Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


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 103 of 170 (16057)
08-25-2002 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Rationalist
08-24-2002 12:50 PM


Sorry Rationalist
. . . 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Rationalist, posted 08-24-2002 12:50 PM Rationalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by John, posted 08-25-2002 8:35 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 170 (16059)
08-25-2002 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by John
08-25-2002 8:35 PM


^ 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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by John, posted 08-25-2002 8:35 PM John has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by R. Planet, posted 08-25-2002 9:14 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 109 by John, posted 08-27-2002 12:16 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 170 (16061)
08-25-2002 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by R. Planet
08-25-2002 9:14 PM


R. Planet
We've discussed this issue before. I agree that everyone sees everyone else retreating. But that can't be argued for quantization. There is no geomtery which can give it. If there were that would be the mainstream position. But that is not the mainstream position.
The mainstream position is that redshifts must have a non-Hubble component. Either due to new phsyics or maybe some unthought of light traversal effect. There is no agreed on answer for this. What is true is that the Hubble interpretaiton of redshifts gives us preferential positons for galaxies to be that are spherically symmetric around us.
If redshifts do have a non-Hubble component then the data on filaments etc are all meaningless. But that is not what is argued. Cosmologists love the filaments etc. They just dislike the fact that there is a statistically significant preference for spherical symmetry centred on us.
To answer your other question: the quantization effect would be near zero for vantage points beyond about 1.6 million light years according to the calcualtions by Humphreys (pdf posted in this thread earlier).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by R. Planet, posted 08-25-2002 9:14 PM R. Planet has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 108 of 170 (16063)
08-26-2002 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Rationalist
08-24-2002 12:58 PM


Everyone
The quantization effect is at a much finer level than the pictures being posted here. The quantization is evident out to about 1 billion light years in steps of about 3-4 million light years (for the 72 km/s redshift quantum). The galaxy chart posted by Rationalist for example
http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/.../lect/gclusters/redsurvey.html
contains data out to about 2.7 billion light years. There would be about a thousand coencentric shells. That is why the data has to be looked at statistically. And indeed, when the data is averaged over more of the sky, the galaxies come up more often at the 72 km/s (or 3-4 million light year) quantum jumps. Hence approximate membranes. Regardless they are centred on us.
Most of the voids and filaments are much larger than the qautum jump distance and is hence structure superimposed on top of this remnant of a spherical shock wave centered on us.
PS - these things are easy to check:
The Hubble interpretation relates redshift in km/s to distance in Mpc (mega parsecs = 3.26 million ly) via
distance = redshift/H
where H is the Hubble constant (around 70 km/s/Mpc)
The most well known published redshift quantization jump confirmed time and time again is 72 km/s giving a distance quantum of about 1.0 Mpc or 3.3 million ly).
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-26-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Rationalist, posted 08-24-2002 12:58 PM Rationalist has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 170 (16129)
08-27-2002 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 11:51 AM


Rationalist & John
I repost part of message 70:
In 1996 mainstream Faraoni published the following paper in General Relativity and Gravitation:
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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 'difficulty' with the Hubble interpretation of redshifts is that it violates the cosmological principle - ie it puts us in a preferred geometry at the centre of approximate shells of galaxies.
This is in 1996.
I think it has got to the stage where you guys simply need to email a sky mapper and ask them. Ask point blank. Say I am not a creationist. Does the Hubble interpretation of redshfts suggest that galaxies are (very) approximately located on membranes centred on us?
Varshni, Stephenson and Faraoni have each independently stated it in black and white as recently as 1996. It needs no big discussion because it is incredibly obvious.
The voids and filaments are mainly structure on a much larger scale that does not reveal quantization because averaged over the sky you can't pick up any consistency using a power spectrum. The finely spaced 72 km/s structure does show up and sugests centering on us via the Hubble interpretation as stated by Faraoni, Varshni and Stephenson.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 11:51 AM Rationalist has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 113 of 170 (16130)
08-27-2002 9:46 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Rationalist
08-27-2002 11:51 AM


Rationalist
You are completely ignoring the recent studies in 1997 forexample stating that 'redshifts are strongly quantized in the galactic frame'. WM Napier & BNG Guthrie J Astophys Astron 18, 455 (1997))
Please read my posts that the shells can only be statistically discovered. You will not see them with your eyes unless perhpas they are averaged over more of the sky. When we collapse more of the sky into a 2D rep you may be able to see it with your eyes. If you can't believe in careful, multiple independently generated stats then you also can't believe in CP violation or the top quark either.
PS - I retract my statement that non-Hubble effects would make the filamnets meaningless. Although potentially true the quantizaiton is at a much smaller distance scale than the filaments so it would not affect the filament results. I have only recently done the calcs to compare the quantizaiton jumps to the filament sizes. Thanks for pointing that inconsistency out Rationalist.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-27-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Rationalist, posted 08-27-2002 11:51 AM Rationalist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by ThePresidnt69, posted 08-28-2002 12:04 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 170 (16139)
08-28-2002 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by ThePresidnt69
08-28-2002 12:04 AM


TP69
Here are the logical steps:
1. All sky redshifts are quantized from our vantage point (Napier & Guthrie, 1997)
2. Distances (d) are related to redshift (z) via d = z/H where H = Hubble constant so distances areexactly proportional to redshift. So quantization of redshifts indicate preferred distances from us in all directions which indicates spherical symmetry. This is confirmed in plain English in (3) below.
3. Faraoni (1996), Stephenson (1977) and Varshni (1976) all state that if the Hubble interpretation of redshifts is correct then this result is not transferable to other vatage points and that Earth is therefore at the centre of very approximate shells or membranes of galaxies. All these three mainstream authors describe this result as unsatisfactory. Faraoni explains that this is becasue of violation of the cosmological principle - we shouldn't be special.
4. Numerous alternatives are being worked on that go beyond the Hubble interpretation but there is no agreement on non-Hubble alternatives which requirenew physics for example..
5. So it is clear that the current way we map galaxies tells us that we, and we alone, are surrounded by very approximate shells of galaxies centred on us. Mainstream Faraoni (1996), Stephenson (1977) and Varshni (1976) independently state this in black and white in peer-reviewed literature.
(The refs indicated are quoted throughout this thread).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by ThePresidnt69, posted 08-28-2002 12:04 AM ThePresidnt69 has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 170 (16145)
08-28-2002 1:01 AM


The Hubble interpretation of redshifts unambiguously declare Milky Way centrism:
Faraoni 1996
"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."
Stephenson 1977
"the Earth would have to be in a strongly privleged positon in the Universe"
Varshni 1976
"[quasars would be] arranged on 57 spherical shells with Earth as the centre"
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 170 (16152)
08-28-2002 1:39 AM


Varshni 1976 is on the web
http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1976b/
and is incredibly clear:
quote:
From this discussion it is obvious that if two or more quasars have the same value of z, they are at the same distance (though in different directions) from the Earth. In other words, assuming the cosmological red-shift hypothesis, the quasars in the 57 groups in Table I are arranged on 57 spherical shells with Earth as the center. This is certainly an extraordinary result. Some of the possibilities that we shall consider to accommodate this result may be disturbing, but we must consider these possibilities dispassionately.
1. Coincidence in distances could be possible if there were clustering. However, an examination of the coordinates of the various members of individual groups shows that in most cases there is no such correlation. Hence, this explanation has to be ruled out.
2. Quasars may be arranged like atoms in a crystal lattice, with the Earth being either at an empty lattice site or at a suitable interstitial site. Should that be the case, one would expect some pattern or regularity in the directions of quasars belonging to a certain group. No such evidence is found and this possibility must also be abandoned.
3. The Earth is indeed the center of the Universe. The arrangement of quasars on certain spherical shells is only with respect to the Earth. These shells would disappear if viewed from another galaxy or a quasar. This means that the cosmological principle will have to go. Also, it implies that a coordinate system fixed to the Earth will be a preferred frame of reference in the Universe. Consequently, both the Special and the General Theory of Relativity must be abandoned for cosmological purposes.
We must also consider the two other possibilities which have been discussed in the literature to explain the apparent red shifts of quasars. The difficulties in assuming that the red shifts are gravitational are well known and we need not repeat them here; in addition there is no reason why there should be coincidences in the M/r values (z is essentially a function of M/r for the gravitational red shift). The local-Doppler interpretation of red shifts also has serious difficulties; in addition it will have to explain why the quasars were ejected in shells.
We are essentially left with only one possibility - No.3 in the cosmological red-shift interpretation. However, before we accept such an unaesthetic possibility, we must raise the question : Are the `red shifts' real ? We wish to point out that we have proposed an alternative explanation of the spectra of quasars (Varshni, 1973, 1974, 1975; Menzel, 1970; Varshni and Lam, 1974) which is based on sound physical principles, does not require any red shifts, and has no basic difficulty.
Clearly the cosmological (Hubble) interpretation leaves only one possibility. Varshini's non-Hubble interpretation of redshifts is not used by cosmologists who instead use the Hubble interpretation of redshifts as we all know.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 7:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 119 of 170 (16190)
08-28-2002 7:57 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Joe Meert
08-28-2002 7:03 PM


^ There is debate about quasars but this doesn't apply to galaxies.
Could your friend also be a little 'selective' I wonder?
The only bias in data selection that could have helped Tifft et al is that they selected them on the basis that they gave quantized results. Nobody is accusing Tifft et al of fraud.
I suspect that Napier et al only used the subset of data with very accuate redshifts. I like that kind of selectivity. The quantization is very fine. They got quantization with very high statistical significance for their subset of galaxies. The statistical significance is the key to this.
Only someone with an agenda would 'hope' that this result will 'go away' after analysis of more data.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 7:03 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 9:38 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 170 (16195)
08-28-2002 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Joe Meert
08-28-2002 9:38 PM


^ Nevertheless, he comments only on quasars for which there might be good reason to expect non-cosmological contributions to spectral shifts that could swamp out the quantization.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 08-28-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Joe Meert, posted 08-28-2002 9:38 PM Joe Meert has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Joe Meert, posted 08-29-2002 6:56 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 124 by axial soliton, posted 08-30-2002 2:04 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 170 (16259)
08-29-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Joe Meert
08-29-2002 6:56 AM


^ Nothing your friend said about galaxies points to the non-existence of quantization. All the slight dependency of quantization on direction means is that the spherical symmetry isn't perfect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Joe Meert, posted 08-29-2002 6:56 AM Joe Meert has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 170 (16286)
08-30-2002 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by axial soliton
08-30-2002 2:04 AM


If you read the mainstream peer-reviewed Varshni extracts I've posted you'll see that the expansion of space can't account for quantization as it can the all receding nature of galaxies.
The trick to the question? Is the space used by this thread expanding? Yes but you'll notice that 99% of it is my confirmation of something that mainstream Varshni (and I) considered obvious: namely that quantization interpreted cosmologically (ie Hubbley) indicates Milky Way specific centrism. But I may have missed the trick . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by axial soliton, posted 08-30-2002 2:04 AM axial soliton has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Mike Holland, posted 08-30-2002 4:58 AM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 135 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 10:12 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 170 (16452)
09-02-2002 10:25 PM


^ Can I suggest that you guys start a 'Creationist cosmological models' thread? Of course it's related to quantization but it seems to me that this should be a separate discussion.

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 170 (16453)
09-02-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Mike Holland
08-30-2002 4:58 AM


Mike
The correction for movement of earth within our galaxy is irrelevant. Of course that correction should be done to see if things are centred on our galaxy or not.
Humphreys' work is a great example of a scientific model. From postulates to mathematical model. It's now up the data to rule it out or not.
As much as you would hope that Judeo-Christianity is a western fad of the last three or four millenia it is also possible that the domination of this religion is God's mercy and message to us. Hence it is not stupid to use Bible motivated postulates to answer questions of fundamental importance such as origins. On the other hand I will not be using the Bible in my protein folding research.
It seems to me that evolutionists (theistic or otherwise) try and pretend that answering issues such as the origin of the universe and man are no different to studying the mechanism of Alzheimers disease. They are crucially different if the God of the Bible exists.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-02-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Mike Holland, posted 08-30-2002 4:58 AM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 4:19 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 141 by Weyland, posted 09-09-2002 11:37 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024