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

One thing is very clear Percy.The pairs of galaxy results (Humphreys does talk about the recent studies) are for pairs of galaxies along a line of sight from our vantage point. I agree that that pair of galaxies would get the same delta z if they measured it themselves. That is no surprise because they are a special pair chosen fom here. It says nothing about arbitrary pairs of galaxies. From here we know we have qyantization for all pairs along a line of sight from us (on average). This does not prove that one would get this also for arbitrary galxies in a lines of sight from some other centre.

​

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

Tranquility Base writes:

---

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.

---

I already said as much at the very outset when I said the quotes were missing their surrounding context.When Varshni and Stephenson wrote back in the 1970s we knew only that redshifts were quantized with respect to the Milky Way. Subsequent work which Humphreys doesn't mention indicates that redshifts are quantized between any pair of galaxies and that the Milky Way possesses no special place in the universe. Humphreys isn't doing original research but only mining 30 year-old papers for data long since superceded in order to make arguments that no longer hold.Setterfield, apparently aware of the more recent data that deprives the Milky Way of a central place in the universe, arrives at a different conclusion (http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html). Why don't we invite Setterfield and Humphreys to debate here?

---

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.

---

Just send the paper to the Admin to be posted here, it can taken down when they complain.--Percy

PercyIn stating with an air of authority that '. . . and that the Milky Way possesses no special place in the universe' you are clearly stating something as fact tjhat has not been demonstrated by any link or extract here! The extracts we do have suggest otherwise.Your continued statement that 'redshifts are quantized between any pair of galaxies ' always leaves out the key fact that such pairs of galxies must be in a line of sight from us (ie lying 'on top' of each other from our viewpoint! They are hardly arbitray pairs of galxies and they hardly demonstrate that quantization would be expected elsewhere. If you can't see this then I don't know what to say.When I get time I will summarize more of Humphreys paper. I really don't feel right about posting an entire article. A figure - no problem, some extracts, sure but not a whole article.Setterfield simply does not adress the issue as to what the quantized redshifts would really mean if redshift was a direct velocity/distance measure! All he says is that it would mean it would be like cars going at multiples of 5 km/hr and rules it out on that basis! You tell me where he really rules out centrism please.PS - there is nothing complicated about Humphreys' paper BTW. All he does is say, as mainstream Varshni and Stephenson did 'what if redshift is a velocity/distance measure! And he does cite the additonal work since those guys showing that the aquntization has been confirmed. You simply can't accept it that mainstramers are not mentioning the obvious interpretion since Varshni and Stephenson because they are embarressed by it![This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-28-2002]

Tranquility Base writes:

---

Your continued statement that 'redshifts are quantized between any pair of galaxies ' always leaves out the key fact that such pairs of galxies must be in a line of sight from us (ie lying 'on top' of each other from our viewpoint! They are hardly arbitray pairs of galxies and they hardly demonstrate that quantization would be expected elsewhere. If you can't see this then I don't know what to say.

---

This is probably a good time to repost the link to Stewart's article:

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

Stewart specifically addresses the centrality issue in the paragraph preceding the portion on galaxy pairs:

"Recognizing the far-reaching cosmological implications of the single-galaxy results, and undaunted by criticism from those still favoring the conventional view, the analysis was extended to pairs of galaxies."

If you read on through the article past the descriptions of the early work with pairs you'll see that eventually whole-sky studies were conducted. Stewart writes:

"As these first all-sky redshift studies began, there was no assurance that the quantization rules already discovered for pairs and groups would apply across the universe."

These studies became more sophisticated:

"Remarkably, using the same solar-motion correction as before, the galaxies' redshifts again bunched around certain specific values."

The above collection of excerpts from Stewart's article show him first mentioning the "far-reaching cosmological implications" of single-galaxy results that motivated the later studies, and then going on to describe those studies that uncovered evidence that the quantization applies to random galaxy pairs. In other words, what you call the "obvious interpretation" of the initial data from Tifft wasn't ignored but was very well understood. Such a conclusion was so stunning it subsequently motivated significant and complex studies, culminating in whole-sky studies. The results of these studies do not support a central position in the universe for the Milky Way but rather indicate the quantization effect holds for random galaxy pairs. Nonetheless, redshift quantization remains a significant cosmological mystery.Clearly, Humphreys is, at a minimum, engaging in severe dissembling on the topic by not incorporating the later results into his conclusions.Setterfield is wrong at face value when he breaks down the quantization to 2.68 km/sec increments, which is so small as to be swallowed completely by experimental error - Stewart mentions ±20 km/sec.You shouldn't trust either Setterfield or Humphreys. I only mentioned Setterfield to show another way in which ignoring the evidence trail can lead to strange conclusions.Since you have a university library available, perhaps you could seek out papers on the more recent work in this area.

---

When I get time I will summarize more of Humphreys paper. I really don't feel right about posting an entire article. A figure - no problem, some extracts, sure but not a whole article.

---

But you're okay with entering into discussion an article that only you've seen?Have you seen this paper on Humphrey's cosmological model in CEN TJ posted over at TrueOrigins (I wonder if CEN has sicked their lawyers on them yet):

http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf

If TrueOrigins can do it then we can do it, so please send the paper to the Admin (admin@) so it can be posted here. Or at a minimum, email it to me (percipient@) and the others involved in this particular thread (I promise not to forward it to the Admin ).--Percy

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]
Setterfield simply does not adress the issue as to what the quantized redshifts would really mean if redshift was a direct velocity/distance measure! All he says is that it would mean it would be like cars going at multiples of 5 km/hr and rules it out on that basis! You tell me where he really rules out centrism please. [/QUOTE][/B]I think Setterfield is saying that redshift is not a direct result of velocity/distance, that there is more to it. I don't see a big problem with this, if you do, please point it out. He rules out centrism here :

quote:

---

(2). Quantum 'shells'

​

This model assumes each quantum change occurs instantaneously throughout the cosmos. Yet a finite time is taken for light emitted by atomic processes to reach the observer. Consequently, the observed redshift will appear to be quantised in spherical shells centred about any observer anywhere in the universe. The distance between shell boundaries will be constant because of the unique behaviour which is described by equations derived from the observational data. This distance between shell boundaries is about 138,000 light years and marks the distance between successive redshift jumps of 2.73 km/s. All objects that emit light within that shell will have the same redshift.

---

Clear Skies !Frank

PercyThese 'whole-sky' analyses are just an extension to more data for what Tifft first did!The correction for movement of us relative to the microwave background is a velocity correction not a vantage point correction!The analysis does nothing to sugest that the quantization would be observed from another vantage point. There is not a single point raised in anything you have posted that suggests the quantization would be observed from any other vantage pont (other than that this would be unastehtic).Why don't you take us all through the logic step by step that shows that the all-sky results demonstrate that we would also see qyantization from other vantage points?Your quotes of Stewart show nothing of the sort. What it does whow is that to compare galaxy X in one direction to galaxy Y in another direction we need to subtract first the motions of oursleves with respect to the microwave background. If we are surrounded by approximate shells, arbitary galaxies X and Y will be on quantized shells. zX-Zy will cluster around multiples of some quantum. How could this possibly say anything about what would be observed about all-sky observations from another location? The all-sky results are still from our vantage point and no attempt is made to transform to someother view point (which is different than a velocity ref frame)! There is not a single line mentioned about trying to say what redshifts X would measure for Y from X! They are in arbitrary orientations from us (not along the same line of sight like the pair study) so you an't just say it would be the same result we would measure.The all-sky results do not suggest that quantization would be observed from a different vantage point. There is not a single line in Stewart that explains that that has been shown. You have linked various paragraphs, none of which explain how all-sky results show that quantization would be viewable from elsewhere!I will consider scanning in Humphrey's article for your personal reading.EDIT: I just got a return email from Humphreys. He confirms that his redshift calcs in the paper were perfomed on a standard expanding universe continuum. His calcs in the paper clearly demonstrate that the quantization washes out once one moves way from the Milky Way! Humphreys did this simple calc becasue everyone else was too scared.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

FrankI 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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

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

Yes normal physics could be wrong but the suggestions so far are pretty bizaree. That's fine but in physics you at least state what normal physics suggests. The thories I've read about so far are incredibly contrived. It's not as if it falls out of GR or QM. Here we can't seem to get agreement over what normal physics suggests even though it has been stated in the mainstream literaure twice independently.You say 'we don't have an explanation' - but we do - Milky Way centrism! See you're doing it yourself John!There is absolutely no normal physics against Milky Way centrism. 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.I love new physics - that's what I was doing when I was doing physics - I added extra fermionic generations to the standard model, I added extra Higgs aprticles etc. Beyond the stadard model was all I was about - but there has to be a good theoretical and experimental reason for doing this. And there is good experimental evidence in this case only if you don't like Milky Way centrism.

[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

JohnIt 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.We are not saying the universe is 'rotating around a ridiculously less massive object-- the Milky Way'. We are simply saying that observational evidence calls for the expansion of the universe having originated here.Humphreys is the only one daring enough to see what happens from other vantage points - everyone else is too scared (apart from Stephenson and Varshni who stated in black and white what the consequence was).Once your talking 1.6 million ly it doens't matter where in the Milky Way you measure from - (we're only 0.05 million ly in radius). The .05 million ly is less than the noise. The point is that the 'local' one billion ly universe is symmetrical (in terms of redshift quantization) around a point within 1.6 million ly of us with a chance of 1 in 10^13 (ie one in 10 trillion).All that Humphrey's has done is quantitate Varshni's and Stephenson's qualitative comments. From this creationist the cosmology community now knows that, barring new physics, we are within 1.6 million ly from the centre of a one billion ly spherically symmetric region of the universe.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

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

Where in that article does it suggest that? I can't find it in there.

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

Tranquility Base writes:

---

I will consider scanning in Humphrey's article for your personal reading.

---

You'll consider it? Gee, thanks! What leads you to believe you're having a meaningful discussion about this article when you're the only one with access to it?Since you have access to a university library, perhaps you could find papers on the more recent work in this area. I haven't seen Humphrey's article, but from what you've said he is drawing conclusions from 30-year old papers and ignoring more recent work, for example, on galaxy pairs.

---

The all-sky results do not suggest that quantization would be observed from a different vantage point. There is not a single line in Stewart that explains that that has been shown. You have linked various paragraphs, none of which explain how all-sky results show that quantization would be viewable from elsewhere!

---

Yeah, you're right, I see it now. The point Stewart is actually making when addressing the centrality issue is that the galaxy pair results revealed quantized redshift differences regardless of "viewing angles or orbital geometries". This suggests a non-Doppler contribution to red-shift inconsistent with the conclusions Humphreys draws from data in papers that predate the galaxy pair studies.

---

EDIT: I just got a return email from Humphreys. He confirms that his redshift calcs in the paper were perfomed on a standard expanding universe continuum. His calcs in the paper clearly demonstrate that the quantization washes out once one moves way from the Milky Way! Humphreys did this simple calc becasue everyone else was too scared.

---

It would make as much sense if I said Humphreys doesn't accept an ancient universe because he's too scared. Claims of scared researchers and conspiracy theories simply puts you among the "Area 51" and "the CIA murdered JFK" crowd."By the way, did you read the article about Humphrey's cosmology that appeared in CEN TJ:

http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf

--Percy[This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-30-2002]