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]

Redshift quantization where the relative retreating velocity of any pair of galaxies tends to clump around multiples of 70 km/s is a well-known cosmological mystery, but how does it follow that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe?--Percy

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]

You may be misunderstanding the mainstream findings. The quantization effect is apparent for any pair of galaxies, not just galaxies paired with the Milky Way.--Percy

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]

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

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]

TB writes:

---

I am only re-quoting Humphrey's citations of mainstream researchers.

---

As I said earlier, you may not quite have the right story about the mainstream findings. The quantization effect is apparent for any pair of galaxies, not just galaxies paired with the Milky Way.--Percy

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

Maybe I can help out a little here.William Tifft did notice unexpected relationships among a galaxy's Hubble type, brightness and redshift. His findings were not warmly received by the cosmological community but subsequent follow up in both visual and radio spectrums confirm his findings. The observations were made from so many different sites, using many different telescopes and covered so many objects that the chance of error is virtually nil. In short, the data must be accepted. TB is correct that mainstream cosmologists found the data disturbing, but not for the reasons TB cites. The basic problem was that the data suggested that some fundamental assumptions of cosmology were wrong.If you consider a cosmological model that assumes a (more or less) even distribution of galaxies in the universe and we can use redshift as an indication of distance, then it is reasonable to expect that the measured redshifts of galaxies would also have a nice smooth even distribution. The data does not support this. What the data indicated was the redshifts "clumped" around "preferred" (quantized) values and these values seemed to be multiples of 72 km/second.So questions arise. Is the redshift Doppler effect related ? Is redshift partially Doppler effect related ? Can any or all of redshift be explained by some inherent quality of the galaxy itself ?I must say that I have found nothing in Tifft's work that addresses the topics of the center of the universe or time dialation. In addition, I find a statement to the effect that the only sensible interpretation of these results is that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe to be wrong. Tifft has concieved of several ways to explain quantization. Of course this logic depends on Tifft being "sensible". But if TB uses Tifft's work to promote his argument, is it not fair to conclude TB considers Tifft to be "sensible" ?You may find the following article interesting :"Quantized Galaxy Redshifts" by William G. Tifft and W. John Cocke, University of Arizona, Sky & Telescope Magazine, Jan. 1987, pgs 19-21(as an aside, Sky and Telescope has a very nice website : www.skyandtelescope.com )I'm afraid I am not familiar with either Russel Humphreys or CEN TJ. TB - if you could provide a link I would appreciate it, I'd like to read the article to which you refer.The interpretation that galaxies appear in spherical shells around us is dependent on using redshift as an indicator of distance. Assume this to be true for the moment. Does this allow us to conclude that the Milky Way is the center of the universe ? I do not think so. I can agree to the conclusion that the earth is at the center of a finite volume of the universe that we are able to observe.This post was a little longer than I intended, so thanks for reading.Frank

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]