncosmological redshifts exist and that they show periodic effects. Hoyle St Burbidge (1966) attempted a first explanation. Since much of the observational evidence is in the literature, we may ask why it is being ignored. Here the problem appears to be sociological not scientific. Early on the community showed by its response to the work of Arp and others that it was not prepared to treat the evidence on its merits. This is even more true today. Many observational programs concerning the early universe are based on the assumption that redshifts always measure distance, so we can use QSOs as cosmological probes. It is not surprising that the few astronomers who believe there is a case for non-cosmological redshifts cannot get research support or telescope time or that young people are afraid to touch the subject. As in other fields the peer review process is overshadowed if not completely broken by the need to conform.
Progress has been held up before because authority would not accept new ideas. Wegener's 1910 proposal that continental drift is taking place was buried by the geological establishment for more than 40 years until Blackett, Runcom, and others found evidence for a wandering magnetic pole. Russell and Eddington could not face up to Cecilia Payne's demonstration in 1925 that hydrogen is the most abundant element, and for 5 or 6 years they resisted the inevitable, and the community followed them. In 1938 Eddington would not accept Chandrasekhar‘s result based on the “new" physics, although all quantum physicists knew it was correct. Now we have an even harder problem—anomalous redshifts which not only are highly destructive to many ongoing cosmological investigations but for which we have no good theory. Thus, both theorists and observers find it easier to censor, ignore, or bury the observational evidence. ”
“ I noticed that what many professionals would scathingly refer to as "crackpot theories" had something in common with their own authoritative, accepted theories. Both basically started with a theory which they felt must be true, then looked for observations that could be explained by their theory, and finally declared that their theory "explained everything." Of course, valid theories are supposed to withstand every observational test. But in practice, observations which did not fit were often rejected or simply ignored. ”
—Halton Arp, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, p.178