|
If the figures given in The Urantia Book are correct, the light we see today from the outer edge of the first outer space level started out about 50 million years ago. What was going on out there 50 million years ago? Since we are now at the highest velocity point on the lower curve of Fig. 3, then the velocity of the edge of the 1st OSL would be less in the past than it is today. This would give the appearance of non-uniform expansion. We should be able to look at the red shift of that region and calculate the velocity, but there is a fly in the ointment. The Urantia Book tells us that much of the red shift we see is due to the passage of light through space, not the velocity away from us. We may be stuck at this point. We don't know the formula for the amount of red shift due only to the passage of light through space. We could use the assumptions that we have made to calculate the expected red shift due solely to the velocity of the 1st OSL and use that to determine the extra red shift, but this seems like picking ourselves up by our own bootstraps. And further, this whole exercise stands on a chain of assumptions. Change any one of them, and the whole analysis falls apart. What is required is incontrovertible proof that light can be red shifted just by its passage through space.
A small minority of astronomers feel that there is non-velocity red shift, but none of them can offer the sort of proof needed, nor, as far as I know, has any of them come up with a number for this non-velocity red shift. There have been some physicists who claim that the Compton effect could cause the red shift. When radiation such as light interacts with a free charged particle, the energy can be re-radiated at either the same frequency, or at a higher or lower frequency. [2]
I have seen papers on the Internet claiming that most of the red shift in light from distant sources could be due to the Compton effect operating within intervening particles. But there are others who vehemently deny the possibility. Therefore, until reliable proof and numbers are forthcoming, the best we can do is speculate.
All the foregoing discussion was based on accepting the figures in The Urantia Book for the size of things. If those figures are in error, then all the preceding speculation is moot. Our astronomers believe that the universe is about 12 billion years old based on red shift measurements; we can infer from information in The Urantia Book that the universe is trillions of years old. (651) Our astronomers believe that the edge of the observable universe is more than 10 billion light years distant, again based mostly on red shift measurements; we can infer from information in The Urantia Book that it is about 50 million light years in radius. If the red shift assumption of our astronomers is incorrect, then the universe size and age they have determined are seriously in error.
At present, I don't see any way to reconcile the findings of the astronomers with the information in The Urantia Book, or to determine which is correct. It may turn out in the end that both are partly in error. I would be very pleased to find out that The Urantia Book has it exactly right, but unfortunately the authors put in an accuracy disclaimer regarding the science and cosmology of the book. It seems that I will have to wait until the evidence is in before I can decide on the correctness of any science or astronomy information in the book.
Speculation won't necessarily provide correct answers, but it can help us to frame the questions. It often turns out that asking the right questions is half the battle in finding the right answers. I hope no one is ever so overawed with the spiritual parts of The Urantia Book that they are afraid to question the science of the book. As far as I am concerned, the science disclaimer (1109) gives us license to question the science and cosmology of The Urantia Book. So speculate on!
References
1. "The Visible Universe," Dick Bain, Innerface International, Vol. 5, No. 6.
2. Grollier's 1995 CD-ROM Encyclopedia under "Compton effect".
|
|
