|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: This is a good start.
quote: Where are the mainstream papers that say this? Or rather, why are there not mountains of papers verifying this?
quote: You don't say.
quote: If you work the math right, and choose the right variables, and have good data. It is easy to screw these things up.
quote: Right... and the people who do the analysis decide to draw sponges instead of Russian Dolls? ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rationalist Inactive Member |
quote: There is no quantization, period. What Tifft discovered was the large scale structure of the universe. Again.. you can check the redshift surveys done since and see for yourself. It's not that difficult.
quote: I could find no mention of the 'redshift quantization' beyond the early 70's in any mainstream publications. That would make sense, since better data has revealed not quantized redshifts, but voids and filaments that were previously unknown then.
quote: Yes there is. I've just given it.
quote: Nonsense.
quote: First you say that all matter is arranged around us in concentric shells (which is patently false), then you claim that the redshift is no indication of distance. Which is it going to be?
quote: Since the only statistical symetry turned out to be part of the structure known as the 'great wall', a part of a filament in our local group of galaxies, I would say that what you're saying makes no sense.
quote: Could you please show me any redshift surveys that even remotely demonstrate this effect. There have been many surveys done, and I've posted the results of several. None of them seem to show these shells.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: 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: Weird. Whatdayaknow? Better information popped up over the last thirty years. ------------------http://www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ThePresidnt69 Inactive Member |
Where is the proof? Its not what you know its what you can prove. You'll make a beleiver out of me thats if you can prove this is true. Please notify me and Prove it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
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 |
Varshni 1976 is on the web
http://home.achilles.net/~jtalbot/V1976b/ and is incredibly clear:
quote: 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
As I suspected, Humphreys claim is not all it's cracked up to be. I asked an astrophysicist friend to comment:
quote: Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ 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]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Joe Meert Member (Idle past 5680 days) Posts: 913 From: Gainesville Joined: |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ 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.
[/QUOTE] JM: I doubt it. This is in his arena of expertise, so I respect his opinion on the matter. As usual, creationist's eschew arguing in the scientific literature in favor of preaching to the masses by leaving out critical information. Effective, but very poor science. Cheers Joe Meert
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tranquility Base Inactive Member |
^ 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]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024