Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,352 Year: 3,609/9,624 Month: 480/974 Week: 93/276 Day: 21/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quantized Red-shifts and implications
Hangdawg13
Member (Idle past 770 days)
Posts: 1189
From: Texas
Joined: 05-30-2004


Message 16 of 17 (124314)
07-13-2004 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Eta_Carinae
07-13-2004 7:54 PM


Re: **Bump**
Where has the quantised redshift nut gone?
I'm still here hoping anyone will provide any new information or insight.
All you've said so far is that the idea is lunacy because the latest paper citing evidence of a quanitzation in redshift was not published.
You have presented no evidence to actually refute the idea that quantized red-shifts are a hoax or non-existant.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-13-2004 7:54 PM Eta_Carinae has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Eta_Carinae, posted 07-13-2004 11:02 PM Hangdawg13 has not replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4393 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


(1)
Message 17 of 17 (124321)
07-13-2004 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Hangdawg13
07-13-2004 10:38 PM


No it is up to you.
I provided information that all the Bell/Comeau papers have not been accepted. They FAILED the refereeing process.
i.e. it is not a recognised result. This is not evidence.
Here is something to do for yourself.
Go to NASA ADS abstract service and search the Tifft papers. Look at the papers that cite them.
In these papers are the ones that refute Tifft's findings.
I'm not your researcher. Do it yourself and present upon here some evidence more recent than the early 1990's.
This you have not done! What you did provide was something you thought sounded good to your preconceived mindset on this issue WITHOUT taking the time to research the topic properly.
You should within 5 minutes have learned that the papers have not been accepted for a peer reviewed journal they were submitted to and that the people in question are not workers in this field and that they used someone elses data and did not pursue a research of their own.
Another thing is that you researched this topic to the extent that you were unfamiliar with the analyses that have been performed. Otherwise you would have known that the fact that it is the fainter galaxy in a pair that shows this effect etc.
Next time, come to the table with more than this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Hangdawg13, posted 07-13-2004 10:38 PM Hangdawg13 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