Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 170 (14596)
07-31-2002 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by frank
07-30-2002 6:58 PM


Frank
The 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by frank, posted 07-30-2002 6:58 PM frank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by frank, posted 08-01-2002 5:21 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 170 (14597)
07-31-2002 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by frank
07-30-2002 7:33 PM


Frank
See 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by frank, posted 07-30-2002 7:33 PM frank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by frank, posted 08-01-2002 5:41 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 170 (14679)
08-01-2002 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by frank
08-01-2002 5:41 PM


Frank
I 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by frank, posted 08-01-2002 5:41 PM frank has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 170 (14696)
08-01-2002 11:18 PM


All
I 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]

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by John, posted 08-01-2002 11:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 76 by frank, posted 08-09-2002 8:01 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 170 (14699)
08-02-2002 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by John
08-01-2002 11:59 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by John, posted 08-01-2002 11:59 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by John, posted 08-02-2002 12:48 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 170 (14704)
08-02-2002 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by John
08-02-2002 12:48 AM


John
I'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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by John, posted 08-02-2002 12:48 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by John, posted 08-02-2002 1:17 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 170 (15194)
08-11-2002 9:51 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl
08-10-2002 1:17 AM


^ That paper concerns the special case of pairs of quasars/galaxies that are 'on top of each other' from our line of sight.
The larger all-sky galaxy surveys do 'strongly' find the quantization effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl, posted 08-10-2002 1:17 AM Karl_but_not_THAT_Karl has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 170 (15195)
08-11-2002 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by frank
08-09-2002 8:01 PM


Frank
I will state it utterly clearly:
The Hubble interpretation of redshift quantization is membranes of galaxies centred on us.
Anything else is new physics.
PS 1 - Yes some creationists did believe in non-Hubble interpretaitons of redshifts. I never agreed with them. Having said that I will still allow any crazy idea the possibiity of being right. However, the standard theory is always the 'first port of call' - and that is the Hubble theory.
PS 2 - My scanner has blown up - I'll have to use the work one to scan in a creaitonist article! I hate doing that - I sort of feel like a Watergate burglar. You sort of even have the feeling that the scanner knows it's a creationist article.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by frank, posted 08-09-2002 8:01 PM frank has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 170 (15244)
08-12-2002 2:09 AM


HERE IT IS! We don't need to get my scanner working, AIG has just posted the Humphrey paper:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/...j/docs/TJv16n2_CENTRE.pdf

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by frank, posted 08-12-2002 1:44 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 88 by frank, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 170 (15318)
08-12-2002 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by frank
08-12-2002 1:44 PM


^ I think I plugged a printer powerpack into my scanner.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by frank, posted 08-12-2002 1:44 PM frank has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Joe Meert, posted 08-12-2002 9:49 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 170 (15332)
08-13-2002 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by John
08-13-2002 12:44 AM


^ Your link doesn't work John.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by John, posted 08-13-2002 12:44 AM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:27 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 170 (15391)
08-13-2002 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by John
08-13-2002 8:27 AM


^ Thanks.
Fascinating.
Maybe that's the origin of these membranes centred on us .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by John, posted 08-13-2002 8:27 AM John has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 170 (15453)
08-14-2002 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by frank
08-14-2002 7:16 PM


^ Frank - it wouldn't have been my style. But fundamentally we believe that - at the conscience level - people went the evolutionary route becasue they preferred reason to obedience. Although the reasoning sounds so good, obedience is the one that actually gets you to the truth in our opinions.
This does not for a second have to put anyone in the dark ages or diminish the advances of science. It simply means that if Christianity is correct, then there is something more important than reason. Family life for us is a teacher for all of life. Accountabilty, relational obedience and honouring of each other. Of course we also become smart, thinking beings but that is not what I like about my mother or my son! It is the same for God and us.
How can we make such outrageous statements? Simply becasue we are convinced that life is actualy more like what it feels like than what science tells us.
For example, our conscience tells us that we should be good, that what we do makes a differnce to other people, that what we do affects our own 'spiritual health', it even tells most (all?) people that there is a God. Our conscience tells most (all?) of us that we are not just flesh and blood. These things cannot ever be propoerly studied by reason so of course I can't prove it.
I am as sure that I am not just a walking brain as I am that DNA codes for proteins and yet I can't prove the former to you.
So our message is that if you just go reason you will miss out on the truth, on truly filling out your individual identity - and you will miss out on working out prehistory.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-14-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by frank, posted 08-14-2002 7:16 PM frank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Joe Meert, posted 08-15-2002 7:21 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 93 by frank, posted 08-19-2002 7:28 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 170 (15724)
08-19-2002 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by frank
08-19-2002 7:28 PM


Frank
Humphreys is simply quoting the mainstream guys since Tifft - it's they that subtracted out the motion relative to the background radiation. It's they that then discovered smaller quantizations - sort of like you get secondary rainbows etc of weaker intensity. I don't think there is anything suspicious there Frank.
PS - where does he say we are at rest wrt the CMB? It is the imaginary corrected frame that is at rest with respect to the CMB.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by frank, posted 08-19-2002 7:28 PM frank has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by frank, posted 08-20-2002 7:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 170 (15805)
08-20-2002 9:54 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by frank
08-20-2002 7:20 PM


Frank
No problem.
Honestly, 'style' aside, Humphrey's article, as you are finding, does nothing other than
(1) Point out to semi-layman that the standard Hubble interpretaiton of redshifts yields approximate spheres centred on us and
(2) Show how the effect diminishes the further away from the Milky Way one goes.
The article is in fact incredibly understated for the most part. The guy is pointing out the discovery of the 20th century for crying out loud! It was not galaxies or the human genome or the transistor or spaceflight or quantum mechanics or relativity - it was that our galaxy is probably at the centre of the universe. Let him get a little excited. I still agree with him about extreme atheistic bias in the suppresion of this discovery. My hands would have been shaking so hard I couldn't have typed - especially if I'd been Tifft.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-20-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by frank, posted 08-20-2002 7:20 PM frank has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024