Earth Is Near The Center Of The Universe

Because:

  • In the 1990ies, scientists discovered that the large scale space time curvature of the universe is flat.
  • Hubble discovered in the 1950ies that all distant galaxies are red-shifted, i.e. moving away from us.

As the universe is not curved, it is no longer possible to postulate that “everywhere is the center” and if you fly long enough in one direction you come back from the other.

In a flat universe, either Earth is at the center and everything moves away from us – or we are not at the centre in which case we would be flying away from the centre in the same direction as some other galaxies – while other galaxies would fly away in the exact other direction, being much more redshifted than our immediate neighbours – relative velocities would vary wildly depending on trajectory.

Completely different possible explanation: Photons that reach us from outer space have lost some of their energy due to a phenomenon that has nothing to do with relative velocity. This would go the direction of MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics). Unfortunately for some it would also force a rethink of the Big Bang theory.

I got this observation from Dr. Sanford…. ca. 20:00 :

Advertisements

8 thoughts on “Earth Is Near The Center Of The Universe”

  1. Yes, it is a good point that is somehow showed under the carpet. If I correctly remember there was also an experiment and paper showing that photons are red shifted when travelling through plasma. It shows that when photons interact with particles, they keep the direction but lose some energy. I guess it is the perfect explanation for the steady increase in red shift with distance.

    Of course there must be also red shift caused by velocity but it is only an element to it, and for distant objects, even if they move in our direction they would still be red shifted

    The big bang theory has accumulated such constrains to be viable (adapted through the time to fulfil observations) that I do not regard it as a good explanation.
    For example to account for the background radiation it needs a perfect timing somewhere at the 10-32 seconds when the inflation had to happen in a very very short time frame – the inflation being actually what brings the universe to almost its actual shape. And then it needs all that dark matter and dark energy to explain the form and a new acceleration of the expansion now.

    It does not explain how some clusters seem to be older then the age of universe, etc.

    Have you had the chance to read “seeing red”? Alton Harp had an interesting explanation, matter being “young” or “old”
    https://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905

    Like

    1. No, haven’t read it, but I heard of Alton Harp by the Electric Universe guys. He discovered apparent material bridges between objects with wildy different redshifts, right?

      “showing that photons are red shifted when travelling through plasma.”
      Would be a great explanation.

      One EU guy remarked, the “cosmic background radiation” is just the radiation we receive in our local galactic environment.

      Like

      1. “He discovered apparent material bridges between objects with wildy different redshifts, right?”
        Right, he has some nice examples in a separate book.
        I lost the link to that paper, but I remember there were some experiments that made the test. They are discussed here:
        http://vixra.org/pdf/1105.0010v1.pdf

        Like

  2. Fascinating. Strictly speaking, we need to clarify what we mean by red shifting. There is the Doppler effect red and blue shifting due to relative velocity differences. To me, interactions that result in energy conversion (not loss, strictly speaking within the universe as a possible closed system … if it isn’t …. ‘loss’ may occur from one ‘box’ to another without ‘loss’ within the whole system) would not be a red shift. The collected photons in our detector, though, wouldn’t (I say) be able to tell the difference.

    I say that a photonic detector cannot tell the difference between a reflection back toward it from an emission toward it, with an emission containing possible absorption and re-emission. We consider a reflection from classical physics as a fully elastic collision (no net transfer of energy between the colliders and/or with the rest of the system). Just like the Ideal Gas law considered the gas particle collisions as fully elastic. Where that isn’t true, such as phase changes, adsorption, desorption, gas or surface phase chemical reactions, and more; the Ideal Gas Law is false because the conditions and assumptions are not all met. You would need to modify the ‘law’ to take these conditions into account.

    I also say that outer space isn’t ‘cold’ thermodynamically. It is ‘hot’ thermodynamically due to the high velocities that particles possess when travelling through space. Space doesn’t contain much ‘heat’ because of the low particle density and looks dark to our eyes due to the low photon flux density in the wavelengths where our eyes can detect them through absorption that gets converted into a protein conformation change that, in turn, triggers ion flow across the semi-permeable membrane and even that doesn’t get pulse code modulated without integration of excitatory and inhibitory effects.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s