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

Mainstream William Tifft in the 1970s discovered a 'quantization' or step length in the measured redshifts of galaxies - a delta z (red shift) of about 0.024% (72 km/s or 3.1 million lightyears) that has been confirmed time and time again including a 1997 study of 250 galaxies where they refer to these as 'galocentirc periodicities' becasue the effect only ocurs if you use our galactic reference frame*. This effect is very disturbing for mainstream cosmologists becasue of course they do not expect us at the centre of the universe because (i) the Big Bang has no centre and (ii) why should we be there if there is one? The 1997 study was not able to put down the result to some statistical anomoly:

quote:

---

'. . . the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactic frame of reference.' WM Napier & BNG Guthrie J Astophys Astron 18, 455 (1997))

---

The only sensible interpretation of these reuslts is that the Milky Way is at the centre of the universe (within 1.6 million ly actually as shown recently by Russel Humphreys*). The galaxies occur in spherical shells around us presumably generated by shock waves during the expansion (for us probably of Humphrey's white hole).It is incredibly good support for Humphrey's model which simply becasue it has a centre (unlike the mainstream Big Bang) has vast gravitationally generated time dialation during the early expansion phase. The time dialation (that makes million of years go past while only days or years at the centre) is an inescapable feature of a bounded universe via Einstein's general relativity. If it has a centre then the long range gravitaiton can't cancel out to zero so we have time dialation.Regardless of Humphrey's model or not there is incredibly clear evidence that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe and this data is not more well known only because this is the only sensible interpretation.Based on the size of the known universe Humphreys cleary shows that we are within 1.6 million light years of the centre and that there is only a one in 10^13 chance of this occurring by accident. Maybe the universe was created for us.* This is a summary of an article by Russell Humphries in the current issue of CEN TJ (V16, Issue 2, 2002).

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-16-2002]

As the mainstream articles bear out unambiguously, the quantization effect only occurs for our reference frame. If you pick any other reference frame (more than 1.6 million light years from us), transfornm the red shfts to that ref frame and then look for quantization it is not there. The mainstream articles call it a 'galactocentric' effect as a way of identifying the problem. We for extremely good scientific reasons see that it is not just a galactocentric mystery but it suggests (Milky Way) galactocentricity of the universe!The effect naturally emerges if galaxies are very approximatley distibuted in shells around the Milky Way. The distance is then quantal from the Milky Way and so will the corresponding red shifts. Of course for you guys it remains a mystery to be exaplined - it has to be a statistical anomoly but this explanation does not work so far. There is no systematic error or random error that can geenrate the quantization. It is not a mystery to us and the data unambiguously suggests our POV. No-one in their right mind mainstream would even come close to saying it of course.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-16-2002]

Not really - it all centres on our galaxy! The quantization indicates that galaxies are in approximate shells around us.Mainstream YP Varshni (Astrophys Space Sci 43, 3 (1976)) points out that if the quantization data is correct this suggests that the 384 quasars he studied are (quote) 'arranged on 57 spherical shells with Earth as the centre' (unquote). He of course goes on to discount the quantization but we now know (via the 1997 study) that quantization is real.The data unequivically demonstrates that we are at the centre of the universe (at least out to a billion light years anyway). Humphreys' bounded model and thus time dialation becomes the near-automatic model for the cosmology of the universe.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-17-2002]

This is not a trivial finding.If it were not for the obvious existence of God implications there would be parades in the street and Nobel prizes all around.

After 25 years the result has not turned out to be a statistical anomoly and the obvious, and only sensible, interpretaiton is that we are at the centre of the well-known universe.This is undeniable evidence of entreched automatic naturalism and aethism. It is silly, sad and unjust. That's life.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.I will continue to learn how the universe really works from the pages of creationist journals and their reinterpretations of mainsteream data.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-17-2002]

JohnI am only re-quoting Humphrey's citations of mainstream researchers. I have his article in my hands and this issue is not yet on the web site (and not all articles end up on the web of course). CEN TJ is one of my favourite reads every quarter: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/TJ_issue_index.aspThe 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. Humphrey's proposes that due to the quantization it is likely to be an intererence effect. In his model the interference (setting up spherical standing waves) would be due to reflected waves from the boundary of the universe during expansion.The quantization in QM is of course due to interference of probability waves.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-17-2002]

PercyYou read my Varshni quote from above - no comment? I understand that you can't accept our POV but you should at least admit it is the obvious interpretation especially after Varshni. And you must be wrong about I and Humphrey's misinterpreting the data precisely becasue of Varshni. It is clearly you that have misunderstood it. The galactocentric aspect - is centric to our galaxy. That is not our add on - that is the mainstream mystery! Of course it can be reformualted as a 'explain the statistical anomoly' or 'let's look for alternative within galaxy reasons' but that does not remove the ultimate atheistic point of disturbance.From before: Mainstream YP Varshni (Astrophys Space Sci 43, 3 (1976)) points out that if the quantization data is correct this suggests that the 384 quasars he studied are (quote) 'arranged on 57 spherical shells with Earth as the centre' (unquote). He of course goes on to discount the quantization but we now know (via the 1997 study) that quantization is real.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-18-2002]

JohnInteresting work on macroscopic quantum effects crop up here and there but I'm sure most astrophysicists would disagree with you. The non-random arrangement of planet orbits in our solar system similarly is explained via shock wave and 'turbulance' effects. Alternatively stability issues can be the explanation ala Kaufmann et al.It would be fascinating to see QM effects this large but as an ex-QM (quantum electrodynamics actually) researcher I doubt it.Maybe it was gravity waves? Or just waves in the exploding debris? Classical interference effects must be at the top level of possibilities based on precendece in nature of this sort of thing.Fundamentally the quantization in QM (energy levels) and classical mechanics (haromincs on a string) are exactly the same pehnomenon. There is no reason to jump to QM to answer a quantization issue. Classical physics can do it just fine and has for years.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-18-2002]

FrankMy quote of maistream Varshni makes it clear that the obvious interpretation of he data is shells of structure centred on the Milky Way. It does not surprise me one bit that Tifft didn't particularly want to point this out.I stand by my statement of evidence of unprecedented aetheistic bias.I did link to CEN TJ above - but the issue, let alone the article, is not there yet. I subscribe to TJ - it is a creationist technical journal (as opposed to the layman sister magazine).The interpretation of redshifts as distance indiators is the current mainstream interpretation as we all know. Of course this finding makes mainstream scientists wonder if this is perfectly true but given the overwhelming evidence that redshifts are accurate distance indicators mainstream Varshni was able to make his statemenet about shperical shells.Yes - I agree that we cannot ascertain that the Milky Way is the centre of the entire universe - but the data suggests it is the centre of a significant part of the universe (1 billion light year radius). I personally would find it hard to stomach such an effect being maintained all the way out - waves disipate and broaden (smear out) in every medium I have ever studied.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-18-2002]

I quoted Humphrey's direct quotes of Varshni so I fail to see how that would be different from my typing it in from the actual ref (assuming Humphrey's isn't a liar)? Varshni is 1976. He has a 1977 rebuttal as well.Yes I agree that quantization will be apparent from other vantage points - but not in all directions as it is here in the Milky Way.An article trying to rebutt quantization also states that it would mean that [quote] 'the Earth would have to be in a strongly privleged positon in the Universe' (Stephenson CB Astro Space Sci 51, 117 (1977).I will trust Varshni and Stephenson's unambiguous mainstream peer reviewed statements about the Milky Way centric consequences of quantization.You argue against black and white unambiguous statements by mainstream researchers. Maintstream peer reviewed comment states in plain English that Milky Way centrism is the (not very nice) consequnce.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-21-2002]

FrankI got the feeling that Tifft didn't spell out what the immediate obvious interpretaion was from, eg, Percipient (I think). If you think Tifft clearly spelled out genuine Milky Way centrism as the obvious non-anomolous interpretaiton then I have no problem with that.Everyone is searching for mechanisms that will remove the Milky Way centrism becasue that would 'put Earth in a privleged position'.Are you serious that you don't see why mainstream science would find this distasteful?Are you serious that you can't see atheism or at least naturalism as a reason for this?

PercyIt 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

quote:

---

Therefore, any difference in redshift between the galaxies in a pair should merely reflect the difference in their orbital velocities along the same line of sight. If we observe many pairs covering a wide range of viewing angles and orbital geometries, the expected distribution of redshift differences should be a smooth curve.

---

It is our line of sight!! Who elses? The wide range of viewing angles? From where? Andromeda? Has Stewart discovered inter-galactic propulsion? He is not saying that you get quantization of pairs of galxies from another vantage point! There is no other vantage point he is talking about. It is our vantage point, with, yes, arbitrary pairs of galaxies - but these 'arbitrary' pairs are along a particular line of sight - ours.Varshni and Stephenson were correct. Stewart is simply not stating the obvious supposedly becasue we should know it but in actual fact because he wishes to hide the obvious. 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!I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but it sounds like you are setting up a smoke screen Percy. This discovery is one of the most exciting in science of my entire life! The human genome is kid's stuff in comparison. And it has been utterly suppressed becasue of atheistic bias.The suppression occurs not though a conspiracy but only becasue to suggest the obvious answer just about puts one in the looney bin in today's atheistically biased scientific world.Well not me. The data unambiguously sugests that we are at the centre of a huge part of the universe and there should be dancing in the street, Nobel prizes and world-wide seminars and lecture tours.Thank God for Varshni and Stephenson for at least having the courage to mention the obvious interpretation.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-22-2002]

FrankRegardless of preliminariness of data, when the obvious interpretation of data is so profound one should do two things (i) mention the interpretation (!) and (ii) go do more work. Tifft did (ii), I have no idea if he did (i).Unless I'm mistaken Stewart is a creationist who is going out of his way to pretend that the data doesn't suggest genuine Mlky Way centrism. PLease don't sue me for this anyone - it is simply an impression I have gained!You suggest I am jumping to conclusions. But both Stephenson and Varshni express the Milky Way interprettion as somehting not just unexpected but 'unaesthetic'. Varshni refers to the explanaiton as the (quote) 'unaesthetic possibility' (unquote). You can decide why it is 'unaesthetic' (ie doesn't feel nice) but we all know about the principle that states we shouldn't expect to be in a special place (Anthropic principle?).Are you aware of the Anthropic principle? It is an extremely sensible principle if there is no God.You don't have to accept my explanation although I think it is dead obvious. In a natural world we shouldn't be at the centre of even a one billion light year section of the universe.The alternatives to genuine Milky Way centrism involve all sort of new physics/effects that have gone nowhere. The obvious interpretation is Milky Way centrism (as stated by mainstream Varshnui and Stephenson independently). This is an atheistic (or forced natrualism in other words) extreme violation of Ocaam's razor. The simple explanaiton is that we are surounded by approximate shells of galxies out to 1 billion lilght years in all directions.It would easily be a Nobel prize for Tifft if not for entrenched forced natrualism. It was arguably the most exciting discovery of the 20th century.You don't have to agree with me - feel free to disagree.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-22-2002]

JohnYes reshifts are being compared - redshifts measured from here!I already explained why it is not a conspiracy in the normal sense. It is more analogous to peer group pressure.It is clear from Stewart himself that one can only say something about the velocity tangential to the line of sight - the line of sight from here! Your ship example does not work. Unless I am mistaken we cannot say anything from redshifts about the velocities in directions perpendicular to our line of sight.You are all misundersanding the mainstream guys. 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?Anyway, from Stewart it is clear that the pairs of galxies are in the same line of sight from our vantage point. That is how they become a pair.I don't know if Percy is setting up a smoke screen or not but I am telling you all that what he is reading into mainstream and Stewart's writing is actually not what they are saying. They would all agree that the data itself talks of Milky Way centrism or else some new physics of redshifts/galaxies. If the redshift really is a distance indicator the centrism interpretation is the only answer.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-22-2002]

JohnI knew you knew that!I understand your point that the delta z is differnet to z - it is still a delta z measured from here. The z only measures tangential effects so the delta z will reflect something that is related to our vantage point and line of site to those two galaxies.It is not as if subtracting the two redshifts (z's) removes the connection to our vantage point. Remember those two galaxies (in Stewart's web page) become pairs because they are in the same line of sight from us. [I've been talking about the Stewart web site Percy linked to - and it seemed to me that you have been using the language from that site.].You call it a big 'if' but since Hubble the redshifts have been seen as distance measures. It was one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century agreed upon by everybody.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-22-2002]