red-shift & the center of the universe?

This is a proposed thread on a more narrow concept of Dr Humphries (as opposed to the proposed thread on his larger theory). Specifically, he states (in a layman's article here): The Institute for Creation ResearchQuestions:Is it true we observe "red-shifts in distinct, evenly spaced groups"?If so, what is the standard, non-YEC explanation?Do those answers make sense?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

I don't know. Does the good doctor Humpfries bother to give any references for this statement, which is the bases of his discussion? If not, then perhaps it's just something he made up because he thinks (erroneously) that it leads to a point that he wants to make. To the informed devotee of Christian dogma and theology, the very idea of the universe having a center is anathema. After all, god is everywhere in the universe (and perhaps beyond) and to suggest that god's universe has a center, or a 'preferred' location, or is non-uniform in any context is to state that god is "lumpy" in his eminence and his influence, thus diminishing the glory and limitless prominence of god.

Go back to the balloon analogy that has been offered up so many times. There is an infinitely stretchable balloon. On its surface are glued small dots. Pick a dot, any dot, and imagination sitting on your dot and describe the behavior of the other dots as the balloon is inflated.Do they not all move away from the dot you have chosen to be an observer from? Do you think you were just lucky enough to choose the dot that was the center of this universe? If so pick another dot. Again, any dot. Again describe the behavior of all the other dots. They behave exactly the same way from this dot ” and every dot. Every dot is the center of this universe.The same applies to the real Universe. Every observer, everywhere is the center of the Universe. How much value has the idea of a “Center of the Universe”?The idea of a center to the Universe is not an anathema. It just doesn't have any meaning in the same way that "the end of a sphere" has no meaning.

---

KindlyI've been off doing my bit to save the world, and it totally sucked.

Randman is referring to a bit of fairly recent cosmological science history. Up until not so many years ago there was a known anomaly in the data regarding red shifts. The red shifts of galaxies tended to form clusters around certain values when they should have represented a continuum. Creationists argued, quite correctly, that the clustering would not be apparent except from one place in the universe, the center, and therefore we were it.But as the accuracy of the red shift data improved, the anomaly disappeared. I don't recall exactly when this happened, not very long ago, but except for one of his own papers, Humphreys cites no paper more recent than 1994. There's a good reason for that. Were he to cite more recent papers they wouldn't be describing the anomaly, but the disappearance of the anomaly.--Percy

Percy writes:

quote:

---

But as the accuracy of the red shift data improved, the anomaly disappeared. I don't recall exactly when this happened, not very long ago, but except for one of his own papers, Humphreys cites no paper more recent than 1994. There's a good reason for that. Were he to cite more recent papers they wouldn't be describing the anomaly, but the disappearance of the anomaly.

---

The ones I've been able to find on redshift periodicity are from the past few years. For example:Tang, Su Min; Zhang, Shuang Nan, "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data," The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. 41-51 (2005)

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

I have tracked down a couple of old topics on this theme.The older and larger one is Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe.The other is Quantized Red-shifts and implications.Both the topics are currently still open.Adminnemooseus

Thanks Percy:You’re right, I completely misread the post and missed the link altogether.Sorry randman:My reply was knee jerk and much less thoughtful than your topic deserved.

---

KindlyI've been off doing my bit to save the world, and it totally sucked.

Can I take a little bit of a different angle on this discussion? Dr Humphreys provides a paragraph at the end of his ICR article called "Why a Center is Crucial to You." In this, he lists a slough of scriptures that show that God put us at the center of the universe, and claims that non-creationists put earth at somewhere other than the center just to show that we're not important.I'd like to point out that none of the scriptures he provided has anything to do with earth being at the physical center of the universe: it says earth was created before everything else and Christ came here to die, and Christ will make his throne here, and that events here on earth will determine the fate of the entire cosmos. It's all based on the inference that important things must be put in important places, and that the earth (which is important to God) is therefore put at, or very near, the center of the universe (because the center is an important place). But, London is not in the center of England, nor is D.C. in the center of the United States: the argument that thrones and important things have to be at the center of anything is a bunch of spoiled dooness.So, even if redshifts were quantized, and Earth was very near the center of the universe, it wouldn't really support anything of the creationist side, anyway. It would, however, agree with the ancient Greek (i.e. pre-Christian and non-Biblical) interpretations of the universe that the Catholic Church decided to adopt for no apparent reason.I just wanted to point that out. You can all go back to arguing physics now, if you'd like.

---

I'm Thylacosmilus.Darwin loves you.

Let's say the quantised red-shifts are real and do suggest that we reside at the centre of the Universe - but by 'we', we are referring to the entire Local Group, a mere 10 million LY across, and consisting of around 10^12 stars!!! Within the LG, the Earth is some insignificant planet, orbiting a dull yellow dwarf, somewhere in the unfashionable outskirts of the lesser of the two dominant galaxies of the Group. How the hell does that correspond to any concept of mankind residing at the centre of creation?In any case, the 'quantised' red-shifts appear to be almost certainly a selection artefact, as the latest papers demonstrate. The one or two authors still claiming peaks are scrabbling around at the limits of signal/noise.

The simple fact is if the math works as well with a center, and there is evidence of a center, then cosmology needs to be reworked with that in mind.Personally, considering the agnostic/atheist axe to grind so many scientists seem to have, I'd wager there is a good chance Humphrey's is right and that the idea of a centerless universe is incorrect.As far as it's relevance to his creationist ideas, it relates to his overall theory of a young earth and an old universe based on reworking relativity with a center in mind.

Well, that didn't take long. Suspension is for 4 weeks. Next suspension will be permanent.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

randman writes:

quote:

---

The simple fact is if the math works as well with a center

---

But that's just it: It doesn't work as well with a center. That's the entire point. Our observations are indicative of a space with no center. That's why we conclude there is no center to the universe.

quote:

---

and there is evidence of a center

---

But that's just it: There is no evidence of a center. That's the entire point. Our observations are indicative of a space with no center. That's why we conclude there is no center to the universe.

quote:

---

it relates to his overall theory of a young earth and an old universe based on reworking relativity with a center in mind.

---

Except that to have a young earth and an old universe would require the earth to be moving so close to the speed of light that it would tear itself apart. We do recall the Lorentz transformation, yes?                1
t' = ----------------- t
       sqrt(1-v²/c²)To make the earth only 6000 years old with the rest of the universe is 13.4 billion years old requires the earth to be moving so close to the speed of light that it is off by only 10^-13.Plus, you have missed the point behind relativity: A center would imply a preferred frame of reference and there ain't no such thing.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Her is what Old Earth Creationist and astronomer Hugh Ross has to say about Humphreys' cosmology: The Unraveling of Starlight and Time

quote:

---

Our observations are indicative of a space with no center. That's why we conclude there is no center to the universe.

---

Obviously, that is an anomoly; there is nothing which does not have a centre. Can you think of any reason why one would not be able to see the centre?My reading of all the factors says, we are in, and are, the centre. This is the reason we cannot see the centre. By 'we' I mean the universe itself. However one sees the universe in its beginning, there is no doubt it is expanding, namely the space is expanding. It is expanding from a certain original point, eg: the BB original point.If we imagine this first point to be a marble, and that this point represents the universe at an early phase, and then that it expanded to the current radius, we would be somewhere within that expanded point. This scenario would not allow us to see the centre, unless we were outside of the universe, as opposed being within it.I see no aternative to this. The universe started at some point. There was nothing outside this point - not even space. The space is expanding. All the universe's content is within the universe and embedded in space. If we call the beginning as point A and the current universe point Z, we are talking about A becoming >Z; > we are talking about the same universe. Here, it does not matter if we/earth entered the universe at point C or Q: we are still within the centre.Basically, we are now asking, where is the centre of the centre; a cyclical question. The BB beginning is the centre - that it expanded harmogeniously [equally in all directions] or not, does not effect the centre; the centre is not displaced - it expanded; it remains the centre even when the universe expansion is not equal. Here, a centre could only exist relative to something not of the universe, and as this is not available, there cannot be another centre than the universe.I invite a speculation to test this scenario. Perhaps a reflective index?Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.