That would makes sense except the redshift is much higher, not lower, than it should be according to Hubble's law.
Originally Posted by Neo1
I finally found an explicit explanation WRT the LMC and other galaxies in our local group:
This is attributed to the fact that the stars in the smaller companions are newer. I glanced through more of the paper and:
One of the most firmly established but least accepted results in
astronomy is that in groups dominated by a larger galaxy, the smaller
companion galaxies have systematically higher redshifts. Figure 1 in
this paper demonstrates that for the nearest, best known groups, the
Local Group and the M81 group, all the major companions are
redshifted with respect to the central galaxy. A total of 21 out of 21
permits a chance of only one in two million that the result could be
accidental. Every test of additional groups at larger distances confirms
the excess redshift of companions.
The basic reasoning with respect to the magnitude of mass of an
elementary particle is that it must depend on the amount of material
with which it can exchange gravitons. That in turn depends on the
volume of the universe it sees, i.e. its light signal speed multiplied by
the time during which it has been in existence. It would seem absurd
to consider an electron to have a terrestrial value for its mass just after
it had appeared in a previously empty vacuum. Its mass would
dominate the whole universe which it saw.
The energy of the photon an atom emits or absorbs (and
hence inversely its redshift) is then proportional to the mass of the
electron making the orbital transition.
The theory leads to the conclusion that elementary particles have
masses which are a function of position and time,