Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-20-2019 6:56 PM
30 online now:
dwise1, Tanypteryx, xongsmith (3 members, 27 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,921 Year: 4,958/19,786 Month: 1,080/873 Week: 436/376 Day: 67/46 Hour: 5/10


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 170 (16668)
09-05-2002 4:19 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Tranquility Base
09-02-2002 10:35 PM


Irrelevant. Hmmm.

I have been looking for good copies of those images showing the texture of the Universe. This:
http://www.ceptualinstitute.com/uiu_plus/cosm/cosmology.htm
is the best I can come up with in available time. Sure would like to have big ones for my wallpaper.

These images and my post on GR are meant to establish key, realistic, and germane fundamentals. In summary, any new theory must address our location out on a spiral arm of the Milky Way, the gradient in space described by GR, and the location of galaxy clusters along surfaces best described as bubbles. GR is verified. All suppositions must be based upon it or must incorporate it just as it incorporates Newtonian mechanics. Any theories pushed by avant garde scientists (or creationists) must simultaneously account for all of the above.

On the outside looking in:
The Earth cannot be at the center of the Universe because it is not even at the center of its own galaxy. There is a supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy and it holds our spiral arm in orbit around it. I believe the period of our arm is about 126MY. What makes anyone think the Earth has more influence on the Universe than that supermassive black hole? Our neighboring galaxy, Andromeda, is on a collision course with the Milky Way. Its spiral arms are also orbiting a supermassive black hole. Thus, any "center" (or centre!) of the Universe is outside a region 1.5M light years in diameter that contains both galaxies. There is no evidence of any Universe event horizons within this volume other than the event horizons of the 2 supermassive black holes and some mavericks. Every galaxy has a supermassive black hole at its center. So actually, any "center" must take all galaxies into account equally.

The Great One:
Just the fact that gravity has a gradient means that gravity is not the same everywhere on any scale and that the density of space is not the same everywhere. Inflation means the substance of space is intrinsically spreading out, galaxies are all spreading apart from each other. Galaxies are also intrinsically inflating. But the distance ratios between galaxy size and galaxy cluster size leave room for dynamic state changes. Photons are red-shifted because their phase velocity is reduced by the inflation of space on their way to the telescope photon detector. The greater the time they have been traveling, the more time that space has had to inflate before they travel through it. Crossing ever-inflated space reduces a photon's phase velocity. Gravity gradients are local but act on space the same way as inflation (coupling & mechanics), just locally symetric instead of universally symmetric. Photons traversing a gravity gradient can be blue or red-shifted. Just because inflation has red-shifted a photon and gravity or relative motion blue-shifted it again does not mean the Earth is the center of the Universe or that the Universe exists in shells around the Earth.

Clumps:
Since space has non-uniform texture, galaxies will collect and disburse where the gradient is greatest. Amazing to see that the Universe is organized as vast intertwining intersecting sheets. Galaxies seem to travel in the plane of the sheet and collect at edges. The gradient in space also causes physical motion. If physical motion is faster than inflation, maybe a red-shifted photon could be blue-shifted toward higher phase velocity. Nothing about this says anything about center (or even centre). Center is the anthropic notion and is actually very limiting in perspective. Based on the evidence, it looks to me like the gradient in the density of the space that became our Big Bang was non-uniform. The discontinuities grew into the bubbles. Maybe the size of the bubbles tells us the age of the Universe. Maybe space in the bubbles is inflating faster due to the extra momentum represented by these postulated intital discontinuities. Why does there need to be a limit on gravity flux density?

What we need to do is allow science the time to map the Universe just as it maps the DNA and gene codes. There are not 50-some shells around us upon which the galaxies of the Universe are embedded. Quantization of red-shifts looks like good evidence that inflation changed gears in the past, and that it will do so in the future. Speculation on dark matter and dark energy are not excuses to re-introduce man as the center of the Universe or that there must be a supernatural species or being to blame. What they are is part of the iterative process on the path of scientific discovery. Getting there, the path is rocky. In hindsight, every natural phenomenon is elegant. What say you?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-02-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-05-2002 7:12 PM axial soliton has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 138 of 170 (16691)
09-05-2002 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by axial soliton
09-05-2002 4:19 PM


I don't have much time but I never said the Earth was at the centre of the universe!

Varshni sort of said it only to make it sound ridiculous. What everyone means is that the data sugests our galaxy is very near the centre of the universe. No-one is suprisedthat since early expansion clumps have formed and our galaxy doesn't generally look that special.

The tell-tale signature is there however. Whatever the case there is a statisticlly significant signal in the galaxy redshift data that is shperically syymetric with respect to us, at least as far as the Hubble interpretaiton of redshifts goes. The shells are statistical only - but they are unmistakably there in the data.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-05-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 4:19 PM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by axial soliton, posted 09-06-2002 12:15 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 170 (16715)
09-06-2002 12:15 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Tranquility Base
09-05-2002 7:12 PM


Thank goodness! If he was making light of the data through a stylized interpretation it went over like a german comedien. Let's hope no physicist jokes equally about carbon! Some ultra-religious person is going to find out that carbon has 6 protons, 6 neutrons, and 6 electrons. Then we will all be in trouble.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-05-2002 7:12 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 170 (16761)
09-06-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by axial soliton
09-05-2002 1:39 PM


quote:
In Humphrys' theory and discussion, how would he account for this picture?
http://www.seds.org/hst/97-25.html
The thought here is that a theory has to stand the test of evidence.

I suppose you are referring to the "age" of the galaxies? Like their age in galaxy evolution and the 13 billion years or something?

quote:
The light we see in telescopes has already travelled billions of light-years and had begun its journey at an earlier stage of expansion, when those objects had not aged as much, although they were still many millions of years old then in terms of their clocks. In astronomers' terms, my cosmology has a look-back time to reckon with, just as the conventional cosmologies do. -- Humphrey

[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-06-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 1:39 PM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
Weyland
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 170 (16997)
09-09-2002 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Tranquility Base
09-02-2002 10:35 PM


Tranquility Base Wrote:

"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. "

Well, since Humphrey's work has been elevated from it's previous status of 'Poor quality science fiction', perhaps you'd care to answer a question that you previously avoided by claiming that Humphrey's work was 'an interesting supposition'.

In Humphrey's 'model', the universe starts out as a multiple light year diameter sphere of water.
If this were the starting matter for the universe, we should see a universe in which 14/16ths (by mass) or 1/3 by count of atoms,of the free matter between the stars was oxygen.
Oddly, we see a universe which is almost entirely hydrogen and helium.

Why should this be?
Where did all the oxygen go?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-02-2002 10:35 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:47 AM Weyland has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 170 (17004)
09-09-2002 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by Weyland
09-09-2002 11:37 AM


I dont' necessarily go along with Humphreys all the way.

But one simple answer could be that the oxygen 'disassociated' into protons and neutrons during whatever high energy process occurred immediately after creaiton of this bizaree blob of water. Humphreys is simply following though on 2 Pet 3.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-10-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Weyland, posted 09-09-2002 11:37 AM Weyland has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Mike Holland, posted 09-11-2002 4:34 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 143 of 170 (17151)
09-11-2002 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Tranquility Base
09-09-2002 11:47 AM


Sorry, tranquility Base, but that sort of answer will not do. You might just as well claim that a host of angels came along and dismembered the oxygen atoms. There is no known physical process to produce the result you are looking for. If Humphreys is basing his theory on that claim, there is no way any scientist would take him seriously. Humphreys started with two postulates for which there was no evidenced - a universe with a boundary, and earth being at the centre. Then he doesn't explain how his event horizon (or Klein space) hung around until 6000 years ago, when it should have disappeared billions of years ago (sorry, Blitz77, I did not reply to you earlier. A slower expansion than c only makes things worse for Humphreys). Humphreys also doesn't explain how, contrary to General Relativity, his Klein space still exists when there is no longer any concentration of mass sufficient to create black hole conditions, while the event horizon is contracting. And now this bit of fantasy about starting with a sphere of water light years big - surely it would collapse into a neutron start and then into a black hole! Or hasn't he heard of gravity? His theory needs miracles at every step. It is certainly not science, even though he includes some relativistic calculations to give it a semblance of science.

But back to the original topic - do quantized redshifts prove that our galaxy is at the centre of the observable universe? I don't think we can answer this question until we have a decent theory to explain the quantization. If you take the redshifts as strictly recession velocity effects, then it looks like a 'yes'. But the standard big bang theory is having many difficulties requiring patches and fiddles. There is too much evidence for redshifts which are not velocity-related, and at least two theories have been developed to explain these observations and the quantized redshifts, and these theories would not require our galaxy to be at the centre.

So I think we need a new cosmology which explains the quantization, before we can answer this question, much as Humphreys would like it otherwise.

Mike Holland.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-09-2002 11:47 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-11-2002 9:18 PM Mike Holland has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 170 (17210)
09-11-2002 9:18 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by Mike Holland
09-11-2002 4:34 AM


Mike

I can agree with a far bit of what you said.

1. The water sphere stuff is pure 'interpreted Bible proclamation' as far as I'm concerned. I can take this interpretation or leave it. But what makes you say that the oxygen wouldn't disassociate into protons and neutrons in some sort of nuclear explosion just perhaps as you have suggested?

2. For Humphreys' theory he needs (i) a bounded universe & (ii) a centre as you point out. He does have eveidence (not proof) of (ii) in quantized redshifts. He does not need proof or eveidence of (i) because we don't know if the universe is bounded or not - so his model says 'what if it is?'. If it is then we get cosmological level time dilation. That is very good science.

3. You seem to understand the details of Humphreys' stuff better than I do. The event horizon business? I just don't know. I, and Humphreys' himself, has requested that GR experts work on his or alternative theories. I only did one 4th year lecture course on GR so it wont be me. For me I simply see what he is saying as a hint and a step in the right direction.

4. Quantized redshifts? I agree but I also note that you agree that the Hubble interpretaiton is that the MW is at the centre of a large disturbance.

5,. I serisouly disagree that 'we need' an alternative cosmology that explains quantization. You may need it for religious reasons - I don't. If there is one, that is fine with me, but we don't need it!

PS - can you (or anyone else) summarize the basis of spme of the non-Doppler mechanisms for quantized redshifts? Of course there are non-Doppler explanation of shifts but what about redshifts and quantization in particular.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-11-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Mike Holland, posted 09-11-2002 4:34 AM Mike Holland has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Mike Holland, posted 09-12-2002 7:55 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 145 of 170 (17240)
09-12-2002 7:55 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Tranquility Base
09-11-2002 9:18 PM


I do hot need a new theory for religious reasons. I simply do not understand the quantization and cannot imagine any mechanism to cause it. Big Bang theory certainly cannot explain it, so something new is needed. But I still insist that it is premature to draw conclusions from it when we do not understand it.

I recently read two books presenting alternative cosmologies which attempt to include quantization. One is 'Seeing Red' by Halton Arp, who is the world authority on unusual galaxies, famous for his catalogue of them. The other is 'A Different Approach to Cosmology' by the late Fred Hoyle, Narlikar and Burbridge, in which they present a new take on Hoyle, Bondi and Gold's Steady State Theory. They call it QSSC - Quasi Steady State Cosmology. I do not like QSSC, but if it explains quantized redshifts, then it is ahead of Big Bang theory.

I will have to get these books out again, and reread them before I can attempt to describe the theories here, so don't expect a quick response here. Maybe someone out there knows of some other theories.

I find the quantization exciting, because suddenly the universe is full of possibilities, where we thought we nearly had it all sorted out (except for quantum gravity). But too many cosmologists still refuse to look at it, claiming that it is a statistical anomoly. They will miss the fun of developing fascinating new theories.

Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-11-2002 9:18 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 AM Mike Holland has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 170 (17244)
09-12-2002 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Mike Holland
09-12-2002 7:55 AM


^ Mainstream science has not give one second's thought to the possibility that the quantization indicates spherical shock waves around us. If the Hubble interpretaiton is correct then the data suggests some sort of shock wave effect (that has largely diffused away) but is nevertheless centered on us. Mainstream science will potentially miss out on understanding our universe.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Mike Holland, posted 09-12-2002 7:55 AM Mike Holland has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by John, posted 09-12-2002 11:32 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Mike Holland, posted 09-12-2002 9:32 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 170 (17271)
09-12-2002 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 8:29 AM


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.

------------------
www.hells-handmaiden.com


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 148 of 170 (17305)
09-12-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 8:29 AM


I am an atheist and an evolutionist, and proud of it.
When I hold a science textbook, I know I have the TRUTH in my hand, and I have an AK47 in the other hand to prove it!

But seriously, how can you draw universe-shaking conclusions from a phenomenon that no one understands? And then accuse ME of bias?

Your idea of shock waves sounds feasible at first glance, but then becomes ridiculous the moment you think about it. There is vacuum out there between the galaxies. In what medium did the shock wave travel? How fast did it travel? One would need a series of shock waves, starting billions of years ago and continuing for billions of years, as the wave train would have to extend over the whole stretch where we see quantization.

But the universe is already expanding from an explosion. How could another explosion from the centre send out shock waves which would catch up with the first one?

Of course, you could suppose that the shock waves occurred as a series of explosions when the universe first started expanding from a dense gas, before galaxy formation. But then we need a process by which each successive explosion is smaller than the previous one by just the redshift quantization amount, and at the same time throws out just enough gas for the universe to have the relatively uniform density that we see today, 15 billion years later.

You see, your hypothesis raises too many questions. It looks good at first sight, but falls apart the moment you examine it in detail.

But keep trying.

Mike


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 8:29 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 10:06 PM Mike Holland has responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 170 (17307)
09-12-2002 10:06 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Mike Holland
09-12-2002 9:32 PM


^ In the closest thing that creationists have to a sceintific cosmology, Humphreys proposes that the quantization is due to standing waves set up by an initial shock wave. Standing waves have a fixed wavelength with stationary nodes and antinodes and therefore lead to quantization.

But for a standing wave you need a boundary. Guess what, as you all know, Humphreys' cosmology already has a boundary. A medium? The waves could either be ripples in the actual fabric of spacetime or quantizaiton could be left over ripples from shock standing waves generated when the universe had a high density.

I truly think that aetheistic scientists are in danger of missing out on the most incredible discoveries of this age.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-13-2002]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Mike Holland, posted 09-12-2002 9:32 PM Mike Holland has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Mike Holland, posted 09-14-2002 5:18 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 151 by Mike Holland, posted 09-14-2002 5:46 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 150 of 170 (17419)
09-14-2002 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 10:06 PM


In case you hadn't noticed, the atheistic scientists (in fact, most scientists who don't let their religion interfere with their work) are MAKING the most incredible discoveries of this age.

They do not sit in their armchairs trying to squeeze other peoples amazing discoveries (such as quantized redshifts) into the framnework of a primitive mythology.

Sorry to get aggressive, but I couldn't let that one go by.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-15-2002 9:22 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 151 of 170 (17420)
09-14-2002 5:46 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by Tranquility Base
09-12-2002 10:06 PM


TM, another thought passed my mind while I was washing the dishes.
You seem to have a funny idea about people. You divide them into creationists and atheistic scientists. An awful lot of scientists are christians (more's the pity), and many are hindu, buddhist, muslim, etc. The division is really fundamentalist christians versus the rest of humanity (but you may find a few fundamentalist Jews on your side).

Not every failure of science is a triumph for creationism. Hindus don't like evolution either, because they believe that humanity has been around for many millions of years. Scientologists believe that the universe is 73 trillion years old. So the issue is not simply creationism versus science. Creationists are up against most christians, as well as every other religion and us atheists.

Sorry, this has nothing to do with redshifts. I am rereading Arp and Hoyle so I can expound their views.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-12-2002 10:06 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-15-2002 9:45 PM Mike Holland has responded

    
Prev1
...
789
10
1112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019