Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 4/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 70 of 305 (664368)
05-31-2012 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by JonF
05-31-2012 10:44 AM


Re: Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
but he demonstrated by Fourier analysis in several ways that there is no quantized redshift.
In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.
quote:
The redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog, Third Data Release (DR3), is examined. Six peaks that fall within the redshift window below z=4 are visible. Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model.
Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model - NASA/ADS
quote:
Using new data for unassociated galaxies with wide H I profiles and values of period and solar motion predicted by Tifft and Cocke (1984), a periodicity has been found which is significant at the conventional 5 percent level. Together with Tifft's work on galaxy pairs and small groups, this result appears to provide evidence in favor of the hypothesis that measured galaxy redshifts occur in steps of a little more than 72 km/s or a simple multiple of this period.
Periodicities in Galaxy Redshifts - NASA/ADS
I do not wish to blitz you with citations but there is actually overwhelming secular research that finds Q-Redshifting to be true. Please forgive the excess of citations but I really wish to put this one to rest.
The Virgo cluster as a test for quantization of extragalactic redshifts. - NASA/ADS
Evidence for redshift periodicity in nearby field galaxies. - NASA/ADS
Additional members of the local group of galaxies and quantized redshifts within the two nearest groups. - NASA/ADS
http://www.springerlink.com/content/r826358852wg46u5/
Redshift periodicity in the Local Supercluster. - NASA/ADS
http://www.springerlink.com/content/t17401650822m547/
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0211/0211091v1.pdf
From
Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums
This list is by no means comprehensive. Please cite some peer reviews that might contradict my position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 10:44 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Joe T, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 2:27 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2012 3:25 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 72 of 305 (664376)
05-31-2012 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Son Goku
05-30-2012 5:20 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Welcome Son Goku I apologize for my late response
The issue over the quadrupole moment is how large it is (the measurements have large errors and there are data analysis issues) and what exactly it implies about the long term development of the universe and early development of matter. However it has nothing to do with the occurrence of the Big Bang, since the Cosmic Microwave Background, in which the quadrupole anomaly exists is a prediction of the Big Bang.
I wish I had time to give your statement the attention it needs. In astrophysics today CMBR smoothness relating to the BB is defiantly a real problem. Consider the following about the Ad-Hock inflation explanation about smoothness in the CMBR
quote:
While speculative, there is as yet no other plausible explanation for the smoothness of the CMBR. Unless the CMBR is not really cosmic but local in origin, the distances between regions of similar temperatures are too great for any coordination to have caused them, since any coordination mechanism must travel at the speed of light. Again, particle physics and cosmology are intimately entwined. There is little hope that we may be able to test the inflationary scenario directly, since it occurs at energies near 1014GeV
OpenStax CNX
Lack of shadows in the CMBR are also proving to be a real problem
quote:
The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...ases/2006/09/060905104549.htm
let us reason on these findings further
Again nothing to do with the Big Bang itself, rather why do certain parameters have values that result in a flat universe. It's still a flat Big Bang universe though, as the parameters are the parameters of the Big Bang model.
as the parameters are the parameters Albeit the excessive additions of dark energy/dark matter. By the way, one of the issues about the flatness of the universe is that flatness over time would tend to disappear (not observed).
It's silly to say it is missing when the experiments to detect it have just begun. If if it is missing isn't this a particle physics issue and not cosmological? You can't list everything physicists don't know as somehow being evidence against the Big Bang.
Actually, the Higgs mechanism plays a major if not primary roll in the current understanding of formation of mass in BB theory. The Higgs is missing (you heard it here first).
quote:
They suggested that all particles had no mass just after the Big Bang. As the Universe cooled and the temperature fell below a critical value, an invisible force field called the ‘Higgs field’ was formed together with the associated ‘Higgs boson’. The field prevails throughout the cosmos: any particles that interact with it are given a mass via the Higgs boson. The more they interact, the heavier they become, whereas particles that never interact are left with no mass at all.
If it turns out that we cannot find it, this will leave the field wide open for physicists to develop a completely new theory to explain the origin of particle mass.
I don't know what you have been reading, but those are two of the best matches between experiment and theory that the Big Bang possesses.
Citation please

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Son Goku, posted 05-30-2012 5:20 AM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Son Goku, posted 05-31-2012 2:14 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 73 of 305 (664377)
05-31-2012 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Joe T
05-31-2012 1:30 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
Hey, Joe thanks for responding
It is very interesting that you cite this discussion: Redshift Quantization? | Physics Forums
The guy there making the same arguements you are, and using the references you use, was pretty thoroughly spanked. Did you read through the discussion or just Google looking for support?
You need to help me out here; I reviewed each citation and found they did indeed support my position. When you say, spanked do you have those objections because I do not wish to read the entire thread? You also need to consider my qualifier for most of the objections namely:
In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.
Me

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Joe T, posted 05-31-2012 1:30 PM Joe T has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2012 2:43 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 80 of 305 (664612)
06-03-2012 12:00 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by NoNukes
05-31-2012 2:43 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
NoNukes my friend...
An example debunking paper:
Tang, S. M.; Zhang, "Critical examination of QSO Redshift periodicities and associations with galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Data"
ShieldSquare Captcha
quote:
In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.
Me
Actually, this is one of the papers that I could not locate any point at which the authors subtracted the relative motion of the earth in our galaxy. I have looked over the calculations and the data sets, I even tried to search any reference to earths relative motion. As far as I can tell the calculations neglect the earths Doppler shifting effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by NoNukes, posted 05-31-2012 2:43 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 06-03-2012 2:03 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


(1)
Message 81 of 305 (664613)
06-03-2012 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by Son Goku
05-31-2012 2:14 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Son Goku my friend
That's not remotely true. The Higgs mechanism has no role to play in the formation of mass in the Big Bang theory. It explains how the Electroweak Force became the Electromagnetic and Weak Nuclear Forces. It certainly does not play a primary role in the Big Bang theory as the Higgs was first proposed decades after the Big Bang model.
The Higgs field is essential to the Big Bang and if it missing, (it is a myth) then the Standard Model for particle physics will certainly be downgraded or it will collapse altogether. You have no idea of the repercussions of the missing Higgs.
quote:
Named after Peter Higgs, an Edinburgh University physicist, the Higgs boson is crucial to understanding the origin of mass. Shortly after the big bang, it is thought that many particles had no mass, but became heavy later on thanks to the Higgs field. Any particles that interact with this field are given mass.
What is the Higgs boson? | Higgs boson | The Guardian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Son Goku, posted 05-31-2012 2:14 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Panda, posted 06-03-2012 4:35 AM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 86 by Son Goku, posted 06-03-2012 6:49 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 82 of 305 (664614)
06-03-2012 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by JonF
05-31-2012 2:27 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
Boy oh boy, you just love out-of-date information!! Google it up and post it without thinking, that's you. Yes, there used to be some controversy about whether or not redshifts were quantized. That controversy is settled; redshifts are not quantized. A few researchers (mostly creationists) still hold on to the idea but the evidence against it is overwhelming.
Complete nonsense my friend
This next article you cited has nothing to do with the periodic redshifts I am talking about but the hypothesis that quasars are ejected from centers of distant galaxies.
We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts.
The next article you cited has a lot of doubt about the reality of Q-Redshifts but still finds them in the data to the order of 2 sigma (about 77.7% certainty of Q-redshifting). I think this article ends up in my camp.
The previous result, based on selected samples showed the existence of the periodicity in the galaxy redshift distribution at a very high significance level. We found that at the 2σ significance level some effect was observed.
Your next argument is a very common fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM. That kind of argument can only be made if significant evidence to the contrary is obtained. No such evidence has become known to reject the original discovery.
You make the following statement:
Anything published before 2000 (the first data release from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey) is definitely out of date. (Wikipedia notes in its list of major papers claiming redshift quantisation that "All of these studies were performed before the tremendous advances in redshift cataloging that would be made at the end of the 1990s. Since that time, the number of galaxies for which astronomers have measured redshifts has increased by several orders of magnitude." Please remove all links to papers published before 2000. It would be best to question papers published before 2007 (the fifth data release of the SDSS) What do you have left?
Some current evidence for Periodic Redshifting
Napier 2006 Rutgers University Department of Physics and Astronomy
Paper submitted 2006 (K. Bajan, P. Flin, W. Godlowski, V.P. Pervushin)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294
Hartnett (2008) Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N( z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys - NASA/ADS
To Google this properly you need all the names for these phenomena
quote:
"Redshift quantization" has also been called redshift periodicity,[8] redshift discretization,[9] preferred redshifts,[10] and redshift-magnitude bands.
Preferred Redshifts are real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 2:27 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 06-03-2012 11:06 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 99 of 305 (665059)
06-07-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Taq
06-04-2012 3:48 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip of the problem.
Taq my friend
Interesting that the Bullet Cluster and similar observations are the latest augments against CDM
quote:
One result is very definite by now: neither the Bullet nor the Train Wreck clusters support (nor do they prove) the existence of cold or warm dark matter. And, they certainly do not disprove MOND. Quite on the contrary, according to current knowledge, they falsify the concordance cosmological (or LCDM) model.
Seite wurde nicht gefunden. » Tagebcher der Wissenschaft » SciLogs - Wissenschaftsblogs
Some more articles finding the same results
BULLET CLUSTER: A CHALLENGE TO CDM COSMOLOGY - IOPscience
Dark energy observed here:
quote:
By studying the spectra of supernovae or of the galaxies in which they explode, we can infer the redshift due to the expansion. Comparing the redshift with the distance for a large number of supernovae, we can derive the history of the cosmic expansion rate. In 1998, such measurements were first reported for supernovae at large distances, those which exploded when the universe was only two-thirds its present size. These supernovae appeared about 25% fainter, that is, farther away, than expected, an effect attributed to the speed-up of cosmic expansion over the last several billion years.
Overview - The Dark Energy Survey
The acceleration of expansion IS dark energy. That is the name given to it. It is what we observe.
From the observations as such only more problems arise for BB.
Actually there are several better explanations for the 1A supernova redshifts one of them being the Carmeli 5d Cosmology.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Taq, posted 06-04-2012 3:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Taq, posted 06-07-2012 4:19 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 101 of 305 (665074)
06-07-2012 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by JonF
06-03-2012 11:06 AM


Re: Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
This next article you cited has nothing to do with the periodic redshifts I am talking about but the hypothesis that quasars are ejected from centers of distant galaxies.
I see that you don't understand what quantized redshift is. Please read the Wikipedia article, especially the parts about QSOs, and then retract your claim.
You have mixed up the articles my friend If you look at citation #6 in the Wiki it is in error. The conclusion of that article clearly states
quote:
These results support that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366
It is not investigating the same redshift paradigm I am advocating.
But that's not an argumentum ad novitatem (not novitam, if you're going to do Latin get it right). The SDSS results are not better simply because they are newer; they are better because they contain orders of magnitude more data and significantly higher accuracy for objects over a very wide range of redshifts. You are rejecting incredible increases in dataset size and accuracy because it's new, something of a reverse argumentum ad novitatem.
That is your continued argument (ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM)! However, to make you happy I cited articles up to 2008 and you still make the same mistakes. This is a quote directly from a 2006 article that includes the SDSS results as do any article I cited at and after 2006.
quote:
Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model
Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model - NASA/ADS...
You state
Rutgers University Department of Physics and Astronomy
Does not use the SDSS data, therefore irrelevant.
This link is broken so if you want me to address this, fix it.
This article did fine periodic redshifts and you are using it to bolster your argument? It supports my point
quote:
Contrary to the previous studies we consider all galaxies which can be regarded as a structure member disregarding the accuracy of velocity measurements. We applied the power spectrum analysis using the Hann function for weighting, together with the jackknife error estimator. In both the structures we found weak effects of redshift periodisation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294
Do you see disregarding the accuracy? I addressed this problem as smearing the data remember?
Does not use the SDSS data, therefore irrelevant.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885
At last, someone actually uses the SDSS data! But wrongly. See John Hartnett's Cosmos. 1. Introduction:
You know some of your citations do not go where they are advertised to go. Some of your citations actually do find quote weak redshift quantization even to 3 sigma and the last citation you criticize, states that SDSS data is used right in the middle of the ABSTRACT (http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885).
The paper you cite criticizing Hartnett is not even a paper (it is a commentary) and is below peer review. How is it that I provide the more reasonable arguments and all you can say is Ain't no quantized redshift. It is because if quantized redshifts are real the Milky Way is near the center of the universe. Indeed, we are a special creation in God’s site.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by JonF, posted 06-03-2012 11:06 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by JonF, posted 06-07-2012 6:02 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 103 by JonF, posted 06-07-2012 6:46 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 105 of 305 (665136)
06-08-2012 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by JonF
06-07-2012 6:46 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
Here is a link to that broken one you are using only the abstract is presented
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169
Please look at the following citation first sentence
quote:
We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts. http://www.mendeley.com/...s-sloan-digital-sky-survey-data-1
Do you see test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies.
I have gone over your reply and wish to ask why you keep including the research for a study of the hypothesis for quasars ejected from galaxies. That assertion is not relevant to the preferred redshifts of galaxies we are discussing.
Some more...
ShieldSquare Captcha
This one from Hartnett:
ShieldSquare Captcha
In a effort to learn more I will humor your assertions
Please help me with the following from your citation.
Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006).
In particular, what are these selection effects? Are they a result of the mean of the zConf parameter as described by Hartnett?
To construct the lower histogram we have partially removed the effect of host galaxy contamination (by excluding extended objects), limited the sample to a uniform magnitude limit of i < 19.1 (accounting for emission-line effects)
What is the host galaxy contamination? Is that the redshift from the supposed parent galaxy from which the QSO was ejected?
If you can describe some of these effects maybe, you will catch on to what I am trying to tell you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by JonF, posted 06-07-2012 6:46 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by JonF, posted 06-08-2012 4:14 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


(1)
Message 107 of 305 (665153)
06-08-2012 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 90 by Panda
06-03-2012 11:55 PM


W and Z
Panda my friend
"The physics of the electroweak epoch is less speculative and much better understood than the physics of previous periods of the early universe. The existence of W and Z bosons has been demonstrated, and other predictions of electroweak theory have been experimentally verified."
Apparently from the WIKI.
Actually the total physics of the electroweak epoch is now in question since the Higgs Boson has not been discovered.
quote:
Particle interactions in this phase were energetic enough to create large numbers of exotic particles, including W and Z bosons and Higgs bosons.
Also from the WIKI
quote:
This is a time when energy fields are figuring themselves out as the bosons that mediate them come into play. The Higgs field may be making its first appearance, setting into place a framework in which all matter can come into existence.
Scientific Explorer: Our Universe Part 6: Electroweak Epoch
You see particle physics is about to be re-written. The BB is in very serious trouble. Now for God created to become the dominate view.
Just a footnote, those W and Z bosons are not observed as particles.
quote:
The discovery of the W and Z particles is a major CERN success story. First, in 1973, came the observation of neutral current interactions as predicted by electroweak theory. The huge Gargamelle bubble chamber photographed the tracks of a few electrons suddenly starting to move, seemingly of their own accord. This is interpreted as a neutrino interacting with the electron by the exchange of an unseen Z boson. The neutrino is otherwise undetectable, so the only observable effect is the momentum imparted to the electron by the interaction. Error 403(Invalid User)
They are simply assumed to mediate reactions observed in bubble chambers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Panda, posted 06-03-2012 11:55 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 06-08-2012 7:51 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 110 by Panda, posted 06-08-2012 9:22 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 111 by dwise1, posted 06-08-2012 10:12 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 117 by Son Goku, posted 06-09-2012 4:47 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


(1)
Message 109 of 305 (665155)
06-08-2012 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by JonF
06-08-2012 4:14 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
My friend JonF
You can lead a horse to water but only Chuck Norris can make him drink.
Thanks for the dialog.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by JonF, posted 06-08-2012 4:14 PM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 06-09-2012 8:19 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 112 of 305 (665168)
06-09-2012 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 111 by dwise1
06-08-2012 10:12 PM


Re: W and Z
Science has nothing whatsoever to say about it, though people and groups with views that differ from yours may have something to say, though when they do so then they also are dealing outside of science. Though, of course, when you make false statements about what science should show if your particular excessively narrow religious ideas were true, then you should not have the audacity to act surprised when the evidence contra-indicates your claims.
dwise1 my friend
quote:
A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding.
Isaac Newton
I am not a newcomer to the Bible or to science and I have never encountered any real scientific evidence that shows me that the Bible and science are incompatible. As for evolution and Big Bang cosmology, they are just bad science and will fade away with new scientific evidence, but the Bible will remain standing as God said it would. I never will intentionally, as you say make false statements about religion or the science to propound my own unsupportable viewpoint. If we are talking truth, the Bible is the higher authority and the science is the raging sea of change. I explore the science from a very sound and literal vantage point.
There is no reason to fear the truth.
I have to wonder how much of the evidence you really understand when you make such statements. You know we as Christians have been set free to weigh the facts rather than just ingest every piece of garbage thrust in front of us labeled truth.
If you find yourself uncomfortable by arguments from the other side of the fence it is only natural. It is the epiphany of the moment that follows that can free your mind to learn something new or close it off to new ideas. One is liberating the other is stifling. If a personal Worldview is so fragile that it must be protected by retreating from the facts then intellectual growth is stifled. Whenever fear shapes an opinion, the truth suffers. How liberating it is to dive into the science without fear of being wrong. Maxwell and Faraday thrived on that liberation. Jesus Christ was Lord and master of them both.
Zaius137
As for me I have found immutable ground. I have found a solid rock that is worthy of trust. Find that truth and that truth shall set you free. No one should ever fear the facts.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by dwise1, posted 06-08-2012 10:12 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2012 10:55 AM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 115 of 305 (665179)
06-09-2012 4:11 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by JonF
06-09-2012 8:19 AM


Re: Redshift quantization
JonF my friend
I know I have failed to convince you but for sake of others, I wish to clarify the misunderstanding between our points of view.
As I understand it, there are two studies. One concerning the ejection of quasar like objects from galaxies and the other concerns real periodic redshifts of galaxies implying concentric shells of those galaxies extending in radial rings from our Milky Way galaxy. My argument for periodic redshifts concerned only the latter (galactic periodicity) implying that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe.
The misconception occurred when citations for the hypothesis of mass ejections of distance galaxies were erroneously cited in our conversation.
There are three causes of astronomical redshift:
Total redshift effects can be represented by:
Page not found – Asterism.org
Periodic redshifts of galaxies (concerning Z total):
http://www.mendeley.com/...g-sdss-and-2df-grs-galaxy-surveys
Now the studied redshifts of QSOs are different from the studied redshifts for galaxy periodicity. The QSOs only concern Non Doppler redshifts or intrinsic redshifts, in particular gravitational and cosmological (space expansion) redshifts. The principle is simply described in the following:
quote:
If high-redshift quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are ejected from the nuclei of low-redshift galaxies, as some have claimed, a large portion of their redshift must be intrinsic (non-Doppler). If these intrinsic components have preferred values, redshifts will tend to cluster around these preferred values and produce peaks in the redshift distribution.
ShieldSquare Captcha
The idea of QSOs being ejected from galaxies is highly disputed but the periodic redshifts of galaxies in general is well supported. I believe I cited almost 10 separate papers (some older and one from 2008) which are verifications of the observation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by JonF, posted 06-09-2012 8:19 AM JonF has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by JonF, posted 06-09-2012 7:50 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 116 of 305 (665180)
06-09-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by NoNukes
06-09-2012 10:55 AM


Re: W and Z
NoNukes my friend
I can accept the statement that you are not intentionally making false statements. But my acceptance does not change the truth that your false statements are motivated by your religious view point. And because of that motivation, there is little incentive to point out the weaknesses in your arguments. You can never accept them. If you cannot address those weaknesses you'll simply be silent about any points made against them.
Yes I advocate an opinion but do not believe your point of view is anymore objective. By all means let us discuss the science. If I am wrong it will not be the first time, but I only convey my opinions after careful and logical consideration, so be prepared to be exhaustive in your replies.
NoNukes are good nukes

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2012 10:55 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by NoNukes, posted 06-09-2012 6:35 PM zaius137 has replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3522 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


Message 120 of 305 (665226)
06-10-2012 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Son Goku
06-09-2012 4:47 PM


Re: W and Z
Son Goku my good friend
I want to thank you for that great post truly I enjoyed it.
This is completely false. The quantum field theories which contain W and Z particles give very precise predictions for angles of emission, momenta and energies of particles that come out of the bubble chambers. This predictions match what is seen incredibly well.
I agree the Quantum field theory has made amazing predictions such as the discovery of the Higgs Boson, its exact mass and particle interactions. Except that the Higgs is missing, (I have very good reasons to say this). Inconsistencies in a theory are a very good indication the theory needs replacement.
You will never catch me criticizing Einstein’s field equations because they seem to work regardless of how bad the theoretical framework is that utilize them, namely Big Bang and the Quantum field theory.
An after the fact theory can always be shown to hold some transient truth but a real predictive theory holds consistently to reality.
It has been proposed that the quantum interactions we observe are mere shadows of a deeper reality. The current Standard model has long passed the promised simplicity and has become a patchwork of inconveniences.
Do not herald a theory that makes a pseudo prediction about a clean unification prediction and then crashes and burns on a prediction like the Higgs.
The biggest train wreck in scientific history (the Higgs) is simply because the theorists have fallen asleep at the throttle.
Edited by zaius137, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Son Goku, posted 06-09-2012 4:47 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 06-10-2012 2:34 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 124 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-10-2012 4:39 PM zaius137 has replied
 Message 129 by vimesey, posted 06-10-2012 6:03 PM zaius137 has not replied
 Message 132 by Son Goku, posted 06-11-2012 4:41 AM zaius137 has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024