Summations Only

JonF my friend In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.

quote:

---

The redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog, Third Data Release (DR3), is examined. Six peaks that fall within the redshift window below z=4 are visible. Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model.

---

Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model - NASA/ADS

quote:

---

Using new data for unassociated galaxies with wide H I profiles and values of period and solar motion predicted by Tifft and Cocke (1984), a periodicity has been found which is significant at the conventional 5 percent level. Together with Tifft's work on galaxy pairs and small groups, this result appears to provide evidence in favor of the hypothesis that measured galaxy redshifts occur in steps of a little more than 72 km/s or a simple multiple of this period.

---

Periodicities in Galaxy Redshifts - NASA/ADSI do not wish to blitz you with citations but there is actually overwhelming secular research that finds Q-Redshifting to be true. Please forgive the excess of citations but I really wish to put this one to rest.The Virgo cluster as a test for quantization of extragalactic redshifts. - NASA/ADSEvidence for redshift periodicity in nearby field galaxies. - NASA/ADSAdditional members of the local group of galaxies and quantized redshifts within the two nearest groups. - NASA/ADShttp://www.springerlink.com/content/r826358852wg46u5/Redshift periodicity in the Local Supercluster. - NASA/ADShttp://www.springerlink.com/content/t17401650822m547/http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0211/0211091v1.pdfFromRedshift Quantization? | Physics ForumsThis list is by no means comprehensive. Please cite some peer reviews that might contradict my position.

Welcome Son Goku I apologize for my late response I wish I had time to give your statement the attention it needs. In astrophysics today CMBR smoothness relating to the BB is defiantly a real problem. Consider the following about the Ad-Hock inflation explanation about smoothness in the CMBR

quote:

---

While speculative, there is as yet no other plausible explanation for the smoothness of the CMBR. Unless the CMBR is not really cosmic but local in origin, the distances between regions of similar temperatures are too great for any coordination to have caused them, since any coordination mechanism must travel at the speed of light. Again, particle physics and cosmology are intimately entwined. There is little hope that we may be able to test the inflationary scenario directly, since it occurs at energies near 1014GeV

---

OpenStax CNXLack of shadows in the CMBR are also proving to be a real problem

quote:

---

The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

---

http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/09/060905104549.htmlet us reason on these findings further as the parameters are the parameters Albeit the excessive additions of dark energy/dark matter. By the way, one of the issues about the flatness of the universe is that flatness over time would tend to disappear (not observed). Actually, the Higgs mechanism plays a major if not primary roll in the current understanding of formation of mass in BB theory. The Higgs is missing (you heard it here first).

quote:

---

They suggested that all particles had no mass just after the Big Bang. As the Universe cooled and the temperature fell below a critical value, an invisible force field called the ‘Higgs field’ was formed together with the associated ‘Higgs boson’. The field prevails throughout the cosmos: any particles that interact with it are given a mass via the Higgs boson. The more they interact, the heavier they become, whereas particles that never interact are left with no mass at all.

​

If it turns out that we cannot find it, this will leave the field wide open for physicists to develop a completely new theory to explain the origin of particle mass.

---

Citation please

Hey, Joe thanks for responding You need to help me out here; I reviewed each citation and found they did indeed support my position. When you say, spanked do you have those objections because I do not wish to read the entire thread? You also need to consider my qualifier for most of the objections namely:

NoNukes my friend...

quote:

---

In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.

​

Me

---

Actually, this is one of the papers that I could not locate any point at which the authors subtracted the relative motion of the earth in our galaxy. I have looked over the calculations and the data sets, I even tried to search any reference to earths relative motion. As far as I can tell the calculations neglect the earths Doppler shifting effect.

Son Goku my friend The Higgs field is essential to the Big Bang and if it missing, (it is a myth) then the Standard Model for particle physics will certainly be downgraded or it will collapse altogether. You have no idea of the repercussions of the missing Higgs.

quote:

---

Named after Peter Higgs, an Edinburgh University physicist, the Higgs boson is crucial to understanding the origin of mass. Shortly after the big bang, it is thought that many particles had no mass, but became heavy later on thanks to the Higgs field. Any particles that interact with this field are given mass.

​

What is the Higgs boson? | Higgs boson | The Guardian

---

JonF my friend Complete nonsense my friendThis next article you cited has nothing to do with the periodic redshifts I am talking about but the hypothesis that quasars are ejected from centers of distant galaxies. The next article you cited has a lot of doubt about the reality of Q-Redshifts but still finds them in the data to the order of 2 sigma (about 77.7% certainty of Q-redshifting). I think this article ends up in my camp. Your next argument is a very common fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM. That kind of argument can only be made if significant evidence to the contrary is obtained. No such evidence has become known to reject the original discovery.You make the following statement: Some current evidence for Periodic Redshifting
Napier 2006 Rutgers University Department of Physics and AstronomyPaper submitted 2006 (K. Bajan, P. Flin, W. Godlowski, V.P. Pervushin)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294Hartnett (2008) Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N( z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys - NASA/ADSTo Google this properly you need all the names for these phenomena

quote:

---

"Redshift quantization" has also been called redshift periodicity,[8] redshift discretization,[9] preferred redshifts,[10] and redshift-magnitude bands.

---

Preferred Redshifts are real.

Taq my friend Interesting that the Bullet Cluster and similar observations are the latest augments against CDM

quote:

---

One result is very definite by now: neither the Bullet nor the Train Wreck clusters support (nor do they prove) the existence of cold or warm dark matter. And, they certainly do not disprove MOND. Quite on the contrary, according to current knowledge, they falsify the concordance cosmological (or LCDM) model.

​

Seite wurde nicht gefunden. » Tagebcher der Wissenschaft » SciLogs - Wissenschaftsblogs

---

Some more articles finding the same resultsBULLET CLUSTER: A CHALLENGE TO CDM COSMOLOGY - IOPscience From the observations as such only more problems arise for BB.
Actually there are several better explanations for the 1A supernova redshifts one of them being the Carmeli 5d Cosmology.

JonF my friend You have mixed up the articles my friend If you look at citation #6 in the Wiki it is in error. The conclusion of that article clearly states

quote:

---

These results support that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366

---

It is not investigating the same redshift paradigm I am advocating. That is your continued argument (ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM)! However, to make you happy I cited articles up to 2008 and you still make the same mistakes. This is a quote directly from a 2006 article that includes the SDSS results as do any article I cited at and after 2006.

quote:

---

Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model
Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model - NASA/ADS...

---

You state This link is broken so if you want me to address this, fix it.This article did fine periodic redshifts and you are using it to bolster your argument? It supports my point

quote:

---

Contrary to the previous studies we consider all galaxies which can be regarded as a structure member disregarding the accuracy of velocity measurements. We applied the power spectrum analysis using the Hann function for weighting, together with the jackknife error estimator. In both the structures we found weak effects of redshift periodisation.

​

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

---

Do you see disregarding the accuracy? I addressed this problem as smearing the data remember? You know some of your citations do not go where they are advertised to go. Some of your citations actually do find quote weak redshift quantization even to 3 sigma and the last citation you criticize, states that SDSS data is used right in the middle of the ABSTRACT (http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885).The paper you cite criticizing Hartnett is not even a paper (it is a commentary) and is below peer review. How is it that I provide the more reasonable arguments and all you can say is Ain't no quantized redshift. It is because if quantized redshifts are real the Milky Way is near the center of the universe. Indeed, we are a special creation in God’s site.

JonF my friendHere is a link to that broken one you are using only the abstract is presentedhttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169Please look at the following citation first sentence

quote:

---

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts. http://www.mendeley.com/...s-sloan-digital-sky-survey-data-1

---

Do you see test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies.I have gone over your reply and wish to ask why you keep including the research for a study of the hypothesis for quasars ejected from galaxies. That assertion is not relevant to the preferred redshifts of galaxies we are discussing.Some more...ShieldSquare CaptchaThis one from Hartnett:
ShieldSquare CaptchaIn a effort to learn more I will humor your assertions
Please help me with the following from your citation. In particular, what are these selection effects? Are they a result of the mean of the zConf parameter as described by Hartnett? What is the host galaxy contamination? Is that the redshift from the supposed parent galaxy from which the QSO was ejected?If you can describe some of these effects maybe, you will catch on to what I am trying to tell you.

Panda my friend Apparently from the WIKI.Actually the total physics of the electroweak epoch is now in question since the Higgs Boson has not been discovered.

quote:

---

Particle interactions in this phase were energetic enough to create large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons.

---

Also from the WIKI

quote:

---

This is a time when energy fields are figuring themselves out as the bosons that mediate them come into play. The Higgs field may be making its first appearance, setting into place a framework in which all matter can come into existence.

​

Scientific Explorer: Our Universe Part 6: Electroweak Epoch

---

You see particle physics is about to be re-written. The BB is in very serious trouble. Now for God created to become the dominate view.Just a footnote, those W and Z bosons are not observed as particles.

quote:

---

The discovery of the W and Z particles is a major CERN success story. First, in 1973, came the observation of neutral current interactions as predicted by electroweak theory. The huge Gargamelle bubble chamber photographed the tracks of a few electrons suddenly starting to move, seemingly of their own accord. This is interpreted as a neutrino interacting with the electron by the exchange of an unseen Z boson. The neutrino is otherwise undetectable, so the only observable effect is the momentum imparted to the electron by the interaction. Error 403(Invalid User)

---

They are simply assumed to mediate reactions observed in bubble chambers.

My friend JonFYou can lead a horse to water but only Chuck Norris can make him drink.Thanks for the dialog.

dwise1 my friend

quote:

---

A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.
Isaac Newton

---

I am not a newcomer to the Bible or to science and I have never encountered any real scientific evidence that shows me that the Bible and science are incompatible. As for evolution and Big Bang cosmology, they are just bad science and will fade away with new scientific evidence, but the Bible will remain standing as God said it would. I never will intentionally, as you say make false statements about religion or the science to propound my own unsupportable viewpoint. If we are talking truth, the Bible is the higher authority and the science is the raging sea of change. I explore the science from a very sound and literal vantage point.There is no reason to fear the truth.I have to wonder how much of the evidence you really understand when you make such statements. You know we as Christians have been set free to weigh the facts rather than just ingest every piece of garbage thrust in front of us labeled truth.If you find yourself uncomfortable by arguments from the other side of the fence it is only natural. It is the epiphany of the moment that follows that can free your mind to learn something new or close it off to new ideas. One is liberating the other is stifling. If a personal Worldview is so fragile that it must be protected by retreating from the facts then intellectual growth is stifled. Whenever fear shapes an opinion, the truth suffers. How liberating it is to dive into the science without fear of being wrong. Maxwell and Faraday thrived on that liberation. Jesus Christ was Lord and master of them both.
Zaius137As for me I have found immutable ground. I have found a solid rock that is worthy of trust. Find that truth and that truth shall set you free. No one should ever fear the facts.Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

JonF my friendI know I have failed to convince you but for sake of others, I wish to clarify the misunderstanding between our points of view.As I understand it, there are two studies. One concerning the ejection of quasar like objects from galaxies and the other concerns real periodic redshifts of galaxies implying concentric shells of those galaxies extending in radial rings from our Milky Way galaxy. My argument for periodic redshifts concerned only the latter (galactic periodicity) implying that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe.The misconception occurred when citations for the hypothesis of mass ejections of distance galaxies were erroneously cited in our conversation.There are three causes of astronomical redshift:

Total redshift effects can be represented by: Page not found – Asterism.orgPeriodic redshifts of galaxies (concerning Z total):http://www.mendeley.com/...g-sdss-and-2df-grs-galaxy-surveysNow the studied redshifts of QSOs are different from the studied redshifts for galaxy periodicity. The QSOs only concern Non Doppler redshifts or intrinsic redshifts, in particular gravitational and cosmological (space expansion) redshifts. The principle is simply described in the following:

quote:

---

If high-redshift quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are ejected from the nuclei of low-redshift galaxies, as some have claimed, a large portion of their redshift must be intrinsic (non-Doppler). If these intrinsic components have preferred values, redshifts will tend to cluster around these preferred values and produce peaks in the redshift distribution.

---

ShieldSquare CaptchaThe idea of QSOs being ejected from galaxies is highly disputed but the periodic redshifts of galaxies in general is well supported. I believe I cited almost 10 separate papers (some older and one from 2008) which are verifications of the observation.

NoNukes my friend Yes I advocate an opinion but do not believe your point of view is anymore objective. By all means let us discuss the science. If I am wrong it will not be the first time, but I only convey my opinions after careful and logical consideration, so be prepared to be exhaustive in your replies.NoNukes are good nukes

Son Goku my good friendI want to thank you for that great post truly I enjoyed it. I agree the Quantum field theory has made amazing predictions such as the discovery of the Higgs Boson, its exact mass and particle interactions. Except that the Higgs is missing, (I have very good reasons to say this). Inconsistencies in a theory are a very good indication the theory needs replacement.You will never catch me criticizing Einstein’s field equations because they seem to work regardless of how bad the theoretical framework is that utilize them, namely Big Bang and the Quantum field theory.An after the fact theory can always be shown to hold some transient truth but a real predictive theory holds consistently to reality.It has been proposed that the quantum interactions we observe are mere shadows of a deeper reality. The current Standard model has long passed the promised simplicity and has become a patchwork of inconveniences.Do not herald a theory that makes a pseudo prediction about a clean unification prediction and then crashes and burns on a prediction like the Higgs.The biggest train wreck in scientific history (the Higgs) is simply because the theorists have fallen asleep at the throttle. Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.