|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Oh I'm not arguing, TB. Just speculating wildly-- for fun, as it were. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22394 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tranquility Base writes: Well, you quoted Humphreys quoting Napier and Guthrie, and you quoted Humphreys quoting Varshni, but you haven't actually quoted them directly. The surrounding context is missing, and the quotes you provide do not support your conclusion anyway. I assume the 1976 date for the Varshni cite is a typo. The Milky Way is not the only frame of reference from which quantization is apparent. Here's a pretty clear explanation from On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies by Mark Stewart, a Creationist writing in 1998: 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. In other words, if redshift is solely a Doppler effect, then the differences between the measured values for members of pairs should show no jumps. The quantization appears between any pair of galaxies, not just between the Milky Way and other galaxies. --Percy [This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Frank
I 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Percy
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
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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: Percy is stating what has so far been determined, without jumping to conclusions about the cause of the effect. Hardly a smoke screen.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Hi TB,
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] I 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.
[/QUOTE] [/b]Tifft did not spell out anything like Milky Way centrism. How could he ? His data was preliminary. Even after confirmation, we can't conclude that the Milky Way is the center of the universe. You have already agreed to this. You did not tell me whether you had any reason to believe Tifft was trying to hide anything, but in message 21 you clearly express that Stewart "wishes to hide the obvious". Why is this ? How does one hide the obvious ?
quote: This is quite a statement TB. I suspect it is related to your previous statement about "evidence of unprecedented aetheistic bias" ? Again, I ask that you explain what you mean, and certainly, provide the evidence you have. quote: I can easily understand why some scientists found the data disturbing, it questioned fundamental assumptions. I mentioned this in my first post and others have also mentioned it. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base: Are you serious that you can't see atheism or at least naturalism as a reason for this?[/b][/QUOTE] I assure you that I am very serious in my belief that atheism is not related to this topic. Naturalism ??? Naturalism as a reason for what ? I don't understand what it is that you are asking here. Are we talking about the data being disturbing, atheistic bias, data suppression, something else ? Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
Frank
Regardless 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
Yes 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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: Have you any idea what web-site or article I have been reading? I don't think I specified.
quote: That's a big if... ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
I 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Maybe not, but a lot of compensation can be done mathematically. I am still trying to get a grip on the effect.
quote: 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
John
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. 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. 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. How much is it due to the Anthropic principle? Traditionally the fact that (just about) everything is moving away from us is explained to be non-cenric due to the expanding universe (anybody ask me if you need that explained via the balloon analogy). I don't doubt the expnding universe but the quantization raises the spectre of whether the Anthropic principle is necessary. [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
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: Cosmic stretch marks....
quote: 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: huh? Sorry, I'm not following this part. ------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024