|
Author
|
Topic: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The discovery of shells of galaxies around the Milky Way equates with the discoveries of Gallileo and Hubble. If ever the stupidity that is automatic naturalism was evident it is here. Mainstream Rifft has missed out on a Nobel prize only becasue of entreched naturalism.
TB, Truly quite interesting these shells. Post some links to info if you will. I've been researching it myself as well. The effect is strangely like quantum effects on small scales, a view suggested by Tifft et al actually. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
The quantization of course does have a QM feel to it although the mechanism would almost undoubtedly be a classical shock wave type mechanism of course.
I'm not sure about this TB. Eventually quantum mechanics must collide with large scale observations, though what this will look like is questionable. Specifically what I was thinking of is the quantization of energy in the electron shells of atoms, and wondering if inflation or expansion of the universe could do similar to light. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
John Interesting work on macroscopic quantum effects crop up here and there but I'm sure most astrophysicists would disagree with you.
Oh I'm not arguing, TB. Just speculating wildly-- for fun, as it were. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It is clear from Stewart's site that the redshifts of the 'pairs of galaxies' he talks about are still measured from our line of sight! Whose line of sight do you think Stewart is referring to in...
TB, What seems to be happening is that the redshifts of two galaxies are being compared to one another. The redshifts measured and the differences analyzed. This is not the same as simply measuring the redshift.
quote:
Stewart is simply not stating the obvious supposedly becasue we should know it but in actual fact because he wishes to hide the obvious.
Ah... yes.... the CONSPIRACY..... I don't see any effort being made to hide the obvious, in this or any of the articles I've read since this topic caught my attention. What I do see is a lot of astronomers being very cautious, which is understandable.
quote:
All he has done in that extract is state the quantization problem as found for pairs of galxies along our line of sight. It is as plain as day. The 'viewing angles' of his pairs are from our vantage point!
If you were standing on shore and saw two ships at sea, could you not, by measuring thier motions, calculate thier motions relative to each other? The 'viewing angle' is on shore where you stand, but the math can change the perspective. And does this prove that you are the center of the ship's orbit?
quote:
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but it sounds like you are setting up a smoke screen Percy.
Percy is stating what has so far been determined, without jumping to conclusions about the cause of the effect. Hardly a smoke screen.
quote:
And it has been utterly suppressed becasue of atheistic bias.
It is actually amusing to see athiestic bias irritate you, as I cannot seem to escape religious bias. But it isn't athiestic bias, it is 'not jumping to conclusions' These findings are striking and may force a remodel of most of astronomy and cosmology, hence researchers are cautious. No one knows quite what to do with the info. I have seen half a dozen possible explainations, but no clean theories. You seem willing to jump to the idea of creation, but that is premature. Not to mention, it doesn't explain anything in any useful way. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]John Yes reshifts are being compared - redshifts measured from here!
[/QUOTE] [/b] Yes, TB, I know that.(!) Where these observations were collected is not being debated. What was done with the data, is. If you take the redshifts of two galaxies and subtract one from the other (or otherwise manipulate the data), the number you get is not the same number you'd have if it were a strict from-earth comparison. Get it? Not the same. Two different things. Yes? What exactly has been done is what I am trying to figure out. And it isn't necessarily what you think.
quote:
Why discount peer reviewed Varshni and Stephenson who are clear on the matter and seek cryptic interpretations of web sites that aren't as clear?
Have you any idea what web-site or article I have been reading? I don't think I specified.
quote:
If the redshift really is a distance indicator the centrism interpretation is the only answer.
That's a big if... ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It is not as if subtracting the two redshifts (z's) removes the connection to our vantage point.
Maybe not, but a lot of compensation can be done mathematically. I am still trying to get a grip on the effect.
quote:
You call it a big 'if' but since Hubble the redshifts have been seen as distance measures.
Yeah, this is why these results are so disturbing; and so interesting. It could cause some big changes. Actually, I've always had a bit of a problem with redshifts as distance measure. Something just doesn't seem right about it. Don't know why. It isn't a rational thing. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]I think you'll find I am correct about the effect of subtracting redshifts and dependence on aour vantage point. The key is the lack of info on perpendicular velocity.[/QUOTE] [/b] I'm looking into it some more.
quote:
I kind of agree with you about the distance/velocity thing. As I'm sure you know, redshifts are actually a velocity thing by basic wave physics (Doppler effect). It was the expanding spacetime that made it a distance thing. Whatever the case the data either suggests ripples in distance or velocity (or a bit of both) centred on the Milky Way.
Cosmic stretch marks....
quote:
Some others here may have a better handle on exactly what assumptions Hubble/Big Bang et al/etc use to get the distance/velocity to be so closely linked. Presumably it is suggested empirically.
Yeah, I know. I can probably explain it better than 95% of non-specialists, but something just doesn't feel right. I've had ideas haunt me for years before realizing why.
quote:
I don't doubt the expnding universe but the quantization raises the spectre of whether the Anthropic principle is necessary.
huh? Sorry, I'm not following this part. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 32 of 170 (14018)
07-23-2002 5:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 31 by frank
07-23-2002 4:51 PM
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by frank:
Cosmic stretch marks.... Interesting remark. I am also trying to research this topic a little more, and found a site using the same term:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html Clear Skies ! Frank
I think, though I am not sure, that I got the term from that site. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 31 by frank, posted 07-23-2002 4:51 PM | | frank has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]The Anthropic prinsiple is the principle that says becasue we aren't special that the universe should look the same from any vantage point.[/QUOTE] [/b] This is not the Anthropic Principle I know and love-- ok, not love. As I understand it, the principle is an admission of the possibility that we may exist in a bit of a prefered place/time in the cosmos.
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/209/mar31/anthropic.html Its an answer to the question of why the universe supports life like our own. Why? Because if it didn't support life like our own we wouldn't be here to ask the question. Instead there would be silicon/ammonia broccoloids asking the question "why does the universe support life like our own." In other words, we just kind-of assume that the universe was designed for us, but it was the other way around. We managed to fit into the universe. We got lucky.
quote:
If we really are at the center of such a large volume it is tantamount to proof of God's existence. That is why it is avoided like the plaugue.
No, Tb. It really isn't tantamount to proving God's existence; but it does screw with a lot of cosmology, hence the resistence you encounter. Think about it, assume that we exist in a universe which does have a defineable center. This is problematic for much of cosmology. But SOMEWHERE has to be the center. We just happen to be it. It doesn't prove the existence of God. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]That is what I am saying - the Athropic Principle tries to tell us there is nothing 'mysterious' about the fact that it is special.[/QUOTE] [/b] Yeah, I guess that's fair enough.
quote:
The quantization data suggests there might be something mysterious - we are at the centre of a huge region of the universe for no good known reason.
But mysteries have a way of becoming less mysterious as time passes. I agree that it is curious problem, but I am content to wait for more results.
quote:
I guess I really meant a more general (perhaps nameless?) principle that suggests we seek laws that don't require specialness.
Modesty I guess. But laws that don't require specialness are also broader, in a sense.
quote:
If you can accept us being at the centre of a large part of the universe without thinking of the possibility of God - well - I think you are kidding yourself - but, each to his own.
I can think of a soul without thinking of God. I can think existence without thinking of matter. I can think of water without thinking of hydrogen and oxygen. Its just a matter of habit that these things are associated. In my less than humble opinion.... ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It would be fascinating to see QM effects this large but as an ex-QM (quantum electrodynamics actually) researcher I doubt it.
http://www.science.psu.edu/journal/Fall_95/res95.htm At least one infant theory of quantum gravity predicts something like the redshift patterns. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
I agree that via some new physics redshifts may not be a direct result of velocity/distance - fully agree. But that does not cahnge the fact that, without new physics the data calls for Milky Way centrism. That is my point the new physics is sought becasue normal physics calls for genuine centrism.
Ever occur to you that 'normal' physics might just be wrong? It has happened before. And this area is at the limits of human knowledge. There are in fact several areas where we know there has got to be a revision of physics. Quantum gravity is one such area. A link I posted several messages up approaches the problem from that perspective and does a decent, though tentative, job of it. An explaination is being sought because we don't have one at the moment. Nothing really seems amiss about that. On the one hand you are insisting on 'normal' physics as if it were something sacred. On the other hand you are proposing Milky Way centrism-- really Geocentrism since all of the data is from our vantage point on Earth. This Geocentrism screws with all that 'normal' physics knows about gravitational interaction. See the problem? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]The thories I've read about so far are incredibly contrived. It's not as if it falls out of GR or QM.[/quote] [/b] Did you read the article I linked to? The suggestion may turn out to be wrong but it does not qualify as contrived. What is it you consider 'contrived' anyway? The initial getting-a-grip stage is going to be pretty weird.
quote:
There is absolutely no normal physics against Milky Way centrism.
The enormous mass of the universe rotating around a ridiculously less massive object-- the milky way-- does a great deal of damage to gravitational mechanics.
quote:
It is not geocentrism per se. Humphreys has calculated that the effect is similar from anywhere in the Milky Way but washes out when one goes more than about 1.6 million ly away. We're not saying that the universe revolves around our planet!! But the data suggests the univere expanded from the location of the Milky Way.-
Interesting that Humphreys can calculate the effect as it would be 1.6 million miles away, but other scientists are limited to OUR VANTAGE POINT. 1.6 million miles from what, by the way? The center of the Milky Way, the edge of the arms, what? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It is well known that quantum gravity predicts the discreetness of space - in jumps of 10^-33 cm! I'm sure you are aware that is smaller than the electron. It has absolutely nothing to do with quantized redshifts and no-one is even trying to say it does.
I did mention quantum gravity and then went on without clarification. My mistake. I didn't mean Quantum gravity to be causative of this effect. Again, my mistake. What I should have said is quantum mechanics, specifically the effects of quantum fluctuation-- zero point energy, on light as it has made its way to us. The article I cited maintains that these fluctuations would cause the appearance of a quantized redshift. Interesting article really. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Where in that article does it suggest that? I can't find it in there.
Not the article I thought.... I'll have to find the right one and post it.  ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
™ Version 4.2