Geocentricity in Modern Physics
It is believed that we have moved past the geocentric view that the universe revolves around the Earth. With the realization of the Earth revolving around the sun, a heliocentric view--particularly of our solar system--has become the new standard.
However, the same type of mistake still persists. It has just hidden itself within a more elaborate explanation of the way things are. This explanation lacks a fundamental description of how the universe functions.
In modern physics, all widely accepted models carry the same Earth-centered interpretation of observations. These are less apparent because our views have expanded, comprising many more observations as their basis, but these current models have only grown to a degree where they reached the next level of geocentricity.
In the past, Earth was literally believed to be the center of the universe with all other objects in the cosmos revolving around it.
Presently, scientifically accepted models no longer make any such claim. In fact, they generally describe a universe where the earth is a mass revolving around the sun, which is but a speck of our galaxy. On the surface, it appears that we have fully passed geocentricity.
Current Models Are Still Geocentric In Nature
While they do not literally claim the universe to revolve around the Earth, even stating this is not the case due to the heliocentric solar system interpretation, current models still use the Earth as the main focal point. We use our observations of the “observable universe” to make the claim that all distant galaxies are moving away from earth. This is the first sign that current models still rely on an evolved form of geocentricity as their basis.
Notably, we do not directly observe this claimed motion. What we see, instead, is a correlation of increasing redshift in the light spectrum of galaxies per distance. It is our interpretation, then, that these galaxies are moving away from us due to the Doppler effect.
It, though, is an assumption that motion is the cause of these redshift observations in the first place since gravity can also cause redshift.
From this interpretation of all distant galaxies moving away from Earth, this modern-day geocentric view led to the advent of two new concepts in physics: expansion of space and dark energy. These were necessary additions in order for the modern-day geocentric view to "fit" the observations that we make due to calculated motions above the speed of light.
It was necessary in these models which rely on Earth as a reference point to thereby complicate the fundamentals of physics by claiming these new concepts were fundamental in nature. Expansion of space and dark energy, to be added based on an assumption, were the next step in geocentricity.
This is because the calculated motions are not inherent traits of the galaxies but are based on the assumption that the redshift observations that we make are caused by motion to begin with. Alternatively, again, gravity can also cause redshift. To claim that motion is the cause is to simultaneously claim gravity is not.
The very existence of current models rely on this very critical developmental step. Without the interpretation of these redshift observations caused by motion away from Earth, these explanations would not exist. However, because we chose to use the Earth as a focal point, in a different and yet the same way as the geocentric model does, we have concluded drastically complicated explanations for how the universe functions.
Similarities of Today and the Days of Geocentricity
When heliocentric models were first presented, they were firmly rejected. It was not that the geocentric viewpoint had actual basis for rejecting, but rather that geocentricity was a belief that was already well established and there was much evidence in favor of it. Nevermind that that evidence was not meticulously analyzed, but just basic observations of celestial bodies--at first glance--led to the common acceptance of the geocentric view because they appeared to move around the Earth. The heliocentric view, on the other hand, found its basis in the nuances of the details and was not given attention in spite of its logical merits.
When a belief system is already firmly established, it is difficult for the nuances to be recognized. The same can be said for modern models of the universe.
It is these nuances that are most critical in any analysis of reality. Something that looks one way at first glance can be recognized to be different under further review, with more information to draw upon and when a present belief is not held as absolute. As a society, we expand our understanding only as far as we are willing to openly consider the possibility that we are still learning and what we think we know may be missing certain considerations.
Historically, we do not change our minds easily when we earnestly believe something. However, when we do, a new paradigm always arises.
Modern theories are held as facts and their details are no longer scrutinized, much the same as geocentricity was held as a fact. This does not make it so. The nuances will always find their way to be appreciated and drive transformation. Like a chemical reaction, it takes sufficient activation energy to bring this change. Until then, resistance is inevitably faced.
Gravity Causes Redshift
This recognition of the geocentricity of current models stems from an alternative explanation for how gravitational redshift causes the most critical observations of the universe.
The explanation for how gravity causes these observations can be read about in detail in The Big Bang's Big Assumption and my book The Simple Reality. Further details can be found in my research paper and YouTube Video, The Universal Principle of Natural Philosophy.
The Universe is Inficentric
Rather than being centered on Earth or the sun or any other individual object, the universe is centered on infinity.
Just like the lemniscate, ∞, everything comes back to infinity. The universe is the manifestation of infinity.
This is why electromagnetic fields are shaped like Figure-8's; when something is small enough relative to another body in the cosmos, it is always brought back to and through the larger body. This produces electromagnetic fields by the gravity alone.
In an inficentric model, the Earth plays no role in the overall structure of the universe. Only then is geocentricity truly escaped.
For More Information
Thanks for reading!
If you'd like more information, check out my website CascadingUniverse.org or my other posts here on Steemit!.
I have to strongly agree that extant physics is quite inaccurate, and the practically unlimited array of proposed cosmologies exemplifies this.
As opposed to what? We don't have any other perspective, and won't, until we are capable of interstellar travel.
While the universe may be infinite, we aren't. We're here, and our understanding is necessarily constrained by that reality. We're also of limited capacity for intelligence, and until that changes, we're gonna continue to be incapable of fully comprehending even a grain of sand - much less the infinite universe.
Thanks!
Hey, thanks for reading and commenting!
In terms of using Earth as a focal point, I mainly mean this in regard to the interpretation of the observation of all distant redshifted galaxies in all directions being the result of motion. It is then interpreted that those galaxies are all specifically moving away from Earth. This is an Earth focused interpretation because of this relative motion away from Earth as an integral part of the analysis.
That interpretation then leads to expansion of space and dark energy as necessary additions to the model to explain how this motion is occurring as it is interpreted to be. This, in essence, is a subtle geocentric interpretation problem.
Alternatively, with gravitational redshift as the cause of these observations, it means that light from distant galaxies is redshifted by gravity at a rate of redshift per distance that leads to our observations. I talk about the specific mechanisms for how this happens in The Big Bang's Big Assumption and The Simple Reality, for example.
In the case where gravitational redshift is seen as the cause, it is not integral to the description of the overall structure of the universe that this redshift exists. There is no element of relative motion of the galaxy when gravitational redshift is the interpreted cause because gravity affects the light as it travels from the galaxy rather than the galaxy itself. Instead, it is seen as a phenomenon that occurs due to the Great Attractor which leads to a large-scale observation that we make in the cosmos. Such an interpretation does not draw upon Earth's motion relative to other bodies since the observation is said to be caused by gravity rather than motion, as geocentricity vs. heliocentricity does and as the Big Bang's geocentric equivalent does.
In a very similar way, we look at the universe through the lens of "the observer". Because we see things the way that we do, we interpret that that is the only way those things can be seen. In an infinite structure, though, we would be composed of a layer in the "middle" and everything above us we would see a certain way and everything below us we would see other certain ways, but if we were composed of a larger or smaller building block relative to what we call "atoms" we would see the same objects completely differently. Atoms may be seen as galaxies or solar systems or photons. All things are relative. I talk about this in my article, The Observer Assumption.
It may appear impossible to truly comprehend, but if we take a very ground-up step-by-step approach using logic and reason to decipher the most simple model possible, we can reach a state where we understand how things are beyond any doubt. Being infinite, the universe always has more unanswered questions. But that doesn't mean a foundation can't be established; akin to universal understanding that 2+2=4, other truths can be deduced using logic and reason. Just my take on the situation, of course :)
I just note we have no other perspective potential to us. We are geocentric. As a planetary species, our perspective must originate from a place. It happens to be here.
Is there no 'fudge factor' taking into account gravitational redshift at all in extant cosmology?
That's true, but we can deduce the way the universe functions beyond using Earth as a basis.
In terms of gravitational redshift, what is accounted for is the gravitational redshift produced by the mass of a given galaxy. This is subtracted which leaves "cosmological redshift" which is what has been interpreted as the result of motion in current models.
This cosmological redshift can be said to be misinterpreted gravitational redshift due to objects that are of the "next level up". Planets, stars, black holes, supermassive black holes,...beyond that come objects like the "Great Attractor" which appear to pull all galaxies to it. It stands to reason that these objects are so massive that they have a much larger gravitational redshift effect on light from distant galaxies than realized, which has not been accounted for whatsoever.
My argument is that these objects can be so massive that they gravitationally lens all light in the observable universe into a Figure-8 orbital so that when it arrives at Earth it has repetitively traveled in this way. As a result, it produces gravitational redshift per distance that one singular object can produce "Hubble's Law" and an accelerating rate of redshift per distance from. This particular mechanism of gravitational redshift has not been accounted for at all, only that caused by the galaxy emitting the light itself has been considered. This becomes extremely evident to be the case because it not only explains redshift per distance but also explains how gravity causes electromagnetic fields. With motion as the cause of redshift, it is necessary to add "expansion of space" and "dark energy" to t he model. With gravity as the cause, it removes both these things from the standard model while also showing how one of the other fundamental forces is caused by gravity, which is so much simpler that it essentially necessitates that it is so.
I read recently that a majority of the 'dark matter' that had been theorized has been rendered obsolete, as estimates of ordinary matter that is simply not light emitting and is scattered throughout space have been grossly underestimated.
I long ago surmised this was the case. I would not be surprised if estimates of gravitational redshift were similarly grossly underestimated. Frankly, I would be surprised if there turns out to be any basis for 'dark matter', and 'dark energy' whatsoever, other than poor understanding and misestimation.
Thanks for your always substantive and informative replies!
Dark matter and dark energy are very different. The concept of dark energy arises as a direct result of the observation of the accelerating rate of redshift per distance. Due to the assumption of motion as the cause, it led to a string of interpretations that brought about the concept of dark energy.
First, Doppler shift alone was considered the cause. However, due to redshifts greater than the value of 1 observed, which would imply motion greater than the speed of light, expansion of space was then added to the model to explain this "cosmological redshift". This was considered to produce a linear rate of redshift per distance. Then, when we noticed that redshift per distance is not linear but rather accelerates with increasing distances, the concept of expansion of space was insufficient to explain the redshift and so another new concept was introduced as an explanation: dark energy. In the Big Bang model, dark energy is the cause of accelerating redshift per distance. For this reason, it is extremely flawed intrinsically because it is a necessary addition to the fundamentals of physics that further complicates the foundation of how the universe functions.
Dark matter, on the other hand, is a bit different. It comes about due to observations of gravitational effects that are unable to be accounted for from the observed amounts of matter in the cosmos. Like you said, this miscalculation could just be a result of undetected matter that does not emit light sufficient to be recognized.
In an infinite universe model, just as individual masses get bigger and bigger--from planets to stars to black holes and beyond--they also get smaller and smaller. This leads to the existence of what has been called the "ether", which would be composed of these smaller and smaller particles. They are ordinary matter--nothing special about them relative to any other matter--but they just happen to be so small that they are undetectable from a light emission standpoint.
This ether of smaller and smaller particles, then, is still influenced by gravity and still influences other systems with its gravity. This would lead to the observations that we see in terms of what led to the concept of "dark matter". Though the ether has been supposedly "disproven", dark matter is claimed to exist and they are one and the same.
Importantly, electromagnetic fields prove the existence of this ether because, like I mentioned in my previous comments, the gravity of a given body pulls sufficiently smaller masses into Figure-8 orbitals where they physically travel through that given body and out the other side. The ability of small mass to pass through large is observationally recognized by our detections of neutrinos passing through the Earth. This leads to a Figure-8 orbital of proximal ether to a mass which arises in the observation of electromagnetic fields as a result of gravity. Every electromagnetic field in existence shows the ether's existence--and thereby what we have come to call "dark matter"--it is just a matter of which layers of the ether produce the largest gravitational effects. Perhaps it is larger particles like atoms and we have miscalculated the amount of them around given masses which leads to an interpretation of different degrees that each systems of similar masses surrounding a body influences it. But ultimately, the sum total effect of this ether is what we see to produce these gravitational variations that lead to the claim that "dark matter" exists.
The key to it all is really the recognition of how gravity can cause electromagnetism. By so drastically reducing the fundamentals of physics--the causeless causes--it is possible to explain all observations using gravity alone and this brings the logical deduction to the point where, from a fundamental level, there is only gravity. Occam's Razor can be used to see that the simplest model having the greatest degree of explanation of observations is necessarily true. This means that the universe can be recognized to be factually infinite and the result of one cause alone. It is no accident that the infinity symbol is the same shape as an electromagnetic field; electromagnetic fields arise literally due to the universe being infinite.
As a carpenter I see daily why Occam's Razor is compelling, however, sometimes the simplest solution isn't reality (that's why I get the big bucks, as I am able to do what is necessary, rather than what is simple, cheap, or easy alone).
It is a complete departure from consilience that defies ontological conception - my greatest disaffection with quantum mechanics.
BTW, are you familiar with Emergence Theory?
I'd say even the most complex solutions start from simple steps, no? Certainly it does not end with simple, but understanding the most complex is essentially impossible without first grasping simplicity. I don't mean to imply that simple means easy either, it is just a targeting of the most fundamental understanding to then branch out from into other areas that can benefit from it. If our interpretations are "wrinkled" when they are off-center from reality, then it acts as an iron repetitively running over the surface to smooth it, or like using finer and finer sand paper to bring surface roughness to a minimum.
I am not familiar with Emergence Theory but from some quick reading into it, it sounds like an attempt to merge all present mainstream models into one (quantum, relativity, standard model, etc), which is extremely flawed from a logical standpoint. It would be akin to plugging wrong answers from one or several math equations into another math equation and expecting to somehow arrive at the correct answer.
Not to hate on it as I have put very little time looking into it in particular, but I feel present models are approximations that only match observations to a point and then they fall apart because they are simply not accurate descriptions of the infinite universe, so anything that uses the same line of thought is easily recognizable as having the same mistakes. I do notice a focus on consciousness which I like. :D
What are your thoughts on it?