OK, matters of style aside, I still have some other serious problems with this article.
Towards the end of section 4, Humphreys states "Accounting for that motion converts the galactocentric redshifts to a frame of reference which is at rest with respect to the CMB, and thus presumably at rest with respect to the universe as a whole."
This is a pretty big assumption, one that he makes no argument to support, and in fact he appears to contradict at the beginning of section 7, i.e., "our galaxy is moving with respect to the centre of the universe". So I must question how could we be "at rest" with respect to the universe as a whole. We observe redshifts we presume to interpret to be receding from us but also blueshifts appearing to be closing with us, e.g., Messier 31.
Yes, I have other problems with his analysis as well, but I think his presumption is a good place to start.
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]
Good call. I think that Humphreys' "style" got me fired up a little and I am not being as objective as I should be. I still have at least one serious problem with the article but I think it best that I read the article again and re-evaluate it in a more objective manner.
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]
quote: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.
Probably shaking as hard as Gentry's when he found instantaneous polonium halos in granite dikes.. not realizing of course that a granite dike could not be a primeval rock.
The problem with your getting all of your information from Creationist popular magazines, TB, is that they are not accurate. Their agenda is to push a particular wold view at the expense of any even handed relating of actual science or evidence. And this is precisely what has occured in this instance.
What Tifft found was not "shells" around the universe, but the now widely known large scale structure of the universe as mapped by many redshift surveys since Tifft.
This structure is not a set of concentric shells around the milky way at all, but shows a pattern of cosmic bubbles, filaments, and voids in which the milky way and its local supergroup are embedded.. no different from any other galaxy. There are no shells at all.
Sadly, this is a common story for a creationist mis-reporting of science. They read an article from the 1970's about an anomaly in the distribution of galaxies (previously thought to be homogenous), latch on to a few early ideas such as the "quantization of redshift" proposed to explain the anomalous data at the time, then ignore the actual unfolding of the mystery since then.
The real story is actually pretty exciting. From that early survey of galaxies which showed gaps in the distribution of galaxies, we now know that the universe is not uniform on the order of magnitude of 100ML or lower (though *these* larger structures are homogeneous as far as we can see). Modern redshift surveys, and deepfield long range redshift surveys show this filament/void pattern extending as far as we can see... and these patterns of filaments and voids (or bubbles) are not anything like the 'shells' proposed by creationists.
Enough with the blather.. here are links to a variety of web sites devoted to the subject, with graphs of many later redshift surveys. You can judge for yourself whether there are 'concentric shells' or not (Hint.. you won't find any).
My advice to creationists it simply to not read creationist journals. They typically are full of lies and half truths that exploit your lack of knowledge about a subject to promote their agenda. And if you do accidentally find yourself reading one of these magazines, please take the time to do a quick search with Google or PubMed to actually dig up the truth.
Skyserver page on cosmic structures (graph of redshift survey).. http://skyserver.fnal.gov/en/astro/structures/structures.asp
Graph from LEDA survey showing the great wall.. note the lack of concentric shells.. http://www.rm.astro.it/amendola/lss.html
The swift wide field survey.. computer rendering of present distributions of galaxies.. good picture of what the cosmic distribution of galaxies kind of looks like. http://www.noao.edu/swift/proposal/node5.html
More redshift survey plots (from a paper on statistical analysis of redshift plots).. You can see the structures of filaments and voids here as well.
Another good graph of redshift distribution locally.. this shows the structure of filaments and gaps pretty well. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/cosmology/1.html#Fig2
So.. TB.. having been show AGAIN that what creationists say in their journals does not accurately reflect the state of actual science in the real world.. how can you defend the continuous stream of misinformation that they put out?
I am actually really interested to know how creationists rationalize away the continuous misinformation they seem to run through year after year, and then expect that the next "AHA.. GOTCHA!" argument they read in a creationist journal won't turn out like the last dozen.
Rationalist, Thanks for clearing this up. Since this discussion began I thought what you have presented is what the creationists have been talking about, but as usual their version of observations is so divorced from reality that it’s difficult to tell what they're talking about.
quote:All galaxies and quasars have quantized redshifts. The quasars are quantized in largesteps: z= 1. 96, 1. 41, . 96,. 60,. 30 and. 06. The low redshift galaxies into whichthey evolve have redshifts quantized in steps of z= .0002 and .0001 (cz= 72 and 37.5 km/sec).
quote:In April 1997 Prof. Yaoquan Chu communicated to me the sensational result shown in Fig. 4.He had measured the bright X-ray sources around the very active Seyfert NGC 3516. They turned out to be quasars ordered in redshift, culminating in the most distant, a bright optical and X-ray BLLac type object. All six of these quasars fell within ±20 degrees of the minor axis of NGC 3516 (achance, just in this one property, of only 10^4 of being accidental). As the bottom of the Figureshows, the redshifts of these six ejecta fit very closely the periodicity which has been known for quasars for more than 20 years.
quote:"As expected, the galaxies' redshifts showed a smooth distribution. Clearly, no quantization was being introduced by the radio telescopes or the data reduction process. But after Guthrie and Napier corrected each redshift to account for the Earth's motion around the center of the Milky Way -- a different correction for each location in the sky -- out popped a periodicity of 37 km/sec, close to one of Tifft's values. It was so strong that the chance of it being a statistical fluke was less than 1 in 3,000."
--B. Guthrie and W.M. Napier
quote:Now Halton Arp's discovery of the association of quasars with nearby galaxies combined with the discovery of the quantization of redshifts threatens to let the frog escape for good. The quantization spikes are so sharp, the dispersion so small, that when the quantization effect is removed, there is almost no redshift left to attribute to orbital velocities.
blitz resorts to posting psuedo-science to try to save the quantized redshift idea. A few cranks and holdouts for Hoyles steady state universe can not change the actual data observed to date.
Sorry blits. The the redshift surveys are there for you to peruse at your liesure. They show no cosmic shells, and no evidence of quantized redhifts, but large filaments and voids indicating the complex macro-structure of the universe.
If you feel that the data obtained from these surveys are part of some sort of massive conspiracy, you are certainly welcome to ignore them.
[This message has been edited by Rationalist, 08-25-2002]
. . . but I have gone out of my way in many posts to show that these are 'approximate' shells or membranes. Yes it does coincide with the voids and bubbles etc. But since Tifft's most fundamental finding was quantization from here, the truth of the matter is that at a statistically significant level the galxies do fall on approximate shells or membranes or whatever you prefer to call them centred on our galaxy as much as you hate this idea.
Whether you can see the shells with your eyes or not the statistics doesn't lie Rationalist! Galactic mapping is based on redshifts. The redshifts have a rock solid quantization in them! There are shells!! How do you think the plots you showed are made? They plot the galaxies at exactly the position indicated by the redshifts!
Do you realise that a statistical analysis of any of those diagrams you linked to would show that there is a qauntization evident? Do you realise that the peer-reveiwed papers I have linked to have gone out of their way to show that 'redshifts are strongly quantized in the galactic referecne frame' whether you can see it or not? They have ruled out sytemtaic and random experimental error.
Mainstream cosmologists and sky mappers have failed to point out to the public that these large scale structures form membranes around us! Thety got excited about the large scale structure and forgot to tell us that they are . . er . . centred on us.
'Oh sorry, you didn't ask whether they were centred on us. Let me just check. Oh, yes, they are centred on us. But we're working on removing that feature of the finding. Oh you find that interesting. I'm sorry. We don't.'
Almost all of those sites and sources you have posted are participating in the biased coverage of the truly exciting discovery that is Tifft's. Rationalist - you are the one simply reading popular propaganda. Humphreys is the one going back to the actual peer reveiwed literature. The irony of your accuasation is astounding. You simply want to wish the result away. Just becasue the popular science sources don't sound a fanfare for Milky Way centrism you ignore multiple peer reviewed statements of the truth.
Everyone here can peruse those sites for themselves and note that they mostly (all?) completely ignore the fact that multiple mainstream peer-reveiwed papers state that the quantization indicates approximate membranes centred on us.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002]
quote:Originally posted by Tranquility Base: Yes it does coincide with the voids and bubbles etc. But since Tifft's most fundamental finding was quantization from here, the truth of the matter is that at a statistically significant level the galxies do fall on approximate shells or membranes or whatever you prefer to call them centred on our galaxy as much as you hate this idea.
quote:Mainstream cosmologists and sky mappers have failed to point out to the public that these large scale structures form membranes around us!
I don't get it. Looks more like a sponge to me, not a set of Russian dolls with us at the middle. I see voids and clusters, but nothing centered on us-- that would be the 'zero' at the bottom of the pie.
Now if you pick and choose just the right spots to measure you certainly could develope just such a concentric sphere centered around us ...
quote:Thety got excited about the large scale structure and forgot to tell us that they are . . er . . centred on us.
Do you read the stuff people post?
quote:Almost all of those sites and sources you have posted are participating in the biased coverage of the truly exciting discovery that is Tifft's.
Ah.... the conspiracy!!!!
quote: Rationalist - you are the one simply reading popular propaganda.
I prefer it to creationist propaganda, actually.
quote:Everyone here can peruse those sites for themselves and note that they mostly (all?) completely ignore the fact that multiple mainstream peer-reveiwed papers state that the qauntization idicates approximate membranes centred on us.
Are you going to back this up or should we take your word for it?
Oh... and multiple mainstream peer-reviewed papers say that the membranes are not centered on us perhaps? I found a few.
^ The four sites I clicked on do not state that the data reveals a quantization that indicates a non-random centering on us. But any of us with a stats package could analyse the figures linked to and discover Tifft's quantization centered on us. But why would you bother, multiple mainstream papers already show that the redshift stats is rock solid.
Statistics is important in sceince. A lot of data is surrounded by noise. Stats tell us when the reuslt is significant or not. If you want to see the answer with your eyes you will miss out on some fascinating discoveries like the discovery of the top quark. To discover that they had to measure billions of scattering events and show that the events which look like top quark events are multiple standard deviations above random. This is exactly what has been done for redshifts whether you can see it with your eyes or not.
The filaments which you can see with your eyes are preferentially sitting at conencentric positionsin jumps of 72 km/s. Not 100% but with a preference over random. That's what the stats says.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002]
Being in a solar system that is at the outer third of a galaxy, that itself is not even the dominant galaxy in the local group of galaxies, that is itself on the outer limits of a super cluster of galaxies must be disconcerting to some.
If I were on a planet one billion light years from earth would this supposed effect be centered on me? After all, since the universe is retreating from each individual point in the universe (minus the affects of local gravity), wouldn’t the redshifts look the same there as here?