Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 170 (16047)
08-25-2002 1:09 AM


quote:
All galaxies and quasars have quantized redshifts. The quasars are quantized in largesteps: z= 1. 96, 1. 41, . 96,. 60,. 30 and. 06. The low redshift galaxies into whichthey evolve have redshifts quantized in steps of z= .0002 and .0001 (cz= 72 and 37.5 km/sec).
quote:
In April 1997 Prof. Yaoquan Chu communicated to me the sensational result shown in Fig. 4.He had measured the bright X-ray sources around the very active Seyfert NGC 3516. They turned out to be quasars ordered in redshift, culminating in the most distant, a bright optical and X-ray BLLac type object. All six of these quasars fell within 20 degrees of the minor axis of NGC 3516 (achance, just in this one property, of only 10^4 of being accidental). As the bottom of the Figureshows, the redshifts of these six ejecta fit very closely the periodicity which has been known for quasars for more than 20 years.
--http://redshift.vif.com/...es/Pre2001/V05NO3PDF/v05n3arp.pdf
quote:
"As expected, the galaxies' redshifts showed a smooth distribution. Clearly, no quantization was being introduced by the radio telescopes or the data reduction process. But after Guthrie and Napier corrected each redshift to account for the Earth's motion around the center of the Milky Way -- a different correction for each location in the sky -- out popped a periodicity of 37 km/sec, close to one of Tifft's values. It was so strong that the chance of it being a statistical fluke was less than 1 in 3,000."
--B. Guthrie and W.M. Napier
quote:
Now Halton Arp's discovery of the association of quasars with nearby galaxies combined with the discovery of the quantization of redshifts threatens to let the frog escape for good. The quantization spikes are so sharp, the dispersion so small, that when the quantization effect is removed, there is almost no redshift left to attribute to orbital velocities.
--DragonScience.com is for sale | HugeDomains
Quantized redshifts compared to solutions of Schroedinger's equation
Quantized Redshifts Compared to High Energy Solutions to Schroedinger's equation
Quantized Redshifts Compared to High Energy Solutions to Schroedinger's equation within an Infinite Harmonic Potential
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-25-2002]

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 170 (16301)
08-30-2002 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by Mike Holland
08-30-2002 4:58 AM


Aren't we talking about quantization of redshift instead of why there is a redshift? The 'age' of the light is the tired light theory-which would disprove the redshift evidence for the big bang model. And as I recall Arp has made some theories that could account for redshift instead of the big bang. As you also know, Arp collated a collection of "peculiar galaxies"-ie quasars with extremely high redshift z values are physically connected to to galaxies with low redshift values. Also, Arp noticed the quantization of the redshift of quasars-he observed that quasar redshift z values are quantized as z= 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc...
I'm not sure whether this image
is from Arp, but this picture is a 90 degree field of view of the Virgo galaxy cluster. This image is made by using the assumption that the distance is directly proportional to the redshift. As you can see, the "fingers" are pointed directly at earth. Now, this isn't an image about quantization.
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 08-30-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Mike Holland, posted 08-30-2002 4:58 AM Mike Holland has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 130 of 170 (16368)
09-01-2002 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Mike Holland
09-01-2002 12:11 AM


quote:
By the way, there is another flaw in Humphrey's theory that I haven't seen mentioned yet. As his universe expands, the density drops. Initially, the event horizon is beyond the bounds of the universe, then the expansion goes beyond the event horizon (several contradictions here - time stands still at this place! Nothing can excape a black hole!) and the contained mass drops, to the event hgorizon shrinks towards the centre. But there comes a point where the gravitational field at the event horizon drops too far to maintain it, and voila! - no more event horizon. One could assume a uniform density to the universe, and calculate when this would happen, but I am quite certain it would be billions of years ago, when the event horizon was still way beyond our supergalaxy.
This argument is from Conner and Page-the argument from a shrinking event horizon. However, Humphrey rebuts this in this article-New Vistas ofSpace- Time Rebut the Critics
However, this argument is based on a misunderstanding of Humphrey's model-Humphrey posits that that during creation, the energy differences in gravitational potential energy between variously places where enough to produce a region of space in which time did not exist. Instead of talking about an event horizon, he talks about an Euclidian signature, based on the Klein metric (invented by theoretical physicist Oskar Klein) instead of Conner and Page's use of the Robertson-Walker metric. According to this model, this "timeless zone" shrank until it disappeared at the center-the earth. This "timeless zone" conclusion is also strongly supported by a recent article by general relativity theorists Charle sHellaby, Ariel Sumeruk and George Ellis in the 1997 journal of modern physics, who used a different approach to the Klein metric and have thus provided independent evidence for the existence of this "timeless zone". And why are you certain that when this zone shrinks to nil that it would have happened billions of years ago?
Samuel Conner's and Don Page's original criticism of Humphrey can be found here
Humphrey's reply to this is the link I placed above, -New Vistas ofSpace- Time Rebut the Critics
Samuel Conner continues his criticism of Humphrey and Humphrey respondsStarlight-Time and Again
E.D. Fackerell & C.B.G McIntosh with further criticisms of Humphrey's position and Humphrey respondsErrors in Humphreys’ Cosmological Model
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-01-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Mike Holland, posted 09-01-2002 12:11 AM Mike Holland has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Mike Holland, posted 09-02-2002 9:57 PM blitz77 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 170 (16463)
09-03-2002 3:18 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Mike Holland
09-02-2002 9:57 PM


The "time" depends on your reference frame because of time dilation. The 15 * 10^9 may pass at the edges of the universe, but because physical clocks near an event horizon tick slower, added onto the time during which "timelessness" occurred in the center and time travelled at the edges of the universe could give the solution. Since I am not a physicist, you might have to argue with Humphreys or another physicist about it, but does the edge of the universe expand at c? I know that currently physicists say that the universe is expanding at a rate of between 40 and 100 kilometers per megaparsec. How does the rate the universe expands change the calculation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Mike Holland, posted 09-02-2002 9:57 PM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 1:39 PM blitz77 has replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 170 (16761)
09-06-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by axial soliton
09-05-2002 1:39 PM


quote:
In Humphrys' theory and discussion, how would he account for this picture?
Page not found – SEDS USA
The thought here is that a theory has to stand the test of evidence.
I suppose you are referring to the "age" of the galaxies? Like their age in galaxy evolution and the 13 billion years or something?
quote:
The light we see in telescopes has already travelled billions of light-years and had begun its journey at an earlier stage of expansion, when those objects had not aged as much, although they were still many millions of years old then in terms of their clocks. In astronomers' terms, my cosmology has a look-back time to reckon with, just as the conventional cosmologies do. -- Humphrey
[This message has been edited by blitz77, 09-06-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 1:39 PM axial soliton has not replied

  
blitz77
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 170 (17996)
09-23-2002 7:43 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by wehappyfew
09-23-2002 1:14 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by wehappyfew, posted 09-23-2002 1:14 AM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by wehappyfew, posted 09-23-2002 11:17 PM blitz77 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