[yor_on]

What you are describing is a circle right? 360 degrees all around. And then A here (the BB) becomes your 'center'?

Or how do you see it?

[yor_on]

If I get you right you let BCD leave that 'center' in different directions and when measured from B you will find that C and D having different distances from us (B).

That is correct, but how do you see it explaining redshift?

[Joe L. Ogan (OP)]

I  am not trying to explain Red Shift but that is what I think Red Shift is measuring. Thanks, Joe L. Ogan

[yor_on]

To make it work you would have to assume that all points of measurement are the center, with all other 'objects' then moving from them, and to do that would be the same as a 'space' expanding it seems to me?

Also, redshift isn't a continuous smooth motion. As galaxies distance increase the redshift seems to come in 'jumps' similar to 'black body radiation'.

[graham.d]

Joe, you are looking at 3 points radiating out at the same speed from some "big-bang" point. One is us as an observer (B), one is moving out at right angles (C) and the othe other is moving diametrically away (D) on the other side of the start point (A). In fact the angle we view between A and C does not change from 45 degrees (at least in Euclidean space) and the distance B to C is sqrt(2) Lyears when C to A is 1 Lyear (again assuming Euclidean space).

I still do not see how this relates to redshift except in a normal way in that the distances between the bodies are increasing linearly and that the velocity vector (in the reverse direction to the emitted light) will be proportional to the direct distance between the bodies.

[yor_on]

Maybe I should clarify that Even I found it strange, rereading it.

If you let the Big Bangs center be in all possible 'points' inside SpaceTime simultaneously  then you might have the possibility of being able to say that the light, as seen from 'above' (as a whole) would redshift as we then have an expanding universe in every point, but on the other hand, that would include mass too.