Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8914 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-26-2019 6:09 PM
30 online now:
dwise1, JonF, kjsimons, ooh-child, Percy (Admin) (5 members, 25 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: ooh-child
Post Volume:
Total: 854,836 Year: 9,872/19,786 Month: 2,294/2,119 Week: 330/724 Day: 55/114 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
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

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 170 (17478)
09-15-2002 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by Mike Holland
09-14-2002 5:18 AM


Fair enough MH

But a very small proportion, probably around 1%, of mainstream scientists are YECs. In every work place I have been I have come across other science PhDed YECs. Without fail. Some are well known for their beliefs, others not. So we are amongst you (sounds scary).

They could be your boss . . . your PhD student . . your coffee table buddie . . . YECs are everywhere . . . Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!! . . . Your worst nightmare . . . Now on DVD.

And redshifts are not being squeezed at all - the standard Hubble interpretaiton of redshifts argues our point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by Mike Holland, posted 09-14-2002 5:18 AM Mike Holland has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 170 (17482)
09-15-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by Mike Holland
09-14-2002 5:46 AM


MH

It might sound like I divide up people into YECs and atheists. But I don't really. I'm very aware of the middle ground stance. Just becasue I say 'YECS say . . .' and 'an atheist says . . .' doesn't mean I do not understand the middle ground position(s).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Mike Holland, posted 09-14-2002 5:46 AM Mike Holland has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Mike Holland, posted 09-16-2002 5:52 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 155 by Mike Holland, posted 09-16-2002 5:55 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded
 Message 156 by MartinM, posted 09-16-2002 5:36 PM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 170 (17554)
09-16-2002 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 156 by MartinM
09-16-2002 5:36 PM


MartinM

Early in this thread I have posted a 1994 mainstream paper based on new data which states that the redshifts are "strongly quantized". I very much understand the statistics of low numbers but, not having the time to do the stats myself, I will trust recent peer-reveiwed mainstream papers that came out 5 years after your 1989 paper!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 156 by MartinM, posted 09-16-2002 5:36 PM MartinM has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 158 of 170 (17555)
09-16-2002 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Mike Holland
09-16-2002 5:52 AM


Mike

Thank-you for that informative summary of redshift problems.

Our scenario is not necessarily countered by the existence of additional mechanisms for specrtal line shifting. As a physicist I understand how shifting and broadening can occur (via non-doppler means). But to go for Arp's stuff and quantized electron mass jumps ahead of a simple geometric answer?? It's all possible - I agree. At the very least I suggest that there is a simple geometric answer.

So I see the data out there as due to doppler, geometry and non-doppler. So far geometry is clearly the best answer for the quantization aspect itself.

Shock wave? Who says it needed to be at the speed of light? It would simply occur at the natural speed of the medium whether it was a dense gas, or a huge neutron star or the space-time continuum itself.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Mike Holland, posted 09-16-2002 5:52 AM Mike Holland has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by wehappyfew, posted 09-23-2002 1:14 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 164 of 170 (18555)
09-29-2002 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by wehappyfew
09-25-2002 11:09 PM


^ Your 2002 paper DOES concern only the case of paired galaxies/quasars in lines of sight. As such IT is a very small subset of the all sky studeis. The 1997 paper concerns whole sky and finds 'strong quantization'. The early paired glaxay stuff may have been anomolous but you can't argue that for Napier.

This is extremely clear cut.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by wehappyfew, posted 09-25-2002 11:09 PM wehappyfew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 1:09 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 166 of 170 (18809)
10-02-2002 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by wehappyfew
10-02-2002 1:09 AM


^ Wehappy

From my reading there was good reason to expect non-Doppler effects with quasars. I agree that galactocentricity is only one possibility - but it is the straight forward possibility.

Tell me more about the spiral arm quantization - it's not due to the fact that one arm is moving towards and the other away in those cases?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by wehappyfew, posted 10-02-2002 1:09 AM wehappyfew has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by wehappyfew, posted 10-05-2002 4:39 PM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019