[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Graybeard

Wow ... now that you say that ... I am unsure ... But I think, and only think, that the 'redshift' of the reflection would also have to match the 'redshift' of the receding mirror. If it doesn't, but is twice 'redshifted' in relation to the mirror ... then POK is back in the running with his idea. !!!

It would also mean, a really bizarre thought, that red-shifted light reflected from objects in space could be supplying information that is incorrect regarding the objects themselves ... for this reason alone I am convinced that it is incorrect ... but at this exact moment, for the life of me, I can't see why ????

I don't understand how you've drawn the conclusion that I've highlighted. What objects are you talking about? If it's planets, or other "dark" objects, then it doesn't really matter, since we don't really observe many of these. However, it also seems that you are comparing these objects to perfect mirrors, in which all photons "bounce" off the surface. For real objects, this is not true: photons get absorbed and then re-emitted from objects with rough surfaces, and the rougher the surface the less photons actually "bounce" off.

If you're talking about stars, however; we know that they emit light of their own, and do not rely on reflected light. I suppose, although this is a guess, that the fraction of their light that we see that is reflected is much less than that emitted.

Either way.. I don't see a problem.