Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 83 of 170 (15322)
08-12-2002 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Tranquility Base
08-12-2002 9:19 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ I think I plugged a printer powerpack into my scanner.
JM: Good, one less wacko creationist scanning propaganda!
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-12-2002 9:19 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 90 of 170 (15476)
08-15-2002 7:21 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Tranquility Base
08-14-2002 10:14 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Frank - it wouldn't have been my style. But fundamentally we believe that - at the conscience level - people went the evolutionary route becasue they preferred reason to obedience. Although the reasoning sounds so good, obedience is the one that actually gets you to the truth in our opinions.
I am as sure that I am not just a walking brain as I am that DNA codes for proteins and yet I can't prove the former to you. [/QUOTE]
JM: Actually, the message of creationists is to accept 'truth' as defined by a small sect of christianity. You assume that one cannot be a christian and also accept that science got it right. Many christians behold evolution on an old earth being in perfect harmony with an all powerful god and fully consistent with the scriptures because the scriptures are not a scientific treatise. What you are arguing is that you have the singular handle on 'christian truth'. That's a rather pompous and self-serving statement and is inconsistent with the beliefs of many other Christians.
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-14-2002 10:14 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by halcyonwaters, posted 08-15-2002 7:22 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 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 replied

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

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 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 replied

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

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5680 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 122 of 170 (16225)
08-29-2002 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 10:34 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ 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. [/QUOTE]
JM: Not true, he also discusses galaxies and the fact that Humphreys conclusions don't jibe with the data he claims supports him.
Cheers
Joe meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 10:34 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:22 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024