The Doppler effect does not prove heliocentricity and Redshifting could indicate a young, not an old age.

Other models easily explain the 'shifting of light' and the establishment dogma that Redshift means a receding object and distant time, is unsupported by the evidence.

The Doppler Effect (or Doppler Shift) was discovered by Christian Doppler in 1842. This effect occurs when the source of wave emission moves closer or farther away from the observer. The waves are compressed when the source moves closer and stretched when the source moves farther away. This phenomenon does not occur, however, when the receiver moves closer or farther away from a stationary source since the waves coming to the receiver are the same in both cases.

Waves

Light acts in a similar manner. If the source of light is moving closer to the observer, the light waves are compressed or ‘blue-shifted’; while if the source of light is moving farther away from the observer, the light waves are stretched or ‘red-shifted’. This is the theory. Redshifting has little to do however with ‘age’, or even distance and recession. It is an emanation from the light spectrum at a frequency level. It does not confirm ‘time’ as explained below.

Doppler effect animation clip

The first blue-shifted or red-shifted stars observed were Aldebaran, Arcturus and Betelgeuse in 1894 by J. E. Keeler. They would produce a spectrum like that in the below graph (Keeler,1894)

Heliocentrists have claimed that since the Earth revolves around the sun at about 19 miles per second, this movement causes the Doppler shift of stars. As one author states:

‘Classical physics, but not Special Relativity, predicts different Doppler shifts for the source moving versus the observer moving, allowing one to ‘determine’ whether the earth moves or a ‘fixed star’ moves….To conclude, Mach did not consider the difference between the Copernican and Ptolemaic/Brahean systems and the observations falsifying the latter’. (Hartman and Nissim-Sabat, p. 1167)

The above is standard fare in most textbooks. The truth is, however, that the neo-Tychonic geocentric system can easily explain a Doppler shift. The neo-Tychonic system has the star field rotating around the Earth on a 1 Astronomical Unit or 8.3 light years radial hub (toward the Earth). In this model, this means that on one hemisphere of the star field, the stars will be receding away from the Earth (red-shifting) and on the opposite hemisphere the stars will be advancing toward the Earth (blue-shifting).

(Tychonic model and Doppler effects, Earth with its moon satellite at the centre)

In the Tychonic model, the stars are aligned with the Sun, and the Sun revolves around the Earth on a 1 AU radial pivot. This radial movement toward the Earth will generate the Doppler effect. As with light aberration, blue or red-shifting light spectrums only indicate relative movement. They do not confirm that the Earth is mobile around the Sun.

Redshift issues

Big Bangers believe that a photon emitted from a Star source travelling towards our telescope on Earth, is issued from space which is continually stretching or accelerating. As the photon travels, its wavelength will be stretched into a different part of the light spectrum (red). The whole idea is premised on galaxy acceleration – a theory looking for proof. What if galaxy acceleration is tautological (used to justify Redshifting ages) and wrong, premised on an incorrect speed of light?

In his book ‘Seeing Red’ famed astronomer Halton Arp, summarised the case against Redshifting. He was not alone. A large minority of physicists and cosmologists, then and now, agree with his observations, all of which lie unrefuted. What do the dissidents, expressed by a figure as respected and scientific as Arp say? Could Redshift and the ‘Doppler’ effect, when applied to light, mean a young age?

-Based on Jayant Narlikar’s 1977 'Structure of the Universe' Annals of Physics article, the mass of an elementary particle will vary as the time squared (where acceleration or speed is a constant)

-Arp believes that if Narlikar is right, particle masses are a function of time, meaning that younger electrons will have smaller masses, and the younger the object, the higher the redshift (based on Machian physics, from Ernst Mach, which formed an essential element to Einstein’s theories)

-Arp saw that galaxies will form ‘quasars’ which are proto-galaxies, in a process of self-creation, this would entail that their ‘clocks’ are running slow and that their matter is redshifted

-Observational data prove that quasars are younger matter, ejected from the nuclei of active galaxies, termed ‘White holes’

-Arp repeatedly discovered paired quasars on the edges of active galaxies

–Quasars are the most redshifted objects in the Universe, emitting photons with greater energy than the parent galaxy, and their redshift age given they are new, cannot be due to light recession related to cosmic expansion

-A quasar emits energy hundreds of times greater than that of the nearby galaxy, however quasars are more star-like than galaxy-like initially

-Eventually the quasars form their own galaxies near to the parent galaxy and have been observed discharging their own quasar pairs

-This means that when we see light from distant galaxies it is much younger than we believe, the matter is new, not old, and that the distance-velocity relation means the Universe is probably not expanding

-The above eliminates the need for the mythical dark matter and dark energy

-For Arp, the CMB is simply the temperature in space beyond our galactic neighbourhood

If any of the above is true, you can toss all of current cosmological dogma into the rubbish bin.

In the above model, galaxies self-generate, and the Universe appears to be ageless, unbounded but not expanding. Arp’s observations has led to a revitalisation of the steady-state theory in which the Universe looks homogenous in any direction you care to analyse (called the ‘perfect cosmological principle’, though the definition of this varies and it can either support, or argue against the Arpian Universe).

The self-generation of galaxies and the resultant complete structure of what is seen, negates the underlying premises of Banging theology which preaches almost the opposite. It also leads to the conclusion that we are near to the centre of the Universe, or else we would see a great variety of unstructured development. This is further reinfoced by the isotropy of matter, which Bangers do not support, but which is observed in the universe.

Bottom Line

The explanation above, as to why the ‘Doppler effect’ does not support heliocentricity is perfectly consistent with modern science postulates and geometrical equivalency. The effect can be explained by other models. These models might be right or wrong, but they explain the phenomena at least as well, if not better, then Copernicanism.

It should be noted that there are many problems with the Redshift theory of the expanding universe as devised by Hubble and others (posts in this substack explain these issues). Redshifting does not support heliocentricity and if Redshifting was true, the sky would be dark as expanding and accelerating galaxies, moving at unfathomable speeds, sped away from the Earth. There are also mathematical theorems which undermine the validity of Doppler and Relativistic postulates as well, which cannot be answered by ‘The Science’.

But you won’t know about any of this. None of what is in this post is allowed to be known or discussed. Open ‘science’ and all that.

All hail.

Why Light, Time and Redshifting do not support establishment doctrine

Sources

Hartman Herbert I. and Nissim-Sabat, Charles. “On Mach’s critique of Newton and Copernicus,” American Journal of Physics 71(11), November 2003

Keeler, J. E. Publications of the Lick Observatory, 3:195, 1894

Doppler, C. (1842). Über das farbige Licht der Doppelsterne und einiger anderer Gestirne des Himmels (About the coloured light of the binary stars and some other stars of the heavens). Prague: 1842 (Reissued 1903).

Andrade, E. "Doppler and the Doppler effect", Endeavour Vol. XVIII No. 69, January 1959 (published by ICI London). Historical account of Doppler's original paper and subsequent developments.

Nolte David. The fall and rise of the Doppler effect. Physics Today, v. 73, pgs. 31 – 35, 2020