Did Hubble can it wrong?

[Surgenator]

At the large r limit (when the source is very very far away from the observer) the gravitational redshift are identical for identical stars. It doesn't matter that one of the one of the stars is 100 billion lightyears further away. Read the link I provided and look at the 2nd equation in the article.

I have read your link and nothing in there contradicts my blog. Secondly, there is no reference to two identical stars, so I have no clue where you get that. Simply put, galaxies at different distances will have different redshifts. It doesn't matter what their masses are. What matters is the mass of the source of gravity. In the first figure, the source is the earth, but in the appendix, it's an infinite number of galaxies.

What is known about gravitational redshift.
1) There is a maximum redshift, z(r->inf) ~ GM/(c^2*R) that gravity can accomplish.
2) We can take the large r limit for stars light years away.

Consider the thought experiment
- Take two identical stars where one is 1 million light years away, and the other is 1 billion light years away.
- Their redshift due to gravity will be the GM/(c^2*R) because their masses and radii would be same and they are so far away.
- If the universe is not expanding, their redshifts should be the same.
- If the universe is expanding, their redshifts should be different because the expansion of the universe will also redshift the star's light.

First, did you follow my logic? Second, what do you think the observations actually are?

Two words: statelite galaxies. If the masses of each galaxies would be the same, then you shouldn't have any satellites. A satellite requires a central mass that is much heavier than itself to orbit around.

I'm not talking about satellites. Your point is irrelevant.

I was addressing this point

[...] mass and the size of the source. And so my argument is that this will be the same for every galaxy.

Galaxies cannot all have the same mass if you have one galaxiy orbiting another. So I was rebuting your rebutal to my 2nd argument which makes it relevant.

You haven't shown that so far how my claim doesn't hold up. I believe you did not understand my blog. Let me give a short synopsis. Historically Hubble discovered his eponymous law through observation, not theory. He concluded that all galaxies were moving away - this was from what was known as the Doppler Effect. Subsequently this was developped as the Big Bang Theory.

In my blog, I show that by taking Einstein Equivalent Principle, one gets that Doppler Effect = Gravitational Shift, and from there, I derived Hubble Law. Now if you can show where my derivation is wrong, then fine, I will appreciate, but so far, you haven't. The only argument that can destroy my claim is my assumption that the universe is infinite. If the universe is finite, then my claim doesn't hold any longer.

I did understand the overall picture in your blog. However, I'm not going to go in detail through your math or logic to determine where specifically you made a mistake. That is too much work on my end. My two arguments address your claim that "Doppler Effect = Gravitational Shift" through thought experiments. The first one takes the case of the same gravitational potential but at different distances away. The second is different gravitational potentials but at the same distance away. In either of the cases, the observations would not match to what you claim.