|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Redshift quantization where the relative retreating velocity of any pair of galaxies tends to clump around multiples of 70 km/s is a well-known cosmological mystery, but how does it follow that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe?
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
You may be misunderstanding the mainstream findings. The quantization effect is apparent for any pair of galaxies, not just galaxies paired with the Milky Way.
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
TB writes: As I said earlier, you may not quite have the right story about the mainstream findings. The quantization effect is apparent for any pair of galaxies, not just galaxies paired with the Milky Way. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tranquility Base writes: Well, you quoted Humphreys quoting Napier and Guthrie, and you quoted Humphreys quoting Varshni, but you haven't actually quoted them directly. The surrounding context is missing, and the quotes you provide do not support your conclusion anyway. I assume the 1976 date for the Varshni cite is a typo. The Milky Way is not the only frame of reference from which quantization is apparent. Here's a pretty clear explanation from On the Quantization of the Red-Shifted Light from Distant Galaxies by Mark Stewart, a Creationist writing in 1998: Therefore, any difference in redshift between the galaxies in a pair should merely reflect the difference in their orbital velocities along the same line of sight. If we observe many pairs covering a wide range of viewing angles and orbital geometries, the expected distribution of redshift differences should be a smooth curve. In other words, if redshift is solely a Doppler effect, then the differences between the measured values for members of pairs should show no jumps. The quantization appears between any pair of galaxies, not just between the Milky Way and other galaxies. --Percy [This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-20-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tranquility Base writes: Interesting lack of curiosity. Given the Creationist penchant for accurately quoting scientists while making them appear to say things they obviously do not believe, I'd like to see the surrounding context. If you're right, the full paper will only provide further support for your position, so I don't understand your objection.
Nice argument from authority, but just as obviously, Milky Way centrism is not a view of mainstream science. I'd really like to see the full papers. You're using a common Creationist strategy of mining papers for data to draw conclusions not supported by the authors who you then accuse of having an atheistic, naturalistic bias.
Stewart is a Creationist whose article indicates a fair degree of familiarity with the issue. You are correct that we cannot measure velocity orthogonal to our line of sight using redshift, but distant galaxies have a retreating velocity within the expanding universe that is far in excess of any orthogonal velocities they possess relative to us, and so the orthogonal velocities can be ignored. That's why Stewart uses the term "line of sight." The measurement is made only on the vector component of the velocity that's along a "line of sight" between the pair of galaxies. And when you calculate the retreat velocity between any pair of galaxies it tends to be quantized around multiples of the 72 km/s value. The Milky Way is no more privileged than any other galaxy.
Many scientists are not atheists, and I certainly am not. Scientists are all races, religions and non-religions, so you cannot attribute supposed bias to any single source. Certainly a conspiracy amongst all this diversity and through these many years couldn't be maintained. It is more likely that science doesn't accept your viewpoint because it isn't supported by evidence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tranquility Base writes: As I explained, the quantization is not unique to the Milky Way but is common to other galaxies. The measurement is made only on the vector component of the velocity that's along a "line of sight" between the pair of galaxies. And when you calculate the retreat velocity between any pair of galaxies it tends to be quantized around multiples of the 72 km/s value. The Milky Way is no more privileged than any other galaxy.
I very much doubt that Varshni and Stephenson's views are being accurately represented by Humphreys. You say they are "mainstream," and mainstream science clearly doesn't interpret the data as indicating a central place in the universe for the Milky Way. Humphrey's is probably just picking up on some speculative comments in some papers published not long after Tiffts original findings were made known. Regardless, Varshni and Stephenson wrote in the 1970s before the more detailed studies driven by Tifft's findings were conducted. It was these subsequent studies which found redshift quantization a feature of random galaxy pairs, not just the Milky Way. Did Humphreys paper mention this later work? Why not post Humphreys paper here or somewhere on the net? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tranquility Base writes: I already said as much at the very outset when I said the quotes were missing their surrounding context. When Varshni and Stephenson wrote back in the 1970s we knew only that redshifts were quantized with respect to the Milky Way. Subsequent work which Humphreys doesn't mention indicates that redshifts are quantized between any pair of galaxies and that the Milky Way possesses no special place in the universe. Humphreys isn't doing original research but only mining 30 year-old papers for data long since superceded in order to make arguments that no longer hold. Setterfield, apparently aware of the more recent data that deprives the Milky Way of a central place in the universe, arrives at a different conclusion (http://www.ldolphin.org/setterfield/redshift.html). Why don't we invite Setterfield and Humphreys to debate here?
Just send the paper to the Admin to be posted here, it can taken down when they complain. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tranquility Base writes: This is probably a good time to repost the link to Stewart's article: http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html Stewart specifically addresses the centrality issue in the paragraph preceding the portion on galaxy pairs: "Recognizing the far-reaching cosmological implications of the single-galaxy results, and undaunted by criticism from those still favoring the conventional view, the analysis was extended to pairs of galaxies." If you read on through the article past the descriptions of the early work with pairs you'll see that eventually whole-sky studies were conducted. Stewart writes: "As these first all-sky redshift studies began, there was no assurance that the quantization rules already discovered for pairs and groups would apply across the universe." These studies became more sophisticated: "Remarkably, using the same solar-motion correction as before, the galaxies' redshifts again bunched around certain specific values." The above collection of excerpts from Stewart's article show him first mentioning the "far-reaching cosmological implications" of single-galaxy results that motivated the later studies, and then going on to describe those studies that uncovered evidence that the quantization applies to random galaxy pairs. In other words, what you call the "obvious interpretation" of the initial data from Tifft wasn't ignored but was very well understood. Such a conclusion was so stunning it subsequently motivated significant and complex studies, culminating in whole-sky studies. The results of these studies do not support a central position in the universe for the Milky Way but rather indicate the quantization effect holds for random galaxy pairs. Nonetheless, redshift quantization remains a significant cosmological mystery. Clearly, Humphreys is, at a minimum, engaging in severe dissembling on the topic by not incorporating the later results into his conclusions. Setterfield is wrong at face value when he breaks down the quantization to 2.68 km/sec increments, which is so small as to be swallowed completely by experimental error - Stewart mentions ±20 km/sec. You shouldn't trust either Setterfield or Humphreys. I only mentioned Setterfield to show another way in which ignoring the evidence trail can lead to strange conclusions. Since you have a university library available, perhaps you could seek out papers on the more recent work in this area.
But you're okay with entering into discussion an article that only you've seen? Have you seen this paper on Humphrey's cosmological model in CEN TJ posted over at TrueOrigins (I wonder if CEN has sicked their lawyers on them yet): http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf If TrueOrigins can do it then we can do it, so please send the paper to the Admin (admin@) so it can be posted here. Or at a minimum, email it to me (percipient@) and the others involved in this particular thread (I promise not to forward it to the Admin ). --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Tranquility Base writes: You'll consider it? Gee, thanks! What leads you to believe you're having a meaningful discussion about this article when you're the only one with access to it? Since you have access to a university library, perhaps you could find papers on the more recent work in this area. I haven't seen Humphrey's article, but from what you've said he is drawing conclusions from 30-year old papers and ignoring more recent work, for example, on galaxy pairs.
Yeah, you're right, I see it now. The point Stewart is actually making when addressing the centrality issue is that the galaxy pair results revealed quantized redshift differences regardless of "viewing angles or orbital geometries". This suggests a non-Doppler contribution to red-shift inconsistent with the conclusions Humphreys draws from data in papers that predate the galaxy pair studies.
It would make as much sense if I said Humphreys doesn't accept an ancient universe because he's too scared. Claims of scared researchers and conspiracy theories simply puts you among the "Area 51" and "the CIA murdered JFK" crowd." By the way, did you read the article about Humphrey's cosmology that appeared in CEN TJ: http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_fackmcin1.pdf --Percy [This message has been edited by Percipient, 07-30-2002]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024