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

Hi TB,I find it a little difficult to argue/agree with Humphreys' position as I can't see the paper and don't understand what you are saying he is saying. I really am getting a little lost here, so if you don't mind a few questions -

quote:

---

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.

---

What effect washes out ? Redshift ? Are you saying redshift goes away?
How is the calculation made ?
What is the reasoning that the universe expanded from some location in the Milky Way ? Are we talking about where the Milky way is now?More in a little bit.Clear Skies !Frank

A few more questions TB:

quote:

---

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).

---

What is it that Humpreys claims to see happening from other vantage points?
Where are these vantage points? (1.6 ly away ?)
Why is this daring and why is everyone else scared?

quote:

---

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).

---

What noise do you mean? Background radiation? If so, how does this relate to .05 ly?

quote:

---

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.

---

Seems we are back to being back at the center of a volume of the universe that we observe.Consider that we are in galaxy M (milky way) and there is an observer in galaxy K (Klingon home galaxy), the direction from from M to K is MK, the direction from K to M is KM and the distance between K and M is X. Assume both observing points have the same observinig instruments. Does it not make sense that observer K can see further in direction MK than we do by a measure of X, and less than we observe in direction KM by a measure of X?If true, then observer K may use your line of reasoning and conclude he is at the center of expansion.
Else, if false, why is it false ?Also, I have done a little poking around for Dr. Humphreys. Not a lot but did find the following links:http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf andhttp://www.answersingenesis.orgs/docs/543.aspFrom the second:

quote:

---

Bill seems worried that the enemies of young-earth creation science may eventually find something wrong with my paper. Some of my other creationist friends have the same worry. But what would be so bad about that? Do I, like the Bible, have to be inspired and inerrant? No. I’m proposing a scientific theory, not writing new Scripture! If any of you are placing your faith in any supposed inerrancy of mine, you're in for a rude shock. I make mistakes!

​

Instead, place your faith in an inerrant Word of God. Read it straightforwardly. Does it tell you that the world is young? That is the message I get, loud and and clear. Well then, even if my theory should turn out to be wrong, we know that a correct young-world cosmology exists.

​

Let’s seek it vigorously and accept whatever mistakes we may make along the way with cheerfulness and courage!

---

The first link has a similar conclusion. Do you think he may be putting a higher priority on pushing the bible as scientifically reliable than avoiding any errors or mistakes in his own work?Clear Skies!Frank

PercyI've borrowed a cable so now I can connect up my scanner again. You should get an attachment tommorrow.Humphrey's does talk about the recent work which confirms that the quantization is not a statistical anomoly! Whether one looks at all (i) the data in one hit and does a power spectrum or (ii) analyses by line of sight pairs or (iii) by arbitary pairs - the results are all the same - quantization is real! In all cases the vantage point is not 'corrected for' - onlty our velocity relative o the microwave cosmic background.No-one, other than Humphreys has simulated what would happen from another vantage point. But mainstream Varshni and Stephensen independently knew intuitively the result that Humphrey's would find - without resorting to new physics the data suggests shells of galaxies around us.How does "quantized redshift differences regardless of viewing angles or orbital geometries" automatically require non-doppler explanations? You are still confusing multiple vantage point with multiple viewing angles (from one vantage point) and background velocity correction!The work on arbitray pairs achieves the same result as Tifft's original all-sky power spectrum except they corrected for movement against the microwave background and found finer quantizations. I went to great pains to try and explain that taking arbitray pairs of galxies from here will give a quantized delta z that does not suggest in the least that such quantization would be seen from other vantage points.PS - that article is a single component of a 5 year on-going discussion between opposing camps. They have not rebutted Humphreys' last rebuttal since then. And it concerns Humphreys' cosmology not the quantization issue per se.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-31-2002]

FrankThe effect that washes out is quantization! It is clear from here and gets less and less the further you go out. At 1.6 million ly away the effect vanishes. It's a basic geometrical result. You can't try and pretend there could be a geometrical arrangement that could achieve this effect from everwhere! The only way to get around it is new physics. I jave nmo porblem with that but just remember that that search for new physics is becasue the idea that only we see quantization is unpalatable.

FrankSee above for what happens from other vantage points (They are > 1.6 million ly). It some ways there was no reason to do what Humphrey's has done - it is intuitively obvious. It is only daring in a joking kind of way - it would be daring for an evolutionist to do it becasue the result shows that the qunatization is only evident from here (without new physics).The noise I'm talking about is redshift random measurement errors - they would make .05 million ly effects unobservable. All it means is that anywhere within the Milky Way you will see approximately the same quantization effect."Seems we are back to being back at the center of a volume of the universe that we observe." Looks like you missed the 'spherically symmetric' part. I don't mean we drew a sphere around us, I mean the galaxies are arranged in shells around us. Why do we really have to keep ignoring that subtle but crucial difference?Of course M & K will measure the same redshifts of each other but they wont measure the same redshits for everyone else. The quantization is a statistical effect averaged over the whole sky from a vantage point. If you imagine the shells around M off course someone in shell 2 would measure qauntization along the line from M to K becasue it is perpendicualr to the shells. But this will be swamped out by all of his other lines of sight which aren't perpendicular to the shells! But for us all lines of sight are perpendicualr to the shells becasue we are at the centre so we measure all-sky quantization. It is as simple as that and this is what mainstream Varshni and Stephenson stated and expected everyone to understand without the hand waving. If you still don't follow it I will explain it again.I fully agree with Humphrey's way of doing Bible inspired science. In the end his theory will stand or fall on the science only.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-31-2002]

Thanks for the explanation. So it is the "clumping" of values of redshifts around "preferred" values that goes away. Interesting. I presume you imply that from a point more than 1.6 light years away we would observe an even distribution of plotted redshifts. This is the opposite of what Setterfield said, but no matter. I interpret your message to Percy to mean that the Humphreys article will be available in the near future. Allow me to give it a good read.I think the "new physics" is simply an attempt to better explain what we observe and includes more issues than just quantization, e.g., there is an interesting article in the current issue of Scientific American (August, 2002) by Mordehai Milgrom proposing an alternative to dark matter.Clear Skies !Frank

TB,As above, allow me to give the Humphreys article a read. BUT....

quote:

---

I fully agree with Humphrey's way of doing Bible inspired science. In the end his theory will stand or fall on the science only.

---

is fair enough but dodges the question I posed. Do you think Humphreys is putting a higher priority on presenting the bible as being scientifically reliable as opposed to the correctness of his own work? Just looking for your opinion here. Thanks.Clear Skies !Frank

FrankI truly think that Humphreys, as I, have become gradually convinced of the Sciptures through our Christian experience, and study of the Scriptures, that we expect the Bible to be true. Sure, sometimes we are unsure of what 'the windows of the heavens' or 'the fountains of the great deep' etc are but we begin to realise that these things are probably not in Scripture by accident.Humphreys used to search for all sorts of ways to get around the Big Bang. Then he noticed the dozens of Scripture, using four different Hebrew verbs, discussing the stretching out of the heavens and he said 'what have we been doing in God's name'?!! The universe is expanding! So, yes, creationists do go overboard and sometimes we have pretended that data doesn't exist. But then Humpreys went on to say - gee, the quantized redshifts suggest we are at the centre of things. And he knew about gravitational time dialation. And then he said - what if we expand the universe from a central loation rather than have no centre or boundary as in the Big Bang. Guess what, right out of General Relativity, it pops out that you get a continuous dilation of time from the slow central part to the fast outer part - so we now agree with your billion year old universe with the proviso that the Earth is young. Yes, we are biased, but we believe we are taking out the part of mainstream science which is correct: microevoltuion, old expanding universe, accelerated decay + plate tectonics etc.What ever you want to call this struggle of ours we think it is a struggle for truth. Unfortunately it has caused us to deny some pretty silly things in the past but creationists are now beginning to have answers to things that mainstream science is struggling to answer - quantized redshifts for example, not to mention distinctness of genomes.To answer your actual question - yes, Humphreys, and I, will always put Scripture ahead of science. However, from past mistakes we will take mainstream data at face value and not be overly dogmatic on things either because of incorrect interpretation etc. But we expect the truth to emerge from Bible inspired science. The things I go on about on this BBS are areas which I have personally become convinced that creationists are correct on.

AllI decided to have a look at some pdfs on the web. The first one I found was a 1996 preprint that was published by mainstream Faraoni:http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9608/9608067.pdf

quote:

---

"In order to explain the periodicity found in [1][3], models were proposed in which clustering of galaxies in foamlike structures occurs at the predicted redshifts. A difficulty of these models is the implication that galaxies be approximately distributed on shells, of which we happen to be at the center, in conflict with the cosmological principle."

---

This is in black and white in 1996. If the redshifts are interpreted as conventionally done as distance indicators you get foam/shells etc centred on us. Period. The only way out for you guys is new physics.The link to the cosmological principle is also there in black and white as I have been saying. If you don't want to link the cosmological prnciple with atheism I think you're kidding yourself but it's your life."In conflict with the cosmological principle" is code for "suggests we are special".[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
This is in black and white in 1996. If the redshifts are interpreted as conventionally done as distance indicators you get foam/shells etc centred on us. Period. The only way out for you guys is new physics.

---

Interesting link... ( groan, I hate PDF )TB, did you really think we had it all figured out when Einstein published his papers back at the beginning of this century? I realize the man was brilliant, but come on, all good things must end-- just like with Newton.Your entire argument rests on the idea that physics HAS all the answers, that we have exhausted the options and the only one left is GOD. This is just silly. How can you argue so hard in other threads that science is wrong ( about evolution, about geology, about abiogenesis) yet base an argument like this one on the insistence that science has the whole of cosmology right? How? Well, hate to say it, but because it suits your ends.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Not realy John. I am a physicist. Never mind that I've done biophysics the last 10 years. New physics is not found willy-nilly. The point is current physics calls for shells of galaxies around us. If you can find new physics to get quantization from everywhere - that's great science - good for you.But let it be known that everything we currenly know about phsyics tells us that there are shells of galaxies around us. The way we currently map where galaxies are tells us there are approximate shells around us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
New physics is not found willy-nilly.

---

Never said it was, but people start to look for new explainations when the old ones faulter.

quote:

---

The point is current physics calls for shells of galaxies around us. If you can find new physics to get quantization from everywhere - that's great science - good for you.

---

I may not find it, and probably won't, but someone will. It may be radically new, it may not be.

quote:

---

But let it be known that everything we currenly know about phsyics tells us that there are shells of galaxies around us. The way we currently map where galaxies are tells us there are approximate shells around us.

---

If the data are correct, and they seem to be, then we have got something wrong somewhere.Your argument still depends upon an insistence that we do have it all correct. This point I wish you would address.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

JohnI'm not insisting it is correct but I am saying what it means if it is correct. And the 'it' is standard cosmology not some whacko theory.PS Your faith that a solution which avoids centrism will be found is very revealing.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-01-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
PS Your faith that a solution which avoids centrism will be found is very revealing.

---

I honestly don't care if it avoids centrism I just think that it will. Galacto-centrism is just an odd concept given all the movement in the universe.------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

Very interesting article. I have also followed the past few exchanges you have had with John. I will say I concur with John and will try to avoid repeating what he has already said.

quote:

---

"In order to explain the periodicity found in [1][3], models were proposed in which clustering of galaxies in foamlike structures occurs at the predicted redshifts. A difficulty of these models is the implication that galaxies be approximately distributed on shells, of which we happen to be at the center, in conflict with the cosmological principle."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

This is in black and white in 1996. If the redshifts are interpreted as conventionally done as distance indicators you get foam/shells etc centred on us.

---

There is no argument that there is this "shell" like appearance. But, this is certainly not the conclusion reached in the article and ignores other models and interpretations mentioned, e.g., the redshift periodicity is an optical illusion; it is not a genuine measure of distance. Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but, did not creationists support the idea that redshifts were not a true measure of distance/speed in the past, ala Halton Arp ? I get the feeling that you ignore the rest of the article because it does not support your current interpretation.

quote:

---

Period. The only way out for you guys is new physics.

---

Period ? Do you mean the issue is resolved ? I think not. I'd prefer a question mark, meaning the best course is to do a lot more study, improve our model, and develop "better" physics, which the article suggests.

quote:

---

"In conflict with the cosmological principle" is code for "suggests we are special".

---

I suggest it means we don't have it right yet, we need to do more work.BTW, did you get a chance to get the Humphreys' article off to Percy yet?Clear Skies !Frank