Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe

quote:

---

Let him get a little excited. I still agree with him about extreme atheistic bias in the suppresion of this discovery. My hands would have been shaking so hard I couldn't have typed - especially if I'd been Tifft.

---

Probably shaking as hard as Gentry's when he found instantaneous polonium halos in granite dikes.. not realizing of course that a granite dike could not be a primeval rock.The problem with your getting all of your information from Creationist popular magazines, TB, is that they are not accurate. Their agenda is to push a particular wold view at the expense of any even handed relating of actual science or evidence. And this is precisely what has occured in this instance.What Tifft found was not "shells" around the universe, but the now widely known large scale structure of the universe as mapped by many redshift surveys since Tifft.This structure is not a set of concentric shells around the milky way at all, but shows a pattern of cosmic bubbles, filaments, and voids in which the milky way and its local supergroup are embedded.. no different from any other galaxy. There are no shells at all.Sadly, this is a common story for a creationist mis-reporting of science. They read an article from the 1970's about an anomaly in the distribution of galaxies (previously thought to be homogenous), latch on to a few early ideas such as the "quantization of redshift" proposed to explain the anomalous data at the time, then ignore the actual unfolding of the mystery since then.The real story is actually pretty exciting. From that early survey of galaxies which showed gaps in the distribution of galaxies, we now know that the universe is not uniform on the order of magnitude of 100ML or lower (though *these* larger structures are homogeneous as far as we can see). Modern redshift surveys, and deepfield long range redshift surveys show this filament/void pattern extending as far as we can see... and these patterns of filaments and voids (or bubbles) are not anything like the 'shells' proposed by creationists.Enough with the blather.. here are links to a variety of web sites devoted to the subject, with graphs of many later redshift surveys. You can judge for yourself whether there are 'concentric shells' or not (Hint.. you won't find any).My advice to creationists it simply to not read creationist journals. They typically are full of lies and half truths that exploit your lack of knowledge about a subject to promote their agenda. And if you do accidentally find yourself reading one of these magazines, please take the time to do a quick search with Google or PubMed to actually dig up the truth.Scientific american 1999 "Mapping the Universe"http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001AA37-92BA-...Skyserver page on cosmic structures (graph of redshift survey)..
http://skyserver.fnal.gov/en/astro/structures/structures.aspGraph from LEDA survey showing the great wall.. note the lack of concentric shells..
http://www.rm.astro.it/amendola/lss.htmlThe swift wide field survey.. computer rendering of present distributions of galaxies.. good picture of what the cosmic distribution of galaxies kind of looks like.
http://www.noao.edu/swift/proposal/node5.htmlMore redshift survey plots (from a paper on statistical analysis of redshift plots).. You can see the structures of filaments and voids here as well.http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Bothun2/Bothun3_2.html
http://www.tac.dk/~lars_c/thesis/node27.htmlAnother good graph of redshift distribution locally.. this shows the structure of filaments and gaps pretty well.
http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/1.html#Fig2So.. TB.. having been show AGAIN that what creationists say in their journals does not accurately reflect the state of actual science in the real world.. how can you defend the continuous stream of misinformation that they put out?I am actually really interested to know how creationists rationalize away the continuous misinformation they seem to run through year after year, and then expect that the next "AHA.. GOTCHA!" argument they read in a creationist journal won't turn out like the last dozen.

oops.. forgot this one. This one is quite nice, showing a very large field of view. Again, no rings or shells here.
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/.../lect/gclusters/redsurvey.htmlEnjoy.

blitz resorts to posting psuedo-science to try to save the quantized redshift idea. A few cranks and holdouts for Hoyles steady state universe can not change the actual data observed to date.Sorry blits. The the redshift surveys are there for you to peruse at your liesure. They show no cosmic shells, and no evidence of quantized redhifts, but large filaments and voids indicating the complex macro-structure of the universe.If you feel that the data obtained from these surveys are part of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are certainly welcome to ignore them.[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-25-2002]

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.

blitz,This picture appears to me to show no concentric shells, and the galaxies displayed seem to match the general large scale structure of the universe as seen in other directions.I think you are seeing patterns which are not there. Sort of like people who see a face in that mountain on mars.