July 7, 2002; updated January 4, 2004
Jim has his own ideas about the universe! Though his aether bears some resemblance to mine, the papers I am including here are entirely his own. I do not pretend to understand fully his arguments, with the possible exception of his explanation of the cosmological red shift. I do not find the latter plausible! [For some of my own ideas, see below.]
Cosmology - From Infinity to the Lab, Part I
Cosmology - From Infinity to the Lab, Part II
Cosmology - From Infinity to the Lab, Part III
Cosmology - From Infinity to the Lab, Part IV
Supplement (January 2004): THE COSMIC CYCLE
(a) that the whole thing is just "instrumental error". It is possible that our instruments can't tell the difference between very low amplitude light of one frequency and a red shift of that frequency. This idea I share with Steven Rado . It is an hypothesis that the "photon" concept of light rules out, so perhaps nobody else has thought of it.
or (b) that light suffers very slight damping, and this is associated with slight increase of wavelength. This idea I share with Roberto Monti (Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis, Physics Essays 9, 238-260 (1996)).
or, possibly (though I have not yet read the paper)
(c) Paul Marmet's explanation, http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html
or (a variant of (a)):
(d) (July 2002 idea) the observed spectrum for extremely distance objects is really only what is left over after the high frequencies have been lost en route. It contains low harmonics of the main spectrum. This, I admit, is pure speculation, but I would be very interested to hear from anyone who knows more about the actual instruments used. Would very weak low frequencies be noticed if accompanied by strong, unshifted, spectra? This theory would produce "quantised" red shifts, for which there is some evidence. Other factors such as local motion could be blurring the jumps.