Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe

Fair enough MHBut 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.

MHIt 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).

Allright, TB, but your continual references to 'atheist scientists' gave a different impression.Back to redshifts. If we accept the standard Big Bang recessional velocity interpretation, then it does look as if the expansion is centered on our galaxy.But all is not well with this interpretation. Firstly, in galaxy clusters the dwarf galaxies all show higher redshifts than the dominant giant spirals of the cluster. One would expect a random distribution around them.Secondly, Arp and others report many cases of obviously related galaxies and QSOs, with filaments connecting them, where the redshifts are vastly different. Many high redshift QSOs are related to low redshift Syfert galaxies, and look as if they have been emitted by them. But this cannot be simply because they were emitted away from us - they all show high redshifts, no blueshiftf.Thirdly, some giant galaxies show different redshifts between the nucleus and the spiral arms, the difference being the usual quantum amount of 72km/s. One might expect a rotating galaxy to show a redshift on one side and a blueshift on the other, relative to the nucleus, but not redshift on both sides.So Big Bang and the Hubble interpretation have some serious problems. At least some of the observed redshifts are not due to recessional velocities, maybe all!Arp has a Little Bang theory. His observations seem to indicate that active galaxies (Syferts, radio galaxies) emit matter which evolves into quasara and then into galaxies. He reports many cases of quasars and small galaxies paired across large galaxies, with connecting filaments. He suggests that the newly created matter initially has zero mass, but acquires mass as it interacts with the rest of the universe (Mach's perinciple to explain inertia). Initial emission is at nerarly the speed of light, but it slows down as mass increases to conserve momentum, ending upn as a slower moving galaxy.All sounds way out, but one needs to look at all his pictures before criticising. Other explanations are welcome.He suggests that the electron orbits are affected by the low mass, resulting in high redshift of the normal absorbtion/emission lines, so that the redshift is a measure of the age (or youthfulness) of the matter, rather than its velocity. When we look at distant galaxies, we are looking far back into the past, and so we see younger matter than our own galaxy, and it is redshifted. No expansion required.The next step, of course, is that the change of electron mass is quantized, and so we see quantized redshifts. QED.My biggest problem with this is that there should be some galaxies much older than our own, old enough to compensate for the distance/time effect, so that they should appear blueshifted. But the observations are out there. I wish some bright theorist would come up with a good theory with a sound mathematical backing and some testable predictions.I have some more problems for your proposed standing waves, or series of explosions. Firstly, a standing wave can be created when a wave bounces back from a boundary. But when the boundary is a gas expanding at (or close to) the speed of light? I don't think so.
If you propose a series of explosions or disturbances, these are happening in the middle of a Klein space, which has no time dimension, so nothing can happen!

Allright, TB, but your continual references to 'atheist scientists' gave a different impression.Back to redshifts. If we accept the standard Big Bang recessional velocity interpretation, then it does look as if the expansion is centered on our galaxy.But all is not well with this interpretation. Firstly, in galaxy clusters the dwarf galaxies all show higher redshifts than the dominant giant spirals of the cluster. One would expect a random distribution around them.Secondly, Arp and others report many cases of obviously related galaxies and QSOs, with filaments connecting them, where the redshifts are vastly different. Many high redshift QSOs are related to low redshift Syfert galaxies, and look as if they have been emitted by them. But this cannot be simply because they were emitted away from us - they all show high redshifts, no blueshiftf.Thirdly, some giant galaxies show different redshifts between the nucleus and the spiral arms, the difference being the usual quantum amount of 72km/s. One might expect a rotating galaxy to show a redshift on one side and a blueshift on the other, relative to the nucleus, but not redshift on both sides.So Big Bang and the Hubble interpretation have some serious problems. At least some of the observed redshifts are not due to recessional velocities, maybe all!Arp has a Little Bang theory. His observations seem to indicate that active galaxies (Syferts, radio galaxies) emit matter which evolves into quasara and then into galaxies. He reports many cases of quasars and small galaxies paired across large galaxies, with connecting filaments. He suggests that the newly created matter initially has zero mass, but acquires mass as it interacts with the rest of the universe (Mach's perinciple to explain inertia). Initial emission is at nerarly the speed of light, but it slows down as mass increases to conserve momentum, ending upn as a slower moving galaxy.All sounds way out, but one needs to look at all his pictures before criticising. Other explanations are welcome.He suggests that the electron orbits are affected by the low mass, resulting in high redshift of the normal absorbtion/emission lines, so that the redshift is a measure of the age (or youthfulness) of the matter, rather than its velocity. When we look at distant galaxies, we are looking far back into the past, and so we see younger matter than our own galaxy, and it is redshifted. No expansion required.The next step, of course, is that the change of electron mass is quantized, and so we see quantized redshifts. QED.My biggest problem with this is that there should be some galaxies much older than our own, old enough to compensate for the distance/time effect, so that they should appear blueshifted. But the observations are out there. I wish some bright theorist would come up with a good theory with a sound mathematical backing and some testable predictions.I have some more problems for your proposed standing waves, or series of explosions. Firstly, a standing wave can be created when a wave bounces back from a boundary. But when the boundary is a gas expanding at (or close to) the speed of light? I don't think so.
If you propose a series of explosions or disturbances, these are happening in the middle of a Klein space, which has no time dimension, so nothing can happen!

Any thoughts on this?>>"Double Galaxy Redshifts and the Statistics of Small Numbers"
W. I. Newman, M. P. Haynes, and Y. Terzian
Astrophysical Journal 344: 111-114, 1989 September 1Tifft claimed that observations of double galaxies
reveal a 72 km s^{-1} periodicity. Sharp showed that
the "periodicities" in the observations are completely
consistent with the statistics of small numbers. Here
we show that Tifft's statistical procedure would ascribe
a periodicity to small sets of Gaussian random noise.
We conclude by showing that in order to satisfy the
null hypothesis that the observations are *not*
samples drawn from a normal population would [sic]
require the acquisition of at least an order of
magnitude more data.<<------------------

MartinMEarly 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!

MikeThank-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.

Coming late to the discussion..... System Unavailable ABSTRACT"We have used the publicly available data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that there is a periodicity in the redshift distribution of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) found projected close to foreground galaxies. These data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study, yielding 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency." From the Results section:"...it is apparent that there is no significant periodicity in the
data at P ~ 0.09, or, indeed, at any other frequency. An
analysis of the QSOs' heliocentric redshifts revealed a simi-
lar absence of signicant periodicities. Given that there are
almost eight times as many data points in this sample as
in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we
must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic
signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of
the window function."

That has already been posted by Karl (message 77) and answered by TB.

quote:

---

^ That paper concerns the special case of pairs of quasars/galaxies that are 'on top of each other' from our line of sight.
The larger all-sky galaxy surveys do 'strongly' find the quantization effect.

---

Hi Blitz,So you agree that when Napier's work is expanded to a much large sample, the apparent quantization of red-shift disappears?Then why did you cite Napier's older, smaller, study in your post 101 to support red-shift quantization?TB prefers the older data-set, too:

quote:

---

(post 113)
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.

---

Statistically, the quantization is shown by Hawkins(2002) to be an artifact of small sample size.and

quote:

---

(post 119, responding to J. Meert when he brought up the same Hawkins paper)
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.

---

Apparently he didn't realize that Hawkins et al were, in fact, using Napier's selection criteria... just on a larger segment of sky surveyed. They made the study at Napier's suggestion... and with his help and advice.The last bit of TB's post 119 is a classic bit of projection...

quote:

---

Only someone with an agenda would 'hope' that this result will 'go away' after analysis of more data.

---

Now that the quasar data is in... lots more data... eight times as much... the quantization does 'go away'. It was a statistical artifact of the small sample size. "Only someone with an agenda" would ignore/dismiss the update of the data that they previously cited in support of their position... now that it no longer supports their position.Since the Napier/Hawkins dataset contains only quasars, Tifft's data indicating quantization of visible galaxies is still an open question. I think a passage from Stewart's article is extremely revealing...

quote:

---

Several well-studied galaxies, including M51 and NGC 2903, exhibited two distinct redshifts. Velocity breaks, or discontinuities, occured at the nuclei of these galaxies. Even more fascinating was the observation that the jump in redshift between the spiral arms always tended to be around 72 kilometers per second, no matter which galaxy was considered. Later studies indicated that velocity breaks could also occur at intervals that were 1/2, 1/3, or 1/6 of the original 72 km per second value.
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html

---

Stronger evidence of an observational effect could not be found, in my opinion. There is no way to simultaneously argue that galaxies are arranged in concentric shells centered around the Milky Way while the [b][i]arms[/b][/i] of those same galaxies show 72 km/sec red-shift differences.Same problem for the studies of pairs of galaxies. In this case, the quantization observed from Earth is a measure of their orbital velocity around their common center of gravity... not their apparent distance from Earth using Hubble's constant. If the quantization were real, and not an observation artifact, then all it proves is that galaxies orbit each other with a discrete set of possible velocities.I'm sorry if I missed any other data sets that show quantization... it's a long thread... but with a pattern of 3 cases of quantizations observed that emphatically DO NOT indicate the existence of concentric shells, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that the 72 km/sec quantization is not a violation of the Cosmological Principle at all, and is, instead, due to some as yet unexplained observational effect common to all these dat sets.

Happy, I was also curious about TB's earlier dismissal of the Hawkins (2002) paper but, not having access to it, I could not pursue the issue.I think it is now up to TB to justify why Hawkins' results and conclusion should be discounted - it is rather contrary to TB's and Humphreys' assertions of earth-centred concentric shells of galaxies. I wouldn't want this topic to slip off the radar without TB responding.

Yes... and Percy almost but not quite got through to TB on the part about the quantization in orbital velocities of pairs of galaxies back in post 18 to 30-some. Maybe TB will catch on this time. I like to think I'm pretty good at explaining things - even to PhD physicists.

^ 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.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
^ 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'.

---

And how many galaxies were sampled in the 1997 paper (by Guthrie and Napier, I presume)?Wasn't it just a few hundred?The Hawkins(2002) paper measured about 1700 quasars. It found that small number statistics explained the previous findings of quantization in quasars. When only a few hundred data are analyzed for power spectra, patterns can appear from randomness. More data resolves the issue. It seems entirely reasonable to wait for additional data ... as Hawkins provided for the quasar quantization... before proclaiming galactocentrism proven.

quote:

---

The early paired glaxay stuff may have been anomolous but you can't argue that for Napier.

​

This is extremely clear cut.

---

I agree. Clear cut examples of quantization exist that cannot logically be construed as galactocentric shells. Even if global quantization survives the accumulation of additional data, the non-Dopplerian implications of what has been observed to date makes Humphrey's galactocentric 'shells' untenable. One certainly can argue that whatever makes the two arms of the same galaxy appear to be in two different 'shells' can also make whole galaxies fall into the same pattern of segregation by redshifts. Same argument for galaxies that are orbiting each other (their orbital velocities measured along our line of sight is quantized) - how can co-orbiting galaxies be in different 'shells'?

^ WehappyFrom 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?