Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 158 (8147 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-21-2014 3:04 AM
60 online now:
Heathen, PaulK (2 members, 58 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: MikeManea
Upcoming Birthdays: purpledawn
Post Volume:
Total: 738,161 Year: 24,002/28,606 Month: 1,303/1,786 Week: 165/423 Day: 2/73 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 170 (16061)
08-25-2002 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by R. Planet
08-25-2002 9:14 PM


R. Planet

We've discussed this issue before. I agree that everyone sees everyone else retreating. But that can't be argued for quantization. There is no geomtery which can give it. If there were that would be the mainstream position. But that is not the mainstream position.

The mainstream position is that redshifts must have a non-Hubble component. Either due to new phsyics or maybe some unthought of light traversal effect. There is no agreed on answer for this. What is true is that the Hubble interpretaiton of redshifts gives us preferential positons for galaxies to be that are spherically symmetric around us.

If redshifts do have a non-Hubble component then the data on filaments etc are all meaningless. But that is not what is argued. Cosmologists love the filaments etc. They just dislike the fact that there is a statistically significant preference for spherical symmetry centred on us.

To answer your other question: the quantization effect would be near zero for vantage points beyond about 1.6 million light years according to the calcualtions by Humphreys (pdf posted in this thread earlier).

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by R. Planet, posted 08-25-2002 9:14 PM R. Planet has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 170 (16063)
08-26-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rationalist
08-24-2002 12:58 PM


Everyone

The quantization effect is at a much finer level than the pictures being posted here. The quantization is evident out to about 1 billion light years in steps of about 3-4 million light years (for the 72 km/s redshift quantum). The galaxy chart posted by Rationalist for example

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/gclusters/redsurvey.html

contains data out to about 2.7 billion light years. There would be about a thousand coencentric shells. That is why the data has to be looked at statistically. And indeed, when the data is averaged over more of the sky, the galaxies come up more often at the 72 km/s (or 3-4 million light year) quantum jumps. Hence approximate membranes. Regardless they are centred on us.

Most of the voids and filaments are much larger than the qautum jump distance and is hence structure superimposed on top of this remnant of a spherical shock wave centered on us.

PS - these things are easy to check:

The Hubble interpretation relates redshift in km/s to distance in Mpc (mega parsecs = 3.26 million ly) via

distance = redshift/H

where H is the Hubble constant (around 70 km/s/Mpc)

The most well known published redshift quantization jump confirmed time and time again is 72 km/s giving a distance quantum of about 1.0 Mpc or 3.3 million ly).

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-26-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rationalist, posted 08-24-2002 12:58 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 109 of 170 (16093)
08-27-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Tranquility Base
08-25-2002 8:45 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The four sites I clicked on do not state that the data reveals a quantization that indicates a non-random centering on us.

This is a good start.

quote:
But any of us with a stats package could analyse the figures linked to and discover Tifft's quantization centered on us. But why would you bother, multiple mainstream papers already show that the redshift stats is rock solid.

Where are the mainstream papers that say this? Or rather, why are there not mountains of papers verifying this?

quote:
Statistics is important in sceince. A lot of data is surrounded by noise.

You don't say.

quote:
Stats tell us when the reuslt is significant or not.

If you work the math right, and choose the right variables, and have good data. It is easy to screw these things up.

quote:
If you want to see the answer with your eyes you will miss out on some fascinating discoveries like the discovery of the top quark. To discover that they had to measure billions of scattering events and show that the events which look like top quark events are multiple standard deviations above random. This is exactly what has been done for redshifts whether you can see it with your eyes or not.

Right... and the people who do the analysis decide to draw sponges instead of Russian Dolls?

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-25-2002 8:45 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 110 of 170 (16113)
08-27-2002 11:51 AM


quote:
We've discussed this issue before. I agree that everyone sees everyone else retreating. But that can't be argued for quantization. There is no geomtery which can give it. If there were that would be the mainstream position. But that is not the mainstream position.

There is no quantization, period.

What Tifft discovered was the large scale structure of the universe. Again.. you can check the redshift surveys done since and see for yourself. It's not that difficult.

quote:
The mainstream position is that redshifts must have a non-Hubble component. Either due to new phsyics or maybe some unthought of light traversal effect.

I could find no mention of the 'redshift quantization' beyond the early 70's in any mainstream publications. That would make sense, since better data has revealed not quantized redshifts, but voids and filaments that were previously unknown then.

quote:
There is no agreed on answer for this.

Yes there is. I've just given it.

quote:
What is true is that the Hubble interpretaiton of redshifts gives us preferential positons for galaxies to be that are spherically symmetric around us.

Nonsense.

quote:
If redshifts do have a non-Hubble component then the data on filaments etc are all meaningless.

First you say that all matter is arranged around us in concentric shells (which is patently false), then you claim that the redshift is no indication of distance. Which is it going to be?

quote:
But that is not what is argued. Cosmologists love the filaments etc. They just dislike the fact that there is a statistically significant preference for spherical symmetry centred on us.

Since the only statistical symetry turned out to be part of the structure known as the 'great wall', a part of a filament in our local group of galaxies, I would say that what you're saying makes no sense.

quote:
To answer your other question: the quantization effect would be near zero for vantage points beyond about 1.6 million light years according to the calcualtions by Humphreys (pdf posted in this thread earlier).

Could you please show me any redshift surveys that even remotely demonstrate this effect. There have been many surveys done, and I've posted the results of several. None of them seem to show these shells.


Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by John, posted 08-27-2002 12:22 PM Rationalist has not yet responded
 Message 112 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 9:37 PM Rationalist has not yet responded
 Message 113 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 9:46 PM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 170 (16117)
08-27-2002 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 11:51 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Rationalist:
I could find no mention of the 'redshift quantization' beyond the early 70's in any mainstream publications.

Same here, TB. Everything I've found about quantized redshifts is based on a few papers from the seventies. um.... that was a long time ago by the way.

quote:
That would make sense, since better data has revealed not quantized redshifts, but voids and filaments that were previously unknown then.

Weird. Whatdayaknow? Better information popped up over the last thirty years.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 11:51 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 170 (16129)
08-27-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 11:51 AM


Rationalist & John

I repost part of message 70:

In 1996 mainstream Faraoni published the following paper in General Relativity and Gravitation:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9608/9608067.pdf

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In order to explain the periodicity found in [1][3], models were proposed in which clustering of galaxies in foamlike structures occurs at the predicted redshifts. A difficulty of these models is the implication that galaxies be approximately distributed on shells, of which we happen to be at the center, in conflict with the cosmological principle."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The 'difficulty' with the Hubble interpretation of redshifts is that it violates the cosmological principle - ie it puts us in a preferred geometry at the centre of approximate shells of galaxies.

This is in 1996.

I think it has got to the stage where you guys simply need to email a sky mapper and ask them. Ask point blank. Say I am not a creationist. Does the Hubble interpretation of redshfts suggest that galaxies are (very) approximately located on membranes centred on us?

Varshni, Stephenson and Faraoni have each independently stated it in black and white as recently as 1996. It needs no big discussion because it is incredibly obvious.

The voids and filaments are mainly structure on a much larger scale that does not reveal quantization because averaged over the sky you can't pick up any consistency using a power spectrum. The finely spaced 72 km/s structure does show up and sugests centering on us via the Hubble interpretation as stated by Faraoni, Varshni and Stephenson.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 11:51 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 170 (16130)
08-27-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 11:51 AM


Rationalist

You are completely ignoring the recent studies in 1997 forexample stating that 'redshifts are strongly quantized in the galactic frame'. WM Napier & BNG Guthrie J Astophys Astron 18, 455 (1997))

Please read my posts that the shells can only be statistically discovered. You will not see them with your eyes unless perhpas they are averaged over more of the sky. When we collapse more of the sky into a 2D rep you may be able to see it with your eyes. If you can't believe in careful, multiple independently generated stats then you also can't believe in CP violation or the top quark either.

PS - I retract my statement that non-Hubble effects would make the filamnets meaningless. Although potentially true the quantizaiton is at a much smaller distance scale than the filaments so it would not affect the filament results. I have only recently done the calcs to compare the quantizaiton jumps to the filament sizes. Thanks for pointing that inconsistency out Rationalist.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 11:51 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ThePresidnt69, posted 08-28-2002 12:04 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
ThePresidnt69
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 170 (16137)
08-28-2002 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Tranquility Base
08-27-2002 9:46 PM


Where is the proof? Its not what you know its what you can prove. You'll make a beleiver out of me thats if you can prove this is true. Please notify me and Prove it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-27-2002 9:46 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 12:38 AM ThePresidnt69 has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 170 (16139)
08-28-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ThePresidnt69
08-28-2002 12:04 AM


TP69

Here are the logical steps:

1. All sky redshifts are quantized from our vantage point (Napier & Guthrie, 1997)

2. Distances (d) are related to redshift (z) via d = z/H where H = Hubble constant so distances areexactly proportional to redshift. So quantization of redshifts indicate preferred distances from us in all directions which indicates spherical symmetry. This is confirmed in plain English in (3) below.

3. Faraoni (1996), Stephenson (1977) and Varshni (1976) all state that if the Hubble interpretation of redshifts is correct then this result is not transferable to other vatage points and that Earth is therefore at the centre of very approximate shells or membranes of galaxies. All these three mainstream authors describe this result as unsatisfactory. Faraoni explains that this is becasue of violation of the cosmological principle - we shouldn't be special.

4. Numerous alternatives are being worked on that go beyond the Hubble interpretation but there is no agreement on non-Hubble alternatives which requirenew physics for example..

5. So it is clear that the current way we map galaxies tells us that we, and we alone, are surrounded by very approximate shells of galaxies centred on us. Mainstream Faraoni (1996), Stephenson (1977) and Varshni (1976) independently state this in black and white in peer-reviewed literature.

(The refs indicated are quoted throughout this thread).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ThePresidnt69, posted 08-28-2002 12:04 AM ThePresidnt69 has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 170 (16145)
08-28-2002 1:01 AM


The Hubble interpretation of redshifts unambiguously declare Milky Way centrism:

Faraoni 1996

"A difficulty of these models is the implication that galaxies be approximately distributed on shells, of which we happen to be at the center, in conflict with the cosmological principle."

Stephenson 1977

"the Earth would have to be in a strongly privleged positon in the Universe"

Varshni 1976

"[quasars would be] arranged on 57 spherical shells with Earth as the centre"

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]


  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 170 (16152)
08-28-2002 1:39 AM


Varshni 1976 is on the web

http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1976b/

and is incredibly clear:

quote:

From this discussion it is obvious that if two or more quasars have the same value of z, they are at the same distance (though in different directions) from the Earth. In other words, assuming the cosmological red-shift hypothesis, the quasars in the 57 groups in Table I are arranged on 57 spherical shells with Earth as the center. This is certainly an extraordinary result. Some of the possibilities that we shall consider to accommodate this result may be disturbing, but we must consider these possibilities dispassionately.

1. Coincidence in distances could be possible if there were clustering. However, an examination of the coordinates of the various members of individual groups shows that in most cases there is no such correlation. Hence, this explanation has to be ruled out.
2. Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned.
3. The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.

We must also consider the two other possibilities which have been discussed in the literature to explain the apparent red shifts of quasars. The difficulties in assuming that the red shifts are gravitational are well known and we need not repeat them here; in addition there is no reason why there should be coincidences in the M/r values (z is essentially a function of M/r for the gravitational red shift). The local-Doppler interpretation of red shifts also has serious difficulties; in addition it will have to explain why the quasars were ejected in shells.

We are essentially left with only one possibility - No.3 in the cosmological red-shift interpretation. However, before we accept such an unaesthetic possibility, we must raise the question : Are the `red shifts' real ? We wish to point out that we have proposed an alternative explanation of the spectra of quasars (Varshni, 1973, 1974, 1975; Menzel, 1970; Varshni and Lam, 1974) which is based on sound physical principles, does not require any red shifts, and has no basic difficulty.


Clearly the cosmological (Hubble) interpretation leaves only one possibility. Varshini's non-Hubble interpretation of redshifts is not used by cosmologists who instead use the Hubble interpretation of redshifts as we all know.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]


Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 7:03 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 2143 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 118 of 170 (16189)
08-28-2002 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 1:39 AM


As I suspected, Humphreys claim is not all it's cracked up to be. I asked an astrophysicist friend to comment:
quote:
The first thing I note is that Humphreys presents quantized redshifts
in his paper as if they were a "done deal", not a single paper critical
of the idea is cited in Humphreys' references, or mentioned in the text.
Any uninformed reader of Humphreys paper could easily come to the
conclusion that the astronomical community was 'on board" here, and
that quantized redshifts were now generally accepted. This severly
one-sided presentation, not even acknowledging that the majority of
astronomers disagree with the premise, would have prevented this paper
from being published in anything but a creationist "journal".

Observational research in astronomy is very susceptible to selection
effects, and small number statistics, more so than most other branches
of experimental science. The database of 250 galaxies used in the
Napier & Guthrie paper cited by Humphreys is miniscule compared to
the many millions of galaxies we know exist. It just doesn't convince
anyone when they see a result based on a sample of about 0.00001% of
the total population of objects. Also note that Burbidge & Napier
examine a small set of less than 100 quasars which are selected to
meet a small list of prior conditions.

So, first selection effects. By studying a small population of objects
that are pre-selected to meet prior conditions, the analysts run the
risk of actively creating the condition (periodicity or quantization)
that they are looking for. That certainly seems to be the case here:

"Periodicity versus selection effects in the redshift distribution
of QSOs"
D. Basu
Astronomische Nachrichten 322(4): 229-231, 2001

Abstract:
"Periodicities and selection effects in the redshift (z) distribution
of QSOs have been debated for a long time in the literature. Here we
show that peaks and troughs in the redshift distribution of three new
samples, claimed to demonstrate the existence of a periodicity, can
be interpreted in terms of known selection effects. This analysis
confirms earlier findings that the presence of such selection effects
seriously weakens any suggestion for periodicity of the form Delta
ln(1 + z) = constant."

Also, an analysis of larger samples of galaxy-quasar pairs, not subject
to prior condion selection, fails to reproduce periodicities claimed for
smaller samples of objects:

"No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield (University of Nottingham)
MNRAS accepted
http://cul.arXiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117

Abstract:
"We have used the publicly available data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift
Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that
there is a periodicity in the redshift distribution of quasi-stellar
objects (QSOs) found projected close to foreground galaxies. These
data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a
study, yielding 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for
a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any
other frequency."

So, at this point we note that Humphreys' argument relies on the reality
of the claimed periodicities. But examination indicates a very real
probability that the claimed periodicities in redshift do not exist,
rendering Humphreys' argument moot.

But there is another weakness, illustrated by figures 7 and 8 in
Humphreys' paper, namely the implicit assumption that the periodicity
is the same in all directions. While Tifft argues that the periodicity
is "global", he does not argue that it is so in the directional sense
(in fact, Tifft's own data show that it is not). Rather, Tifft argues
that different classes of galaxies exhibit different periodicities
("Global redshift periodicities and variability", W.G. Tifft, Astrophysical
Journal 485(2): 465-483, Part 1, August 20 1997).

This means that, even though Humphreys builds his galactocentric model
on the claim of periodic redshifts promulgated by Tifft, Humphreys'
model is nevertheless inconsistent with Tifft's own data and published
observations.

I think that further studies of large databases, such as that offered
by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, will show convincingly that the
periodicities are in fact not real.


Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 1:39 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 7:57 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 170 (16190)
08-28-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Joe Meert
08-28-2002 7:03 PM


^ There is debate about quasars but this doesn't apply to galaxies.

Could your friend also be a little 'selective' I wonder?

The only bias in data selection that could have helped Tifft et al is that they selected them on the basis that they gave quantized results. Nobody is accusing Tifft et al of fraud.

I suspect that Napier et al only used the subset of data with very accuate redshifts. I like that kind of selectivity. The quantization is very fine. They got quantization with very high statistical significance for their subset of galaxies. The statistical significance is the key to this.

Only someone with an agenda would 'hope' that this result will 'go away' after analysis of more data.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 7:03 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 9:38 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 2143 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 120 of 170 (16194)
08-28-2002 9:38 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 7:57 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ There is debate about quasars but this doesn't apply to galaxies.

Could your friend also be a little 'selective' I wonder?

The only bias in data selection that could have helped Tifft et al is that they selected them on the basis that they gave quantized results. Nobody is accusing Tifft et al of fraud.

I suspect that Napier et al only used the subset of data with very accuate redshifts. I like that kind of selectivity. The quantization is very fine. They got quantization with very high statistical significance for their subset of galaxies. The statistical significance is the key to this.

Only someone with an agenda would 'hope' that this result will 'go away' after analysis of more data.

[/QUOTE]

JM: I doubt it. This is in his arena of expertise, so I respect his opinion on the matter. As usual, creationist's eschew arguing in the scientific literature in favor of preaching to the masses by leaving out critical information. Effective, but very poor science.

Cheers

Joe Meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 7:57 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 10:34 PM Joe Meert has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 170 (16195)
08-28-2002 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Joe Meert
08-28-2002 9:38 PM


^ Nevertheless, he comments only on quasars for which there might be good reason to expect non-cosmological contributions to spectral shifts that could swamp out the quantization.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 9:38 PM Joe Meert has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Joe Meert, posted 08-29-2002 6:56 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 124 by axial soliton, posted 08-30-2002 2:04 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2014 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2014