Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe

JohnI think you'll find I am correct about the effect of subtracting redshifts and dependence on aour vantage point. The key is the lack of info on perpendicular velocity.I kind of agree with you about the distance/velocity thing. As I'm sure you know, redshifts are actually a velocity thing by basic wave physics (Doppler effect). It was the expanding spacetime that made it a distance thing. Whatever the case the data either suggests ripples in distance or velocity (or a bit of both) centred on the Milky Way.Some others here may have a better handle on exactly what assumptions Hubble/Big Bang et al/etc use to get the distance/velocity to be so closely linked. Presumably it is suggested empirically. How much is it due to the Anthropic principle? Traditionally the fact that (just about) everything is moving away from us is explained to be non-cenric due to the expanding universe (anybody ask me if you need that explained via the balloon analogy). I don't doubt the expnding universe but the quantization raises the spectre of whether the Anthropic principle is necessary.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]

JohnIf we are the centre of (all or part of) the universe then the Anthropic Principle (that every vantage point should see the same pattern) may be unnecessary. On the other hand the expansion of the universe may automatically generate everything moving away from everything else as advertised and the quantization itself is the only thing that only works from one vantage point.

FrankWe all think that we are all on the same wavelength so I apologise for assuming that you can automatically follow my logic.My connection between quantization and atheistic bias works as follows:If redshifts are a precise distance measure then the data suggests the Milky way is surrounded by shells of galaxies. Regardless of the mechanism for the origin of these shells or velocity shock waves the chances that we are in the central galaxy of this 1 billion light year region is about 1 in 10^13. This is pretty unlikely so either (i) there is a good reason we are here and not somewhere else or (ii) there is somehing more to the redshifts.Given that redshifts as distance indicators are the current mainstream standard then the fact that shells are not pronounced by most researhcers as the standard interpretaiton of quantizaiton is becasue they don't like option (i). Why? It has been stated by some (including Varshni) that it is 'unasthetic' - we don't like being special. If you think this is unrelated to atheism I think you are stretching the point beyond credability but you are free to hold whatever opinion you like.The Anthropic prinsiple is the principle that says becasue we aren't special that the universe should look the same from any vantage point. It of course assumes that the universe is a symmetrical place and that we aren't special. It's respectability is that it fits the redshift data - or it used to prior to quantization. It is related to this issue very closely.The problem isn't that we are at the centre of something - if you define a sub-volume around an object then that object is automatically at the centre as you pointed out. The point is that the data suggests there are shells of galaxies centred on us and no-one else! That is a different beast. You know this - read Varshni and Stephenson again if you doubt it.Claiming that you are at the centre of a subset of a crowd of 1000 people by definition and standing on a rock concert stage with everyone looking at you are two different things!I agreed that the shell issue does not necessarily put the Milky Way at the centre of the universe but it does put us at the centre of a one billion light year radius powerful event which randomly would happen 1 out of 10^13 times.I am only claiming that alternative redshift quantization theories have gone nowhere - the rest of cosmology is streaming along and I agree with it.The "entrenched forced naturalism" is the peer group pressure that makes one have to apologize for suggesting that the unambigous interpretation of the data is that we are at the centre of a large part of the universe.If you really think this peer group pressure does not exist then I suggest you try it out at an astrophysics departmental coffee room and find out.If we really are at the center of such a large volume it is tantamount to proof of God's existence. That is why it is avoided like the plaugue.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]

From your site it says:

quote:

---

Note that the Anthropic Principle is probably true and says that there is nothing mysterious about why our Universe is special.

---

That is what I am saying - the Athropic Principle tries to tell us there is nothing 'mysterious' about the fact that it is special.The quantization data suggests there might be something mysterious - we are at the centre of a huge region of the universe for no good known reason.I'll agree that I have misunderstood the Anthropic principle to some extent - but ther are many versions of it and I think I am remembering one that seemed to make more sense. I guess I really meant a more general (perhaps nameless?) principle that suggests we seek laws that don't require specialness. I think some wording of the Anthropic principle do state this.If you can accept us being at the centre of a large part of the universe without thinking of the possibility of God - well - I think you are kidding yourself - but, each to his own.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]

FrankI finally read your link. Nice explanation with one blarring exception. The atheistic bias is so clear - no mention ala Varshni or Stephenson that there is a simple possibility - galaxies are distributed in shells with the Milky Way at the centre!If you guys can't see this bias in action then I . . well . . it's your life. Apart from Varshni and Stephensen these guys can't get themselves to say it! G...G...G...Go...Go...Go...Go - they can't say it. Without devising some bizaree unjustifiable new physics (as discussed in the link) the 'cosmic stretch marks' are centred on us!So it turn out, that unkown to most of us plebs, one of cosmology's biggest puzzles has a simple Milky Way centric explanation which does not even rate a mention in modern web/published summaries!

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-24-2002]

PercyThe 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.How do I know this you ask? I know this becasue of Varshni and Stephenson of course! Why else would they independently state in peer-reviewed astophtiscs journals that the data suggests the Earth is at the centre of shells of galaxies if they expect the effect to be equally centred on every other galaxy as well! That is the point you miss.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-24-2002]

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.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.

One thing is very clear Percy.The pairs of galaxy results (Humphreys does talk about the recent studies) are for pairs of galaxies along a line of sight from our vantage point. I agree that that pair of galaxies would get the same delta z if they measured it themselves. That is no surprise because they are a special pair chosen fom here. It says nothing about arbitrary pairs of galaxies. From here we know we have qyantization for all pairs along a line of sight from us (on average). This does not prove that one would get this also for arbitrary galxies in a lines of sight from some other centre.

​

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-24-2002]

PercyIn stating with an air of authority that '. . . and that the Milky Way possesses no special place in the universe' you are clearly stating something as fact tjhat has not been demonstrated by any link or extract here! The extracts we do have suggest otherwise.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.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.Setterfield simply does not adress the issue as to what the quantized redshifts would really mean if redshift was a direct velocity/distance measure! All he says is that it would mean it would be like cars going at multiples of 5 km/hr and rules it out on that basis! You tell me where he really rules out centrism please.PS - there is nothing complicated about Humphreys' paper BTW. All he does is say, as mainstream Varshni and Stephenson did 'what if redshift is a velocity/distance measure! And he does cite the additonal work since those guys showing that the aquntization has been confirmed. You simply can't accept it that mainstramers are not mentioning the obvious interpretion since Varshni and Stephenson because they are embarressed by it![This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-28-2002]

PercyThese 'whole-sky' analyses are just an extension to more data for what Tifft first did!The correction for movement of us relative to the microwave background is a velocity correction not a vantage point correction!The analysis does nothing to sugest that the quantization would be observed from another vantage point. There is not a single point raised in anything you have posted that suggests the quantization would be observed from any other vantage pont (other than that this would be unastehtic).Why don't you take us all through the logic step by step that shows that the all-sky results demonstrate that we would also see qyantization from other vantage points?Your quotes of Stewart show nothing of the sort. What it does whow is that to compare galaxy X in one direction to galaxy Y in another direction we need to subtract first the motions of oursleves with respect to the microwave background. If we are surrounded by approximate shells, arbitary galaxies X and Y will be on quantized shells. zX-Zy will cluster around multiples of some quantum. How could this possibly say anything about what would be observed about all-sky observations from another location? The all-sky results are still from our vantage point and no attempt is made to transform to someother view point (which is different than a velocity ref frame)! There is not a single line mentioned about trying to say what redshifts X would measure for Y from X! They are in arbitrary orientations from us (not along the same line of sight like the pair study) so you an't just say it would be the same result we would measure.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!I will consider scanning in Humphrey's article for your personal reading.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.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

FrankI agree that via some new physics redshifts may not be a direct result of velocity/distance - fully agree. But that does not cahnge the fact that, without new physics the data calls for Milky Way centrism. That is my point the new physics is sought becasue normal physics calls for genuine centrism.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

Yes normal physics could be wrong but the suggestions so far are pretty bizaree. That's fine but in physics you at least state what normal physics suggests. The thories I've read about so far are incredibly contrived. It's not as if it falls out of GR or QM. Here we can't seem to get agreement over what normal physics suggests even though it has been stated in the mainstream literaure twice independently.You say 'we don't have an explanation' - but we do - Milky Way centrism! See you're doing it yourself John!There is absolutely no normal physics against Milky Way centrism. It is not geocentrism per se. Humphreys has calculated that the effect is similar from anywhere in the Milky Way but washes out when one goes more than about 1.6 million ly away. We're not saying that the universe revolves around our planet!! But the data suggests the univere expanded from the location of the Milky Way.I love new physics - that's what I was doing when I was doing physics - I added extra fermionic generations to the standard model, I added extra Higgs aprticles etc. Beyond the stadard model was all I was about - but there has to be a good theoretical and experimental reason for doing this. And there is good experimental evidence in this case only if you don't like Milky Way centrism.

JohnIt is well known that quantum gravity predicts the discreetness of space - in jumps of 10^-33 cm! I'm sure you are aware that is smaller than the electron. It has absolutely nothing to do with quantized redshifts and no-one is even trying to say it does.We are not saying the universe is 'rotating around a ridiculously less massive object-- the Milky Way'. We are simply saying that observational evidence calls for the expansion of the universe having originated here.Humphreys is the only one daring enough to see what happens from other vantage points - everyone else is too scared (apart from Stephenson and Varshni who stated in black and white what the consequence was).Once your talking 1.6 million ly it doens't matter where in the Milky Way you measure from - (we're only 0.05 million ly in radius). The .05 million ly is less than the noise. The point is that the 'local' one billion ly universe is symmetrical (in terms of redshift quantization) around a point within 1.6 million ly of us with a chance of 1 in 10^13 (ie one in 10 trillion).All that Humphrey's has done is quantitate Varshni's and Stephenson's qualitative comments. From this creationist the cosmology community now knows that, barring new physics, we are within 1.6 million ly from the centre of a one billion ly spherically symmetric region of the universe.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-29-2002]

Where in that article does it suggest that? I can't find it in there.

PercyI've borrowed a cable so now I can connect up my scanner again. You should get an attachment tommorrow.Humphrey's does talk about the recent work which confirms that the quantization is not a statistical anomoly! Whether one looks at all (i) the data in one hit and does a power spectrum or (ii) analyses by line of sight pairs or (iii) by arbitary pairs - the results are all the same - quantization is real! In all cases the vantage point is not 'corrected for' - onlty our velocity relative o the microwave cosmic background.No-one, other than Humphreys has simulated what would happen from another vantage point. But mainstream Varshni and Stephensen independently knew intuitively the result that Humphrey's would find - without resorting to new physics the data suggests shells of galaxies around us.How does "quantized redshift differences regardless of viewing angles or orbital geometries" automatically require non-doppler explanations? You are still confusing multiple vantage point with multiple viewing angles (from one vantage point) and background velocity correction!The work on arbitray pairs achieves the same result as Tifft's original all-sky power spectrum except they corrected for movement against the microwave background and found finer quantizations. I went to great pains to try and explain that taking arbitray pairs of galxies from here will give a quantized delta z that does not suggest in the least that such quantization would be seen from other vantage points.PS - that article is a single component of a 5 year on-going discussion between opposing camps. They have not rebutted Humphreys' last rebuttal since then. And it concerns Humphreys' cosmology not the quantization issue per se.[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-31-2002]