Is the speed of light constant between galaxies?

But you never leave galaxies. Gravity attracts across all distances. There is nowhere in our universe where you are out of the gravity well of a star or galaxy. There is nowhere in our universe where spacetime is not being distorted by gravity.If I understand my physics correctly, light bends in gravity wells because light does move at a constant speed. The curved path preserves the constant speed of light in areas with distorted spacetime.

Electrons would produce Compton scattering which would be observed as blurred images or opaque areas where light does not pass. That is not what we observe. Dark matter does not appear to interact with light at all, outside of gravitational lensing.

Where did you demonstrate that? Where is the evidence for this? Of course we can. Light is bending around the Earth's gravity well right now. Do you have problems finding anything?

Based on what evidence?

Where are the experiments and observations that show this?From everything I have read, dark matter is supposed to have no charge.

This fails on several fronts. First, hydrogen interacts with light. Dark matter does not. Second, your cite is arguing for a tired-light hypothesis which has already been falsified:http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htmI mentioned Compton scattering before, and it applies to other non-doppler redshifts. These mechanisms scatter light. This will result in either an opaque universe or a universe where distant galaxies are very blurry. We don't observe either. Therefore, dark matter can not be ions, and the observed redshift can not be due to photons interacting with hydrogen or ions.

You can see the Moon being made of green cheese, but that doesn't turn the Moon into green cheese. You need to supply evidence for your claims instead of just stating "I believe".

No. There is no putting Humpty Dumpty back together again. Once light is scattered you can not realign it. Sandblast the mirror to a dull finish and then look at the reflection. That is a scattered image.

You can say that the moon is made of cheese, but that doesn't make it true. What we need to see is actual evidence for your claims.

Dark matter certainly can't be ions as we have already discussed.Also, it appears that dark matter can not be hydrogen either. Scientists found two galaxy clusters in the midst of a collision. What they found is that the luminous matter interacted and slowed during the collision. However, there was matter that did not absorb or emit light, and it sailed right past without interacting like normal matter would. APOD: 2006 August 24 - The Matter of the Bullet Cluster The only type of interaction that dark matter has with normal matter is through gravity. That is inconsistent with hydrogen which would interact with other molecules or atoms of hydrogen, and would emit light at those temperatures.

I don't think that is the case here (unless I am misunderstanding you).Photons are not like bullets. People in different inertial frames would measure a different speed for a bullet. Not so with light. The speed of light is measured as being the same in all inertial frames. It isn't standardized to be the same. It IS the same.

No they wouldn't. It would produce copious amounts of photons as matter and anti-matter annhialite. It would be the most luminous matter in the universe, the very opposite of dark matter.You might also read about positron emission tomography, otherwise known as PET scans. This technique acutally uses anti-matter to produce photons.Also, anti-matter absorbs light just like regular matter, so again we have the problem if scattered or absorbed light which is not seen.

It seems as if you are just making it up as you go. Reference to evidence in the real world would be very helpful at this point. It would appear that person is you because you simply don't understand how reality works. Instead, you have a fantasy that you have invented which you "see", but can never evidence. You have made it abundantly clear that you don't understand what the science actually is, nor the current state of the evidence.

What is this evidence you are talking about? Lemaitre proposed the Big Bang in 1927. The CMB was not detected until 1964. The CMB was a prediction of the BB model for almost 40 years before it was finally discovered. The Big Bang was first proposed because of the observed correlation between distance and redshift for distant galaxies. Umm, no. The model is changed to fit the evidence. The latest evidence demonstrates that the expansion is accelerating, so this has been incorporated into the BB model. What evidence is there for "lower d space"? Apparently not since you have dark matter being made up of ions which just doesn't work.

Yes, I do. I actually look at the evidence instead of making stuff up like you do. Based on what evidence? Based on what evidence?