Big Crunch?

I hope you find your theory but all that aside redshift data is telling us more than the universe is expanding or compressing. If you notice there are objects redshifted like z=.2 and z=4 right along side each other and the common theory now in use says the two objects are billions of light years apart even though they look to be in a common gravity system. It would be a much better use of time and energy figuring that out than trying to construct another theory.

Jim that is interesting, perhaps they have differential redshifts between themselfs within their own system of the missing difference in magnatude. It would seem quite a large differential, I would conclude that the gravitational system to which they belong is quite powerful.

I don't understand why you conclude these things from the available data assuming you are using data in this conclusion. The quasar is in some cases a star like object with a lot more redshift than its size seems to permit according to whoever makes up the rules for that kind of ratio. So, all you need to do is figure out why a common star has a lot of redshift and assume nothing.

Is there a way to differentiate the types of redshift? For instance, what percentage of the shift is gravitational -vs- doppler. I understand that there are also problems in the observation of young star clusters because of the high level of emissions. And like I said before, if we can in fact determine the gravitational redshift through formula, a logical conclusion would be that the "star" with the greater magnitude must be accelerating away from the lower magnitude star at a speed that would cause the high value of z. In other words, the star with the greater magnitude must be in a lower orbit within its gravitational system and falling towards the center of its own system at a much faster rate that the star with the lower z value, which would cause the differential z that is observed.

Oh yeah, and all progress in science is based on assumption until the assumption is disproven. The Meta Model itself is based on the assumption that the Universe is infinate. The Big Bang is based on the assumption that some unknowable matter condensed to a critical mass. And theological models assume an eternal creator. Assumption are a critical part of science, if you admit it or not.

There seems to be two redshifts-the Doppler and the Hubble. The Doppler redshift is caused by velcity and is positive and negative or red and blue. The Hubble redshift is displaced lines in a spectrum always positive and never negative. The lines may be caused by some thing other than the assumed expansion of the universe and if you don't assume the displacement is caused by that you are left with a mystery to resolve. But, there is reason to think that way rather than assuming the universe is expanding and it is more fun for sure.

The Universe is not expanding! It is contracting along a declining circular orbit (vortex) towards the center. As the radius of the orbit declines the celestial bodies move apart creating a doppler red shift. In the end all protons and neutrons will form a nucleus and all electrons will be expelled, leaving one atom. Hoag's object would be a good visual of the end result.