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.