August 10, 2014
Dear Reader:
I was told that people had thought the Earth the center of the Universe. Their view included: (1) the moon revolving around the Earth, (2) the sun revolving around the Earth, and (3) the stars revolving around the Earth. The Earth was apparently the center of the Universe. Eventually it was found that the Earth was just another planet revolving around the sun. Still, they had the moon orbiting, but the Earth was clearly demoted. The sun was the center of the Solar System, if not Universe.
With that experience, people were more skeptical about the Solar System being the center of the Universe. Stars seemed to recede in every direction. The proof was the “red shift” of the star light. So the Earth looked as if it were the center of the Universe.
Mathematicians, however, “found” that if the Universe were “expanding” (as a balloon), then many locations could seem to be the center of the Universe. So, it wasn’t so much that the Earth was the center of the Universe, as it was the Universe was expanding. Many sites could show a red shift in any direction.
There is, however, another reasonable explanation. The “red shift”, as referred to above, has to do with the velocity of the light source relative to Earth. The star moves away from the Earth, so the light has less energy when captured by stuff on the Earth, red shift. First, there is no opposite red shift, no blue shift. Second, I note, that a star’s light can lose energy in another way. Perhaps the “red shift” is really about the light climbing out of a gravity well. The star is ground zero. As the light leaves the star, it loses energy; it climbs out of a gravity hole – a red shift. Thus, the larger red-shifts are not necessarily from the “fastest” moving stars, but possibly from the “largest”, most massive stars. That solves the problem of no blue-shift. No light “blues” as it climbs out of a gravity well. It is always a loss of energy, a red shift.
I agree that stars should have red-shifted light if they recede from Earth. But in general, stars should have red-shifted light because of gravity. Is the effect we see due to one or the other or both? At this time, I cannot say. But, if we invoke the gravity well, we don’t have the uniqueness of all stars moving away from Earth (or we can move beyond an expanding Universe). The probability that the Earth is averagely placed in the Universe (vs. preferentially placed to see all those speed-related red shifts) seems reasonable.
Sincerely,
Curt Weinstein
Dear Reader:
I was told that people had thought the Earth the center of the Universe. Their view included: (1) the moon revolving around the Earth, (2) the sun revolving around the Earth, and (3) the stars revolving around the Earth. The Earth was apparently the center of the Universe. Eventually it was found that the Earth was just another planet revolving around the sun. Still, they had the moon orbiting, but the Earth was clearly demoted. The sun was the center of the Solar System, if not Universe.
With that experience, people were more skeptical about the Solar System being the center of the Universe. Stars seemed to recede in every direction. The proof was the “red shift” of the star light. So the Earth looked as if it were the center of the Universe.
Mathematicians, however, “found” that if the Universe were “expanding” (as a balloon), then many locations could seem to be the center of the Universe. So, it wasn’t so much that the Earth was the center of the Universe, as it was the Universe was expanding. Many sites could show a red shift in any direction.
There is, however, another reasonable explanation. The “red shift”, as referred to above, has to do with the velocity of the light source relative to Earth. The star moves away from the Earth, so the light has less energy when captured by stuff on the Earth, red shift. First, there is no opposite red shift, no blue shift. Second, I note, that a star’s light can lose energy in another way. Perhaps the “red shift” is really about the light climbing out of a gravity well. The star is ground zero. As the light leaves the star, it loses energy; it climbs out of a gravity hole – a red shift. Thus, the larger red-shifts are not necessarily from the “fastest” moving stars, but possibly from the “largest”, most massive stars. That solves the problem of no blue-shift. No light “blues” as it climbs out of a gravity well. It is always a loss of energy, a red shift.
I agree that stars should have red-shifted light if they recede from Earth. But in general, stars should have red-shifted light because of gravity. Is the effect we see due to one or the other or both? At this time, I cannot say. But, if we invoke the gravity well, we don’t have the uniqueness of all stars moving away from Earth (or we can move beyond an expanding Universe). The probability that the Earth is averagely placed in the Universe (vs. preferentially placed to see all those speed-related red shifts) seems reasonable.
Sincerely,
Curt Weinstein