The dominant scientific narrative asserts that the universe is expanding, galaxies are racing away from us, and redshift is the smoking gun proving it all. But what if that assumption is flawed? What if redshift isn’t what we think it is? Wal Thornhill, a pioneering voice in the Electric Universe (EU) movement, proposed just that—a fundamentally different explanation for redshift that undercuts the foundations of modern cosmology. Today, we explore that controversial claim and why it’s more than just a scientific footnote.
What Is Redshift, and Why Does It Matter?
In standard cosmology, redshift refers to the stretching of light waves emitted by galaxies as they move away from us. This is interpreted as a Doppler effect, like the dropping pitch of a passing siren, and is taken as proof of a universally expanding cosmos. The redshift-distance relationship, called Hubble’s Law, led directly to the Big Bang theory, the idea of a beginning to space and time.
But this interpretation isn’t neutral; it assumes that redshift is entirely caused by motion. This is where Thornhill and the Electric Universe differ.
Thornhill’s Intrinsic Redshift Hypothesis
Wal Thornhill, co-founder of the Thunderbolts Project, proposed that redshift is not caused by velocity, but is rather an intrinsic property of matter and its electrical state:
“Redshift happened in small jumps or quanta, which indicates a subatomic effect… this requires once again the electric force to be operating at ultra-high speed, instantaneously.”
Drawing upon the work of Halton Arp, Thornhill argued that high-redshift objects like quasars are not unimaginably far away, but rather young, nearby objects ejected from active galaxies. As these objects gain mass over time, their redshift decreases, not because they are moving toward us, but because their internal energy state is changing.
“Quasars are born at high speed and with low mass… as electrical energy pours into the quasar, its mass and brightness increase, and it slows down to become a companion galaxy.”
This reverses the standard view: redshift doesn’t measure how far away something is—it measures how young it is.
Redshift in the Electric Universe vs. the Standard Model
| Feature | Electric Universe (Thornhill) | Standard Cosmology |
|---|---|---|
| Redshift cause | Intrinsic to emitter; quantum/electrical origin | Doppler effect from cosmic expansion |
| Quasars | Nearby, young, low-mass objects | Distant, ancient objects powered by black holes |
| Expansion of universe | Denied; universe is not expanding | Accepted; universe expanding since Big Bang |
| Ether | Exists; medium for instantaneous electric force | Rejected; vacuum is empty space |
| Energy transfer | Instantaneous via electric fields | Light-speed-limited interactions |
| Redshift quantization | Explained by atomic/electrical transitions | Not explained or expected |
The Critics: A Grade of F-?
In an essay titled “Testing the Electric Universe”, astrophysicist Brian Koberlein dismisses the EU model outright, grading it “F-“ and declaring it “provably, clearly and ridiculously wrong.” His main criticism? The failure to match the standard interpretation of redshift:
“If the EU model is right, we should only see quasars with high redshifts… But we see quasars with lower redshifts than nearby galaxies, in complete contradiction to the EU model.”
But this critique assumes without question that redshift must be a velocity effect. It fails to acknowledge Halton Arp’s catalog of discordant redshifts—cases where high-redshift quasars appear physically connected to low-redshift galaxies. Thornhill, following Arp, offered a mechanism to explain this: quantized changes in mass due to incoming electrical energy.
That interpretation isn’t disproven by the redshift alone; it challenges the very meaning of redshift. One might ask who is really being dogmatic.
Other Voices of Support
Besides Thornhill and Arp, others have entertained redshift skepticism:
- Eric Lerner, author of The Big Bang Never Happened, questioned the redshift-distance relationship and explored plasma-based alternatives.
- Donald E. Scott, in The Electric Sky, echoed Thornhill’s critique of the expanding universe model and the assumption-laden nature of cosmological redshift.
- Tom Findlay, in A Beginner’s View of the Electric Universe, also challenges redshift orthodoxy and supports intrinsic redshift ideas.
While these views are minority opinions, they are grounded in observations mainstream cosmology often brushes aside.
Why It Matters for Red Sky
In Red Sky, the stakes are existential. A celestial object approaching Earth carries the name of astrophysicist David Mitchell—a nod to the hubris of modern science. If redshift is misunderstood, the timeline for catastrophe could be disastrously wrong.
Thornhill’s work matters because it invites us to question the foundations: What is light? What is mass? What is energy? The answers, according to the Electric Universe, lie not in distant abstract math but in the immediate, interconnected electric structure of reality.
Redshift, then, is not just a measurement. It’s a mirror—and what we see in it depends on what we believe about the universe.
Further Reading:
- Thornhill & Talbott, The Electric Universe
- Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
- Donald E. Scott, The Electric Sky
- Eric Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened
- Tom Findlay, A Beginner’s View of the Electric Universe
Discover more from Red Sky Story
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
