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

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.htmlClear Skies !Frank

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

Hi TB, [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
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). [/QUOTE][/b]I think we can let the subject of Tifft rest. He reported his findings and the findings were confirmed. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
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! [/QUOTE][/b]I won't sue you. I will thank you for stating that this is simply your impression and nothing more. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
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?). [/QUOTE][/b]Uh, no, but the thought that you were jumping to conclusions had occurred to me. What I have been attempting is for you to explain yourself a little further and present evidence you have found. I find it a little frustrating to ask questions and get replies that do not answer the question, ask me if I'm serious, and dance from redshifts to atheistic bias, naturalism, and now aesthetics and anthropic principles. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
Are you aware of the Anthropic principle? It is an extremely sensible principle if there is no God. [/QUOTE][/b]I presume you refer to the strong anthropic principle. I do not understand how it relates to the topic of this thread. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
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. [/QUOTE][/b]I think it obvious that whatever our location in the universe (natural or otherwise) we would be at the center of some volume of some distance. (Continue to use 1 billion light years for the distance, I have no problem with that.) [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
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. [/QUOTE][/b]I do remember saying I agreed with the "shell like" interpretation of the data. We agreed that this does not imply the Milky Way is the center of the universe. So how is this a violation of Occam's razor ? What makes you believe that new cosmological theories have gone nowhere? From the little reading I have done I seem to remenber that p-branes and alternate universe concepts look quite appealing, but now I digress, this is off the topic. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
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. [/QUOTE][/b]Please explain "entrenched forced naturalism".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

You don't have to agree with me - feel free to disagree.

---

I already knew that ! Clear Skies !Frank

​

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

JohnIf we are the centre of (all or part of) the universe then the Anthropic Principle (that every vantage point should see the same pattern) may be unnecessary. On the other hand the expansion of the universe may automatically generate everything moving away from everything else as advertised and the quantization itself is the only thing that only works from one vantage point.

FrankWe all think that we are all on the same wavelength so I apologise for assuming that you can automatically follow my logic.My connection between quantization and atheistic bias works as follows:If redshifts are a precise distance measure then the data suggests the Milky way is surrounded by shells of galaxies. Regardless of the mechanism for the origin of these shells or velocity shock waves the chances that we are in the central galaxy of this 1 billion light year region is about 1 in 10^13. This is pretty unlikely so either (i) there is a good reason we are here and not somewhere else or (ii) there is somehing more to the redshifts.Given that redshifts as distance indicators are the current mainstream standard then the fact that shells are not pronounced by most researhcers as the standard interpretaiton of quantizaiton is becasue they don't like option (i). Why? It has been stated by some (including Varshni) that it is 'unasthetic' - we don't like being special. If you think this is unrelated to atheism I think you are stretching the point beyond credability but you are free to hold whatever opinion you like.The Anthropic prinsiple is the principle that says becasue we aren't special that the universe should look the same from any vantage point. It of course assumes that the universe is a symmetrical place and that we aren't special. It's respectability is that it fits the redshift data - or it used to prior to quantization. It is related to this issue very closely.The problem isn't that we are at the centre of something - if you define a sub-volume around an object then that object is automatically at the centre as you pointed out. The point is that the data suggests there are shells of galaxies centred on us and no-one else! That is a different beast. You know this - read Varshni and Stephenson again if you doubt it.Claiming that you are at the centre of a subset of a crowd of 1000 people by definition and standing on a rock concert stage with everyone looking at you are two different things!I agreed that the shell issue does not necessarily put the Milky Way at the centre of the universe but it does put us at the centre of a one billion light year radius powerful event which randomly would happen 1 out of 10^13 times.I am only claiming that alternative redshift quantization theories have gone nowhere - the rest of cosmology is streaming along and I agree with it.The "entrenched forced naturalism" is the peer group pressure that makes one have to apologize for suggesting that the unambigous interpretation of the data is that we are at the centre of a large part of the universe.If you really think this peer group pressure does not exist then I suggest you try it out at an astrophysics departmental coffee room and find out.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.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]

[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.htmlIts 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

From your site it says:

quote:

---

Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special.

---

That is what I am saying - the Athropic Principle tries to tell us there is nothing 'mysterious' about the fact that it is special.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.I'll agree that I have misunderstood the Anthropic principle to some extent - but ther are many versions of it and I think I am remembering one that seemed to make more sense. I guess I really meant a more general (perhaps nameless?) principle that suggests we seek laws that don't require specialness. I think some wording of the Anthropic principle do state this.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.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]

[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

FrankI finally read your link. Nice explanation with one blarring exception. The atheistic bias is so clear - no mention ala Varshni or Stephenson that there is a simple possibility - galaxies are distributed in shells with the Milky Way at the centre!If you guys can't see this bias in action then I . . well . . it's your life. Apart from Varshni and Stephensen these guys can't get themselves to say it! G...G...G...Go...Go...Go...Go - they can't say it. Without devising some bizaree unjustifiable new physics (as discussed in the link) the 'cosmic stretch marks' are centred on us!So it turn out, that unkown to most of us plebs, one of cosmology's biggest puzzles has a simple Milky Way centric explanation which does not even rate a mention in modern web/published summaries!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-24-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

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.

---

Interesting lack of curiosity. Given the Creationist penchant for accurately quoting scientists while making them appear to say things they obviously do not believe, I'd like to see the surrounding context. If you're right, the full paper will only provide further support for your position, so I don't understand your objection.

---

Mainstream peer reviewed comment states in plain English that Milky Way centrism is the (not very nice) consequnce.

---

Nice argument from authority, but just as obviously, Milky Way centrism is not a view of mainstream science. I'd really like to see the full papers. You're using a common Creationist strategy of mining papers for data to draw conclusions not supported by the authors who you then accuse of having an atheistic, naturalistic bias.

---

Stewart is simply not stating the obvious supposedly becasue we should know it but in actual fact because he wishes to hide the obvious.

---

Stewart is a Creationist whose article indicates a fair degree of familiarity with the issue.You are correct that we cannot measure velocity orthogonal to our line of sight using redshift, but distant galaxies have a retreating velocity within the expanding universe that is far in excess of any orthogonal velocities they possess relative to us, and so the orthogonal velocities can be ignored. That's why Stewart uses the term "line of sight." The measurement is made only on the vector component of the velocity that's along a "line of sight" between the pair of galaxies. And when you calculate the retreat velocity between any pair of galaxies it tends to be quantized around multiples of the 72 km/s value. The Milky Way is no more privileged than any other galaxy.

---

And it has been utterly suppressed becasue of atheistic bias.

---

Many scientists are not atheists, and I certainly am not. Scientists are all races, religions and non-religions, so you cannot attribute supposed bias to any single source. Certainly a conspiracy amongst all this diversity and through these many years couldn't be maintained. It is more likely that science doesn't accept your viewpoint because it isn't supported by evidence.--Percy

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.htmAt least one infant theory of quantum gravity predicts something like the redshift patterns.------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com

TB,Thanks for the reply. I now have a much better understanding of your reasoning.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:

If redshifts are a precise distance measure then the data suggests the Milky way is surrounded by shells of galaxies. Regardless of the mechanism for the origin of these shells or velocity shock waves the chances that we are in the central galaxy of this 1 billion light year region is about 1 in 10^13. This is pretty unlikely so either (i) there is a good reason we are here and not somewhere else or (ii) there is somehing more to the redshifts.

---

I think you are assuming a dichotomy. Yes we are here, but perhaps there does not have to be a good reason for it, or the good reason is simply that we are here. The odds of winning the lottery are pretty high, but people still win. My gut feeling is that we are here for a good reason AND there is something more to redshifts. If you insist on the either/or, then rebut the above statement. I say this because I suspect that your opinion is that we are here for a good reason, and will find it difficult to argue that there isn't anything more to redshifts than we already know. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
Given that redshifts as distance indicators are the current mainstream standard then the fact that shells are not pronounced by most researhcers as the standard interpretaiton of quantizaiton is becasue they don't like option (i). Why? It has been stated by some (including Varshni) that it is 'unasthetic' - we don't like being special. If you think this is unrelated to atheism I think you are stretching the point beyond credability but you are free to hold whatever opinion you like. [/QUOTE][/b]This is difficult for me to argue because I don't agree to the assumed dichotomy above. Let me think about it some more. [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. It of course assumes that the universe is a symmetrical place and that we aren't special. It's respectability is that it fits the redshift data - or it used to prior to quantization. It is related to this issue very closely. [/QUOTE][/b]You and John discussed this in messages 36, 37, 38. Although my interpretation of the anthropic principle varied a little, I concur with John and don't feel I have anything of substance to add at this point. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
The problem isn't that we are at the centre of something - if you define a sub-volume around an object then that object is automatically at the centre as you pointed out. The point is that the data suggests there are shells of galaxies centred on us and no-one else! That is a different beast. You know this - read Varshni and Stephenson again if you doubt it. [/QUOTE][/b]Ahhh, I see your point now, I didn't see it before. What I missed was the "no-one else" part. I'd like to research and prepare an argument against this. I should be able to get back to you early next week. [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
I am only claiming that alternative redshift quantization theories have gone nowhere - the rest of cosmology is streaming along and I agree with it. [/QUOTE][/b]OK. You might find the following link of interest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/science/space/23UNIV.html[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
The "entrenched forced naturalism" is the peer group pressure that makes one have to apologize for suggesting that the unambigous interpretation of the data is that we are at the centre of a large part of the universe.If you really think this peer group pressure does not exist then I suggest you try it out at an astrophysics departmental coffee room and find out. [/QUOTE][/b]My only experience in this area is with other members of a local stargazing club, many of whom were astronomy students at the local junior college. I haven't noticed it. Is this related to message 39, scientists can't use the "G" word ? [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b]
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. [/QUOTE][/b]I think John covered this in message 36.Clear Skies !Frank

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]

PercyThe point that you seem to have missed is that while the expansion of the universe can account for everyone moving away from everyone else (no preferred centre) this cannot explain the quantization occurring uniquely in our reference frame.How do I know this you ask? I know this becasue of Varshni and Stephenson of course! Why else would they independently state in peer-reviewed astophtiscs journals that the data suggests the Earth is at the centre of shells of galaxies if they expect the effect to be equally centred on every other galaxy as well! That is the point you miss.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-24-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

The point that you seem to have missed is that while the expansion of the universe can account for everyone moving away from everyone else (no preferred centre) this cannot explain the quantization occurring uniquely in our reference frame.

---

As I explained, the quantization is not unique to the Milky Way but is common to other galaxies. The measurement is made only on the vector component of the velocity that's along a "line of sight" between the pair of galaxies. And when you calculate the retreat velocity between any pair of galaxies it tends to be quantized around multiples of the 72 km/s value. The Milky Way is no more privileged than any other galaxy.

---

How do I know this you ask? I know this becasue of Varshni and Stephenson of course!

---

I very much doubt that Varshni and Stephenson's views are being accurately represented by Humphreys. You say they are "mainstream," and mainstream science clearly doesn't interpret the data as indicating a central place in the universe for the Milky Way. Humphrey's is probably just picking up on some speculative comments in some papers published not long after Tiffts original findings were made known.Regardless, Varshni and Stephenson wrote in the 1970s before the more detailed studies driven by Tifft's findings were conducted. It was these subsequent studies which found redshift quantization a feature of random galaxy pairs, not just the Milky Way. Did Humphreys paper mention this later work? Why not post Humphreys paper here or somewhere on the net?--Percy

OK - at least we've got to the bottom of it - you either doubt Varshni and Stephensen or suspect Humphreys selectively quoted or both. Now we know what we are up against.How could I post Humprey's paper on the net? That would be illegal for a start! Like all mainstream journals they make money out of subscriptions, hard or online.