|
Author
|
Topic: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
|
John
Inactive Member
|
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
|
John
Inactive Member
|
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
|
John
Inactive Member
|
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
|
John
Inactive Member
|
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.
Hey TB, I knew some one must have thought of this besides me  That, or I read about it somewhere. Sometimes it is hard to keep track. "During inflation, these quantum mechanical fluctuations are amplified and due to the accelerating expansion of the universe they are stretched to macroscopic length scales."
Index | Relativity and Gravitation Group ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-13-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ Your link doesn't work John.
 It does now. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
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. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com [This message has been edited by John, 08-25-2002] [This message has been edited by John, 08-25-2002]
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ The four sites I clicked on do not state that the data reveals a quantization that indicates a non-random centering on us.
This is a good start.
quote:
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.
Where are the mainstream papers that say this? Or rather, why are there not mountains of papers verifying this?
quote:
Statistics is important in sceince. A lot of data is surrounded by noise.
You don't say.
quote:
Stats tell us when the reuslt is significant or not.
If you work the math right, and choose the right variables, and have good data. It is easy to screw these things up.
quote:
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.
Right... and the people who do the analysis decide to draw sponges instead of Russian Dolls? ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rationalist:
I could find no mention of the 'redshift quantization' beyond the early 70's in any mainstream publications.
Same here, TB. Everything I've found about quantized redshifts is based on a few papers from the seventies. um.... that was a long time ago by the way.
quote:
That would make sense, since better data has revealed not quantized redshifts, but voids and filaments that were previously unknown then.
Weird. Whatdayaknow? Better information popped up over the last thirty years. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 110 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 11:51 AM | | Rationalist has not replied |
|
John
Inactive Member
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
It is extreme atheistic bias that makes you 'need' another explanation. There may be another explanation but the straight forward explanation is just fine for now if one doesn't dogmatically stick to the (religious) cosmological principle.
May I suggest that your religious bias is preventing you from seeing this issue objectively? Quantized redshifts, if they exist, screw with cosmology. There is no 'straight forward' explanation. Whatever the solution, large bits of cosmology get dismantled. ------------------ http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
™ Version 4.2
