New Paper: Our Redshift Environment
New paper, presented for open public peer-review, examines the idea that the redshift observation which led to the Big Bang Theory may be an artefact of our Solar System location where gravity is at a low ebb.
[Reader comments especially welcome]
The new paper ‘Our Redshift Environment: Living on the Edge‘ explores the possibility that several Black Holes (BHs) exist in the Milky Way which results in our Solar System being sited in a gravity low spot relative to our surroundings.
The author, Robert A. Beatty BE (Minerals) FAusIMM(CP), suggests the consequence of this siting is that starlight reaching Earth from surrounding galaxies is generally red-shifted in the optical spectrum producing an artefact which resulted in developing The Big Bang theory.
If several black holes (BHs) can be shown to exist, together with their associated Gravispheres, it will imply that the Universe is in a steady state of continuing development with no apparent beginning or end.
Presumed BHs are plotted on a chart of the Milky Way which shows they are concentrated in the spiral arm, and central regions. This implies these, are regions of high gravity. Space between the spiral arms therefore constitutes regions of lower gravity.
Figure 1 shows a possible cause for Earth residing in a gravity low spot, so only light coming from zone Z has lower gravity, and appears as blue-shifted. All other starlight reaching Earth is red-shifted.
Figure 2 shows some Black Holes identified within the Milky Way:
Conclusions
The redshift observation which led to the Big Bang Theory may be an artefact of our Solar System location where gravity is at a low ebb, relative to the broader universe.
The concept of Gravispheres offers a new view on the source of gravity. It implies that gravity is not constant throughout the universe, and that gravitational variations are pervasive and lead to red and blue shifts in the starlight viewed from Earth.
Blue-shifted star light may not be conclusively indicative that a galaxy is moving towards the Milky Way anymore than redshift indicates receding travel.
BHs are concentrated in the arms of the Milky Way together with their zones of high gravity. The spaces between the arms are void of BH and are regions of low gravity.
The spiral arms stay connected through gravitational attraction between associated Gravispheres.
The variability of gravity in a spiral galaxy precludes the need for a consideration of “dark matter”.
BHs are anticipated to exist at regular intervals along spiral arms.
The full paper can be found at https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PROM/PROM-Beatty-Redshift.pdf and reader feedback is cordially invited in the ‘Comments’ section below.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Telephone: Calls from within the UK: 020 7419 5027. International dialling: (44) 20 7419 5027.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Trackback from your site.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi John,
I am confused. According to Einstein the speed of light is constant.If there is a decrease in time in a stronger gravitational field there must be a corresponding decrease in distance. As light moves into a weaker gravitational field both time and distance increase together so how can there be a change in frequency or wavelength?
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb, I will try to beat John to the punch. The wave nature of light includes electrical as well as magnetic components which interchange rhythmically. The process transfers radiated energy through the vacuum of space. The details of how gravity affects this system are not fully understood, but the effect is documented under reference 6.
My view is that the radiated energy also has a mass component due to E<~>m.c^2 being a reversible equation. As the light passes through a higher gravity field, the mass component does not change, but its return during the rhythmical interchange process is slowed. This results in the light appearing as a longer wave, i.e. red shifted. A lower gravity environment causes a faster interchange, and a resulting blue shift.
These changes do not effect the speed of the wave, they only alter its internal characteristic, so ‘c’ is still applicable.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your explanation. I still have a problem. The gravitational doppler effect is based on Einstein’s equivalence theory which states that in a closed system there is no experiment that can be done to distinguish between a gravitational field and acceleration. In the gravitational/accelerating field the light is traveling in the same direction as the acceleration/gravity producing the Doppler effect. If you were to shine a laser light between two mirrored walls perpendicular to the acceleration/gravity the light in the gravitational field would maintain a constant height on the wall while in an accelerating environment the light would appear to move down the wall as the walls moved up. The faster the attained velocity of the accelerating enclosure the faster the light will move down the wall. This would seem to me as being an experiment that would distinguish between a gravitational field and acceleration.
You spoke the magnetic and electrical component of light not not understanding fully how gravity effects this. I would point out that objects have a magnetic and electric fields that decrease with distance from the object and yet these fields are not considered as having any effect on the electric and magnetic properties of light.
I am not trying to be contrary but I believe in simplicity. I believe light is an electromagnetic wave with no particle component and that the photoelectric effect, which cast doubt on the wave nature of light, is just another example of the Piezo electric effect where the distortion of a crystal changes the balance between attractive and repelling forces.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Gravitational Redshift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift ).
Reply
tom0mason
| #
I feel you have not fully grasped Gravitational Redshift (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift ). Also at the bottom of the wiki page see the link to Gravitational time dilation.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks Tom0Mason,
You refer to the same link as reference 6 in my paper. “I feel you have not fully grasped Gravitational Redshift.” This is a major aspect of this paper as well as my previous paper “Gravispheres”. Both papers are raising doubts regarding the accepted science – which is the true purpose of scientific research. I may well be wrong, and the accepted science will prove correct as you indicate, but there will need to be some good explanations to cover major aspects of the Big Bang Theory including the four points listed at the bottom of page 1 in the full paper.
Reply
Joseph A Olson
| #
“Mysterious Dr X says, Universe is NOT Expanding”
In a Dec 1936, Time magazine interview “Shift on Shift”, the father of the big bang said it was a hoax. I’ve written a series of articles on alternate red shift explanations. Consider big bang to be another elitist deception.
See Cosmology tab at FauxScienceSlayer
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Joseph, thanks for this link information. It is very interesting and aligns with what I have found – less the boundless funding.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Thanks for your detailed thoughts Herb,
I am basing my comments on several doubts that have been raised regarding red and blue shift star light being solely associated with galaxy movement.
Raymond HV Gallucci made this point early last year at:
https://principia-scientific.com/questioning-the-cosmological-doppler-red-shift/
“However, in actuality it is the frequency, not the wavelength, that determines “color” – if not, why else would refracted light when passing through water not change “color” since the standard concept of refraction involves a change in wavelength, not frequency.”
You note, “You spoke [of] the magnetic and electrical component of light not not understanding fully how gravity effects this.”
My reference is to magnetic and electrical components; an example is depicted at:
http://www.public.asu.edu/~jpbirk/CHM-113_BLB/Chpt06/sld005.htm
The two components represent a transfer of energy. My thought is that one, or both, could spend a fraction of time as mass due to the reversible Einstein equation quoted. When the mass is influenced by a gravity change, it changes its velocity. So we can conclude the returning wave form will contain a distortion reflecting the gravity change. As Raymond has noted, this will influence the frequency, not the wavelength, so the speed of light stays constant. I doubt that light reflecting between two vertical walls could be made sensitive enough to simulate the conditions in a galaxy.
Another aspect of “light mass” would explain why light bends as it goes past a gravity high when by-passing a star.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Tomomason, Herb Rose, Joseph A Olson, and John O’Sullivan.
Thank you for your contributions to this PROM paper, which are greatly appreciated.
Important discussion focused on the mechanism to explain red shift – other than by reference to the Doppler effect. I have summarised my thinking on this particular aspect of the paper, now available at
http://www.bosmin.com/PSL/LightWaves1.pdf
Any further comment you care to offer would be gratefully accepted. Otherwise this memo may be considered as an addendum to the original paper.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
I just found you adjustment to the article. I have a question about your diagram 4. As I see it you have the motion of the starlight in the same directions the variations in the electrical and magnetic field but according to the right hand rule the motion of the wave is perpendicular to both the direction of the magnetic field and electrical field.
There also doesn’t seem to be any consideration of why gravity is excluded from acting on a atomic and subatomic levels (quantum physics) and yet is able to affect this level in the greater expanse of space.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb, thanks for these thoughts again. I too must apologise for just having found your note.
I am not sure we can apply the RH rule in this example, which is normally used for quantifying electrical vectors rather than describing light travel.
The latter consideration is referenced at Section 3. MATTER WAVES8 of
https://principia-scientific.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PROM-Gravispheres.pdf
Your last comment requires an understanding of how gravity interacts with mass which is still, unfortunately, one of the great scientific unknowns.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
The connection of gravity with mass was a creation by Newton to provide a source for his force. The data he used was the velocity of a planet squared times the distance from the sun (kipper’s law) and the only mass comes from the gravitational constant he created. Velocity squared is an energy unit and that times the distance gives the energy of an object be it the sun, the Earth, or any other object (like binary asteroids). Gravity is a function of energy not mass.
Have a good day,
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb, Newton’s connection with gravity is through G which is a convenient constant, and satisfies the observed gravitational influences (forces) seen within the solar system. However, it does not satisfy observations elsewhere in the universe, which is why “dark matter” was proposed – another convenient concept.
I suggested that if G is regarded as a variable vector quantity, it could be used to explain why observations elsewhere in the universe differ from our solar system.
We need to be careful when taking too cavalier an attitude to mass. After all it is the basis of our Periodic Table and adequately defines the quantity of matter in a fixed sense.
When you say “Velocity squared is an energy unit” this is like saying that E=c^2, or KE=0.5v^2, but mass is a critical consideration in these formulae, even if it is a step associated with the referenced energy quantity.
We know for example that energy does convert to mass and is quantified as “adding 25 kilowatt-hours (90 megajoules) of any form of energy to any object increases its mass by 1 microgram”. Interestingly, this shows the sun continuously transfers mass towards earth.
Recycling mass through energy is referred to as Electromagnetic Gravity Emissions (EGE) in the referenced PROM paper. It provides a mechanism for recycling mass through the aegis of gravity from black holes. Whether this turns out to be correct or not is up for discussion, but it does provide some solutions to conundrums, without defining how gravity actually works. (ie the same place Newton got to, but may be an advance if G becomes accepted as a vector variable throughout the universe).
Reply