Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,603 Year: 4,860/9,624 Month: 208/427 Week: 18/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creation cosmology and the Big Bang
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 305 (664384)
05-31-2012 2:43 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by zaius137
05-31-2012 1:44 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
You've picked a difficult topic to debunk, at least to the satisfaction of a difficult audience.
There are a number of papers written on the subject of red shift quantization/periodicity. The most famous ones are by Napier, Tifff, Arp.
Of course there are papers debunking these claims. The debunking papers are far fewer and there simply does not seem to be much interest in debunking the already debunked. Mainstream astronomers are seem about as interested in quantization as they are in astrology.
I'd be suspicious of a recent supportive paper that does not address the analysis in contemporary papers debunking the old analyses or that simply repeat the old analyses using those same methods or the same small data sets.
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
ABE:
As Jar has pointed out the article is dated 2005.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 1:44 PM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 12:00 AM NoNukes has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 34055
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 77 of 305 (664390)
05-31-2012 3:10 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by JonF
05-31-2012 2:27 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
From Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data (2205):
2205?
or maybe 2005?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

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 79 by JonF, posted 05-31-2012 4:56 PM jar has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 78 of 305 (664392)
05-31-2012 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by zaius137
05-31-2012 12:54 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data).
Show me.
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.
This is hilarious. More data causes the results to be lost. A perfect response to claims that the original studies used too little data because that was all that was available.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by zaius137, posted 05-31-2012 12:54 PM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 79 of 305 (664407)
05-31-2012 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by jar
05-31-2012 3:10 PM


Re: Redshift quantization
Woopsie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by jar, posted 05-31-2012 3:10 PM jar has not replied

  
zaius137
Member (Idle past 3491 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 3491 days)
Posts: 407
Joined: 05-08-2012


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 3491 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

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 83 of 305 (664615)
06-03-2012 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by zaius137
06-03-2012 12:00 AM


Re: Redshift quantization
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.
Nonsense.
We can positively rule out your relative motion proposal as a cause for the Tang, Zhang study finding a null result. On page 7-8 of the paper, the authors reproduce the periodicities found using the smaller data set and then show that the periodicities are absent in the larger set.
quote:
After smoothing off the sharp edges in the lowest and highest redshifts, a periodicity around ∆z = 0.67 is detected in the full sample of SDSS QSOs, as shown in Fig. 9; however a periodicity of ∆z = 0.67 0.05 or any other frequency is not found in the 2dF QSOs, as shown in Fig. 10. Such a difference between these two surveys is not surprising since the redshift-dependent spectroscopic completeness is relatively flat in 2dF (Croom et al. 2004), while in SDSS the spectroscopic completeness varies drastically at some redshifts (Richards et al. 2002). It is therefore improper to use all QSO redshifts in SDSS to probe any intrinsic periodicity without addressing selection bias.
Given the ability of the authors to reproduce the original results, the explanation cannot lie in the kind of methodology mistake that you describe. Selection bias seems to the best explanation for the apparent periodicities in the smaller study.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.
Edited by NoNukes, : Remove some snippiness

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 12:00 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 84 of 305 (664616)
06-03-2012 4:35 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by zaius137
06-03-2012 12:16 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Maybe it will help if I point out your obvious mistake...
zaius137 writes:
The Higgs field is essential to the Big Bang...
quote:
Shortly after the big bang...
If the Higgs boson was essential to the big bang, then it wouldn't be only applicable to particles after the big bang.
Are you unable to see that your own quote doesn't support the Higgs boson being connected to the big bang?
Can you not see that it actually says the opposite?

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 12:16 AM zaius137 has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 250 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


(2)
Message 85 of 305 (664629)
06-03-2012 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by zaius137
06-03-2012 1:51 AM


Re: Redshift quantization
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
Obvious truth.
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.
Ah, 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.
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.
Perhaps so, but it provides little support.
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.
Gibberish. My next argument was:
quote:
From The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog IV. Fifth Data Release (2007), section 5 (pg 12):
quote:
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).
You really need to read Delusions of Geocentric Quantization...
Now, earlier I did write:
quote:
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 quantization 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?
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.
Remember:
quote:
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).
You cite:
Rutgers University Department of Physics and Astronomy
Does not use the SDSS data, therefore irrelevant. You should, however, read it; it discusses the QSOs that you claim are irrelevant in great detail.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294
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:
quote:
Hartnett makes numerous erroneous statements on properties of PSD, suggesting he is relying on his 'intuition' on how the PSD works instead of actually testing the claim. Most researchers, myself included, must demonstrate that our test protocols work for datasets of known content before making such grandiose claims when applying the test to datasets of unknown content. In the abstract for Paper I, Hartnett states that his results "indicate that this is a real effect and not some observational artifact." Yet he has apparently conducted no tests to determine which characteristics of his results are analysis artifacts.
and John Hartnett's Cosmos. 2. Methodologies:
quote:
The quantized redshift (QR) 'community' has become increasingly insular and isolated - generally referencing only papers of other advocates and avoiding rigorous tests of their methodologies. Hartnett continues this 'tradition' by only referencing older works which have since been superceded. The 'tests' of his methods which he mentions in his papers are also particularly weak. The key issue is that a 1-D power spectrum installs an implicit assumption of spherical symmetry in a dataset, since is it only measuring radial separation. It is no surprise that such a method implies concentric shells centered on our galaxy…
Methodologies for analyzing these power spectra in full 3-dimensional form were quickly developed, Baumgart & Fry (1991) and Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994) were some of the earliest in this efforts. One of the more important issues which these tests needed to deal with was the fact that even the most recent sky surveys did not uniformly sample the sky, in terms of direction, and even distance. This issue created 'window functions' which could alias power into other frequencies, creating problems for interpretation (Feldman Kaiser & Peacock 1994). More recently, tutorial-style publications have described more details of the 3-D analysis process (Hamilton, 2005a,b).
The basics of the proper methods have been around over a decade.
Hartnett completely ignores these modern tests.Why does Hartnett limit his work to a one dimensional analysis when he has read the documentation (Kaiser & Peacock 1991) of the flaws in his methodology??…
Others have completed these power spectra calculations on the 2dFRS and SDSS 5th data release using modern methods (Cole et al 2005, Percival et al. 2007). Not surprisingly, their results show no evidence of claimed periodicity.
Ain't no quantized redshift.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 1:51 AM zaius137 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by zaius137, posted 06-07-2012 4:20 PM JonF has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 86 of 305 (664642)
06-03-2012 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by zaius137
06-03-2012 12:16 AM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
zaius137 writes:
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.
Actually I do. Currently we know that something generates an electroweak charge in empty space that essentially splits the electroweak force in two (into the weak force and the electromagnetic force). The Higgs is nothing more than the simplest mechanism for doing this. So, if it isn't found, we begin looking at the other mechanisms. Nothing will happen to the Big Bang model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by zaius137, posted 06-03-2012 12:16 AM zaius137 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by foreveryoung, posted 06-03-2012 9:30 PM Son Goku has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 664 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 87 of 305 (664647)
06-03-2012 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Son Goku
06-03-2012 6:49 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Currently we know that something generates an electroweak charge in empty space that essentially splits the electroweak force in two (into the weak force and the electromagnetic force). The Higgs is nothing more than the simplest mechanism for doing this.
What if there is no such thing as an electroweak force?, only electromagnetic forces and weak nuclear forces? What would happen to the big bang theory then? For that matter, what would happen to the big bang theory if dark matter and dark energy were myths as well?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Son Goku, posted 06-03-2012 6:49 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 06-03-2012 10:20 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 94 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-04-2012 3:05 AM foreveryoung has not replied
 Message 98 by Son Goku, posted 06-04-2012 4:20 PM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 88 of 305 (664650)
06-03-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by foreveryoung
06-03-2012 9:30 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
foreveryoung writes:
What if there is no such thing as an electroweak force?, only electromagnetic forces and weak nuclear forces? What would happen to the big bang theory then?
Well...the electorweak epoch occurred after the Big Bang.
Knowing that, are you now able to figure out what affect it would have on the Big Bang?
foreveryoung writes:
For that matter, what would happen to the big bang theory if dark matter and dark energy were myths as well?
Dark Matter and Dark Energy have both been observed.
Your question is similar to asking "What would happen to cowboys if horses were myths?".
Sure, we can waste some time discussing an imaginary scenario - but it is not an actual argument.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by foreveryoung, posted 06-03-2012 9:30 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by foreveryoung, posted 06-03-2012 10:38 PM Panda has replied

  
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 664 days)
Posts: 921
Joined: 12-26-2011


Message 89 of 305 (664652)
06-03-2012 10:38 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Panda
06-03-2012 10:20 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
Well...the electorweak epoch occurred after the Big Bang.
How do you know that?
Knowing that, are you now able to figure out what affect it would have on the Big Bang?
That all depends on whether the Big Bang was responsible for producing the electroweak force.
Dark Matter and Dark Energy have both been observed.
Observed or just wrongly concluded by misinterpreting the evidence?
Your question is similar to asking "What would happen to cowboys if horses were myths?".
No it isn't.
Sure, we can waste some time discussing an imaginary scenario -
Why do you say it is imaginary? It is no more imaginary than the big bang itself.
but it is not an actual argument.
I didn't know that I was trying to make an argument. I was asking questions about the validity of certain claims that everybody seems to accept as true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Panda, posted 06-03-2012 10:20 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Panda, posted 06-03-2012 11:55 PM foreveryoung has replied
 Message 95 by NoNukes, posted 06-04-2012 9:58 AM foreveryoung has not replied

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 3795 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 90 of 305 (664668)
06-03-2012 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by foreveryoung
06-03-2012 10:38 PM


Re: Dark matter is only the tip..
foreveryoung writes:
How do you know that?
Because that is where the evidence leads us.
To quote Wiki:
"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."
foreveryoung writes:
That all depends on whether the Big Bang was responsible for producing the electroweak force.
No it doesn't.
foreveryoung writes:
Observed or just wrongly concluded by misinterpreting the evidence?
Observed.
foreveryoung writes:
No it isn't.
Yes it is.
foreveryoung writes:
Why do you say it is imaginary?
When you make something up in your head, it is called imaginary.
foreveryoung writes:
It is no more imaginary than the big bang itself.
Correct.
Horses are no more imaginary than the Big Bang.
foreveryoung writes:
I didn't know that I was trying to make an argument.
Good. We are agreed that you have produced no arguments against the Big Bang.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

CRYSTALS!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by foreveryoung, posted 06-03-2012 10:38 PM foreveryoung has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by foreveryoung, posted 06-04-2012 12:08 AM Panda has replied
 Message 107 by zaius137, posted 06-08-2012 7:43 PM Panda 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