Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
10 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 2 of 170 (13676)
07-16-2002 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tranquility Base
07-16-2002 9:04 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 9:04 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 9:59 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 4 of 170 (13681)
07-16-2002 10:24 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Tranquility Base
07-16-2002 9:59 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 9:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 10:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 10 of 170 (13751)
07-18-2002 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by Tranquility Base
07-17-2002 11:20 PM


TB writes:

I am only re-quoting Humphrey's citations of mainstream researchers.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-17-2002 11:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-18-2002 8:35 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 18 of 170 (13866)
07-20-2002 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Tranquility Base
07-16-2002 10:48 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

My quote of maistream Varshni makes it clear that the obvious interpretation of he data is shells of structure centred on the Milky Way.
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.
But this is not the situation at all. In various analyses the differences in redshift between pairs of galaxies tend to be quantized rather than continuously distributed.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-16-2002 10:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-21-2002 9:16 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-22-2002 1:53 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 40 of 170 (14059)
07-24-2002 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
07-22-2002 1:53 AM


Tranquility Base writes:

I quoted Humphrey's direct quotes of Varshni so I fail to see how that would be different from my typing it in from the actual ref (assuming Humphrey's isn't a liar)? Varshni is 1976.
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.

Mainstream peer reviewed comment states in plain English that Milky Way centrism is the (not very nice) consequnce.
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 simply not stating the obvious supposedly becasue we should know it but in actual fact because he wishes to hide the obvious.
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.

And it has been utterly suppressed becasue of atheistic bias.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-22-2002 1:53 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-24-2002 8:48 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 44 of 170 (14087)
07-24-2002 9:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tranquility Base
07-24-2002 8:48 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

The point that you seem to have missed is that while the expansion of the universe can account for everyone moving away from everyone else (no preferred centre) this cannot explain the quantization occurring uniquely in our reference frame.
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.

How do I know this you ask? I know this becasue of Varshni and Stephenson of course!
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-24-2002 8:48 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-24-2002 10:09 PM Percy has replied
 Message 46 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-24-2002 10:17 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 47 of 170 (14288)
07-28-2002 9:03 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Tranquility Base
07-24-2002 10:09 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

OK - at least we've got to the bottom of it - you either doubt Varshni and Stephensen or suspect Humphreys selectively quoted or both. Now we know what we are up against.
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?

How could I post Humprey's paper on the net? That would be illegal for a start! Like all mainstream journals they make money out of subscriptions, hard or online.
Just send the paper to the Admin to be posted here, it can taken down when they complain.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-24-2002 10:09 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-28-2002 8:52 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 170 (14389)
07-29-2002 11:39 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by Tranquility Base
07-28-2002 8:52 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

Your continued statement that 'redshifts are quantized between any pair of galaxies ' always leaves out the key fact that such pairs of galxies must be in a line of sight from us (ie lying 'on top' of each other from our viewpoint! They are hardly arbitray pairs of galxies and they hardly demonstrate that quantization would be expected elsewhere. If you can't see this then I don't know what to say.
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.

When I get time I will summarize more of Humphreys paper. I really don't feel right about posting an entire article. A figure - no problem, some extracts, sure but not a whole article.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-28-2002 8:52 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 8:57 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 61 of 170 (14500)
07-30-2002 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Tranquility Base
07-29-2002 8:57 PM


Tranquility Base writes:

I will consider scanning in Humphrey's article for your personal reading.
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.

The all-sky results do not suggest that quantization would be observed from a different vantage point. There is not a single line in Stewart that explains that that has been shown. You have linked various paragraphs, none of which explain how all-sky results show that quantization would be viewable from elsewhere!
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.

EDIT: I just got a return email from Humphreys. He confirms that his redshift calcs in the paper were perfomed on a standard expanding universe continuum. His calcs in the paper clearly demonstrate that the quantization washes out once one moves way from the Milky Way! Humphreys did this simple calc becasue everyone else was too scared.
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-29-2002 8:57 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-31-2002 8:39 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024