Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 77 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-21-2019 8:00 PM
19 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, Tanypteryx, Theodoric (4 members, 15 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,001 Year: 5,038/19,786 Month: 1,160/873 Week: 56/460 Day: 56/91 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Author Topic:   Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 3787 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 122 of 170 (16225)
08-29-2002 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 10:34 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B]^ Nevertheless, he comments only on quasars for which there might be good reason to expect non-cosmological contributions to spectral shifts that could swamp out the quantization.

[/QUOTE]

JM: Not true, he also discusses galaxies and the fact that Humphreys conclusions don't jibe with the data he claims supports him.

Cheers

Joe meert


This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 10:34 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-29-2002 8:22 PM Joe Meert has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 170 (16259)
08-29-2002 8:22 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Joe Meert
08-29-2002 6:56 AM


^ Nothing your friend said about galaxies points to the non-existence of quantization. All the slight dependency of quantization on direction means is that the spherical symmetry isn't perfect.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Joe Meert, posted 08-29-2002 6:56 AM Joe Meert has not yet responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 170 (16285)
08-30-2002 2:04 AM
Reply to: Message 121 by Tranquility Base
08-28-2002 10:34 PM


Where in the argument is the positive inflationary pressure on space accounted for? It has been repeatedly confirmed. (This is a trick question.)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-28-2002 10:34 PM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 2:58 AM axial soliton has responded

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 170 (16286)
08-30-2002 2:58 AM
Reply to: Message 124 by axial soliton
08-30-2002 2:04 AM


If you read the mainstream peer-reviewed Varshni extracts I've posted you'll see that the expansion of space can't account for quantization as it can the all receding nature of galaxies.

The trick to the question? Is the space used by this thread expanding? Yes but you'll notice that 99% of it is my confirmation of something that mainstream Varshni (and I) considered obvious: namely that quantization interpreted cosmologically (ie Hubbley) indicates Milky Way specific centrism. But I may have missed the trick . . .


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by axial soliton, posted 08-30-2002 2:04 AM axial soliton has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Mike Holland, posted 08-30-2002 4:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 135 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 10:12 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 126 of 170 (16292)
08-30-2002 4:58 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 2:58 AM


Sure the quantization is centered around Earth - but only after some corrections are made for Earth's motion in the Galaxy. There is no accepted theory for this yet, but the best attempt to date is the work of Helmut Arp, (Seeing Red), which provides strong evidence that the redshift is age-related (or should I say 'youth-related'?). So when we look at something further away, and therefore younger because the light left it long ago, we see a higher redshift. So the redshift effect would be the same for any observer - he sees nearby objects as at neasrly the same time-frame as himself, and they are less red-shifted. No evidence for earth-centrism.

As for Humphrey's theory, he starts with two assumptions for which there is no evidence. Firstly, that the universe is bounded. The further we look into distant space, the more galaxies we see. The Hubble deep space studies just keep showing more galaxies. So there is no evidence for this assumption. Secondly, that the Earth is near the centre. Copernicus first showed that the Earth is not the centre of the solar system. Then we discovered that we are not the centre of the galaxy, then that our galaxy is an average one in the local cluster, which is on the edge of the Virgo supercluster. So all evidence to date contradicts him (but nothing is 'proved' yet).
He then claims that the universe expanded from a white hole - but Russian cosmologist Igor Novikov has shown that a white hole will quickly turn into a black hole, and nothing further will excape the event horizon.
And all this pseodo-science just to reconcile a six-day creation with light from distant galaxies. But light from our sun takes about 300,000 years on average to random-walk its way to the surface, and according to Humphreys, the sun is at most 8 minutes older than Earth (his 'event horizon' passed Earth at close to the speed of light), so his theory cannot even explain how we see our sun, let alone any distant stars.
Hope that clarifies some issues. If you want more detail or references, please yell.
Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 2:58 AM Tranquility Base has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by blitz77, posted 08-30-2002 10:36 AM Mike Holland has not yet responded
 Message 133 by Tranquility Base, posted 09-02-2002 10:35 PM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
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 yet responded

  
Rationalist
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 170 (16328)
08-31-2002 1:40 AM


blitz,

This picture appears to me to show no concentric shells, and the galaxies displayed seem to match the general large scale structure of the universe as seen in other directions.

I think you are seeing patterns which are not there. Sort of like people who see a face in that mountain on mars.


Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Mike Holland, posted 09-01-2002 12:11 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 129 of 170 (16354)
09-01-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Rationalist
08-31-2002 1:40 AM


Yes, Blitz, you are right. I should have been more explicit. Arp produced lots of evidence that quasars and some galaxies are 'new', and hence show high redshifts which are not related to distance. He theorized that new matter forming in unusual irregular galaxies had very low mass and consequently showed a high redshift.
I don't understand the maths, and am not sure how well developed his theory is - it is probably some hypotheses to account for his observations, but current non-Arp cosmology has no alternatives to account for them. I wish the scientigic edifice would look at his observations so that some real discussion would take place.
Anyway, to get on to quantization, Arp has put foward some ideas, and so have Hoyle, Narlikar and Burbridge ('A Different Approach to Cosmology'). These ideas do not require Earth (or any other planet) to be at the centre of the universe - they do not even require the universe to have a centre - so I don't think Humphreys can claim the redshift quantization as evidence for the Earth being at the centre.

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.

Anyway, it is fun thinking about these things.
Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Rationalist, posted 08-31-2002 1:40 AM Rationalist has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by blitz77, posted 09-01-2002 8:00 AM Mike Holland has responded

    
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 responded

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

  
Mike Holland
Member
Posts: 168
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 131 of 170 (16450)
09-02-2002 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by blitz77
09-01-2002 8:00 AM


OK Blitz77, you have forced me to justify my 'gut-feel's. Please excuse some horrible mathematical notation.

1. When does the event horizon start to shrink?
Assume the age of the universe to be 10**15 years, and that the edge of the universe is expanding at c. Then the radius of the universe is 10**15 LY, or about 10**33 cm.
The mass of the universe is then m = 4/3 pi r**3 p where p is the density. I have assumed a uniform density.
Calculations from the motion of stars in galaxies, etc, give p = 3 * 10**-31 gm/cm**2. Russian cosmologist Zeldovich has computed a maximum of 2 * 10**-28, taking into account dark matter and possible heavy neutrinos.
So I get m = 12 * 10**68 grams, or 6 * 10**35 suns. This gives a Swarzschild radius of about 10000 LY ( radius is proportional to mass; value for the sun is 1.5 kilometers).
So in 10k years the universe has reached the event horizon, and the event horizon then starts shrinking at c, and the whole process is complete in 20k years!
Note that the Klein space is within the event horizon, so the same limits apply to it.
If the Earth already existed at this time, then it has gone on evolving with the rest of the universe for the following 14999980000 years.
NB. Using Zeldovich's maximum value for the density, I get 6600000LY, which does not change the argument. We still have 14986800000 years left. I don't believe that any amount of fiddling with the figures will give Earth an age of 6000 years.

2. The shrinking event horizon.
An event horizon forms when a mass is compressed to fit within its Swarzschild radius. So the initial event horizon is no longer viable once the universe starts to expand beyond it. Assume that it does shrink, and that it has shrunk to half the original size. Then the enclosed mass must be half the original mass for the e.h. to exist. But assuming uniform density, a sphere of half the radius would contain one eighth of the mass, and as the universe has been expanding, the density would be much less, so there is no way an event horizon could exist at this position - or any other position within the original one in an expanding universe (except, of course, for local density fluctuations such as black holes formed from large stars. So the e.h. does not shrink, it simply disappears.

3. Talk of 'white holes' does not conceal the fact that this initial universe is a black hole, unless the matter is created gradually over a long time, in which case there are no event horizons or Klein metrics. An event horizon is just that. Nothing escapes it. Time within the e.h. but outside the Klein space has a time dimension which points to the centre singularity. No other path is possible. My literature states that collapse in this region takes place at the speed of light, but doesn't specify whose clock is being used.
So if there is any 'bounce' in the Klein space, it will be followed by an immediate bounce from the Swarszchild region back to the Klein region. The whole universe will sit on this boundary where a time dimension pointing inward meets a region with no time dimension.

I feel that Humphreys has used some very involved physics and mathematics in a situation where all his initial postulates and his conclusions are rubbish. It is like trying to prove that there are fairies at the bottom of the garden by using complicated optics to show that the light travels in straight lines from the fairies to your eyes.

The sources of my figures are Black Holes And The Universe by Igor Novikov, and The Feynman Lectures On Gravitation.

I am glad I found this web site. I have been working on these problems on my own for years, and it is great having someone to discuss them with. I have a B.Sc (Physics and Maths), but have worked as an IBM software specialist most of my life, and retired 20 months ago. Always stayed a scientist at heart.
Cheers, Mike.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by blitz77, posted 09-01-2002 8:00 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by blitz77, posted 09-03-2002 3:18 AM Mike Holland has not yet responded

    
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 170 (16452)
09-02-2002 10:25 PM


^ Can I suggest that you guys start a 'Creationist cosmological models' thread? Of course it's related to quantization but it seems to me that this should be a separate discussion.
  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 133 of 170 (16453)
09-02-2002 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Mike Holland
08-30-2002 4:58 AM


Mike

The correction for movement of earth within our galaxy is irrelevant. Of course that correction should be done to see if things are centred on our galaxy or not.

Humphreys' work is a great example of a scientific model. From postulates to mathematical model. It's now up the data to rule it out or not.

As much as you would hope that Judeo-Christianity is a western fad of the last three or four millenia it is also possible that the domination of this religion is God's mercy and message to us. Hence it is not stupid to use Bible motivated postulates to answer questions of fundamental importance such as origins. On the other hand I will not be using the Bible in my protein folding research.

It seems to me that evolutionists (theistic or otherwise) try and pretend that answering issues such as the origin of the universe and man are no different to studying the mechanism of Alzheimers disease. They are crucially different if the God of the Bible exists.

[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 09-02-2002]


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by axial soliton, posted 09-05-2002 4:19 PM Tranquility Base has responded
 Message 141 by Weyland, posted 09-09-2002 11:37 AM Tranquility Base has responded

  
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 yet responded

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

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 135 of 170 (16629)
09-05-2002 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by Tranquility Base
08-30-2002 2:58 AM


Your friend is fringe, not mainstream. In his most recent thrust, he speculates that quasars are lasers. Lasing is a quantum effect, not a cosmological one. He is wrong about quasars being lasers. This matters because it is an extention of his 1976 tome you like to quote as mainstream. http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/photos/2002/photos02-022.html
While I am on the matter, you should be on the lookout for any news report that says photon streams from a region of space are coherent (like laser light). Let me tell you, all of us will be thrilled.

To put the ducks in order, the expansion of space is a more fundamental phenomenon than any "quantization" or red-shifts. The fabric of space is what is inflating. Though the speed of light and Planck's Constant appear to stay the same, it may be only relatively so. Possibly they are ratios whose product is the same in our frame of reference. The gravitational equations can be thought of as depicting a gradient in the fabric/substance of space that causes photons to refract. The continuous curvature of the gradient yields a curved path, an arc, to the photons which is, of course, also relative. In the local frame, the photon thinks it traveled in a straight line. In our external frame, we note it travelled a curved path. The number of phase variations per unit time stretched over a curved path means fewer phase variations per unit of external frame distance. This gradient phenomenon is apparent in the real world in several ways. One example is gravitational lensing. Another is spacial inflation. The gradient thus changes if space inflates. Because of the connection of c and h to space, itself, we see a changed phase velocity of a photon with a changing gradient. It red-shifts or blue-shifts. It changes color. What data is being gathered now is about the notion that space has not inflated at the same rate since the Big Bang. Thus, the Big Bang may not have occurred exactly 13.6B years ago. Possibly it was only 12BYA!. It was not 6,000 years ago. So, experts are looking for an analog to that 4,000-year-old pine tree whose rings provided an exact roadmap of how much C-14 precipitated in that area of CA. Just because photons change apparent phase velocity is no excuse to declare the Earth is the center of the Universe. Just because it appears photons changed phase velocity at different rates in the past is also no excuse to say Earth is the center of the Universe. There is no relationship there.

http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html is a self-contradictory mass of words trying to point out that there are gaps in scientific knowledge. Gaps in science have an outstanding record of being filled in by experts following the scientific method over time (i.e., no need for mysticism). http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html is another early/first-order approach to addressing the matter in a logical non-homocentric way. You could just as easily have determined that entities follow different time lines as decide that somehow a potential quantized red-shift means a god created us as the center of the Universe http://www.kingsu.ab.ca/~brian/astro/course/lectures/winter/chp20.htm .

The physical reality of the Universe is full of wonder that is magnificent to understand and comprehend. To my way of thinking it is far more fulfilling than thinking it all got here by some incomprehensible mystery and being satisfied with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Tranquility Base, posted 08-30-2002 2:58 AM Tranquility Base has not yet responded

  
axial soliton
Inactive Member


Message 136 of 170 (16650)
09-05-2002 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by blitz77
09-03-2002 3:18 AM


In Humphrys' theory and discussion, how would he account for this picture?
http://www.seds.org/hst/97-25.html
The thought here is that a theory has to stand the test of evidence.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by blitz77, posted 09-03-2002 3:18 AM blitz77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by blitz77, posted 09-06-2002 10:33 AM axial soliton has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
78
9
101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019