|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Quantized redshifts strongly suggest that our galaxy is at the centre of the universe | |||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Maybe I can help out a little here.
William Tifft did notice unexpected relationships among a galaxy's Hubble type, brightness and redshift. His findings were not warmly received by the cosmological community but subsequent follow up in both visual and radio spectrums confirm his findings. The observations were made from so many different sites, using many different telescopes and covered so many objects that the chance of error is virtually nil. In short, the data must be accepted. TB is correct that mainstream cosmologists found the data disturbing, but not for the reasons TB cites. The basic problem was that the data suggested that some fundamental assumptions of cosmology were wrong. If you consider a cosmological model that assumes a (more or less) even distribution of galaxies in the universe and we can use redshift as an indication of distance, then it is reasonable to expect that the measured redshifts of galaxies would also have a nice smooth even distribution. The data does not support this. What the data indicated was the redshifts "clumped" around "preferred" (quantized) values and these values seemed to be multiples of 72 km/second. So questions arise. Is the redshift Doppler effect related ? Is redshift partially Doppler effect related ? Can any or all of redshift be explained by some inherent quality of the galaxy itself ? I must say that I have found nothing in Tifft's work that addresses the topics of the center of the universe or time dialation. In addition, I find a statement to the effect that the only sensible interpretation of these results is that the Milky Way is at the center of the universe to be wrong. Tifft has concieved of several ways to explain quantization. Of course this logic depends on Tifft being "sensible". But if TB uses Tifft's work to promote his argument, is it not fair to conclude TB considers Tifft to be "sensible" ? You may find the following article interesting : "Quantized Galaxy Redshifts" by William G. Tifft and W. John Cocke, University of Arizona, Sky & Telescope Magazine, Jan. 1987, pgs 19-21 (as an aside, Sky and Telescope has a very nice website : www.skyandtelescope.com ) I'm afraid I am not familiar with either Russel Humphreys or CEN TJ. TB - if you could provide a link I would appreciate it, I'd like to read the article to which you refer. The interpretation that galaxies appear in spherical shells around us is dependent on using redshift as an indicator of distance. Assume this to be true for the moment. Does this allow us to conclude that the Milky Way is the center of the universe ? I do not think so. I can agree to the conclusion that the earth is at the center of a finite volume of the universe that we are able to observe. This post was a little longer than I intended, so thanks for reading. Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Hi TB,
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] I got the feeling that Tifft didn't spell out what the immediate obvious interpretaion was from, eg, Percipient (I think). If you think Tifft clearly spelled out genuine Milky Way centrism as the obvious non-anomolous interpretaiton then I have no problem with that.
[/QUOTE] [/b]Tifft did not spell out anything like Milky Way centrism. How could he ? His data was preliminary. Even after confirmation, we can't conclude that the Milky Way is the center of the universe. You have already agreed to this. You did not tell me whether you had any reason to believe Tifft was trying to hide anything, but in message 21 you clearly express that Stewart "wishes to hide the obvious". Why is this ? How does one hide the obvious ?
quote: This is quite a statement TB. I suspect it is related to your previous statement about "evidence of unprecedented aetheistic bias" ? Again, I ask that you explain what you mean, and certainly, provide the evidence you have. quote: I can easily understand why some scientists found the data disturbing, it questioned fundamental assumptions. I mentioned this in my first post and others have also mentioned it. [b] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base: Are you serious that you can't see atheism or at least naturalism as a reason for this?[/b][/QUOTE] I assure you that I am very serious in my belief that atheism is not related to this topic. Naturalism ??? Naturalism as a reason for what ? I don't understand what it is that you are asking here. Are we talking about the data being disturbing, atheistic bias, data suppression, something else ? Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Cosmic stretch marks....
Interesting remark. I am also trying to research this topic a little more, and found a site using the same term:
http://www.npl.washington.edu/AV/altvw68.html Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Hi TB,
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] Regardless of preliminariness of data, when the obvious interpretation of data is so profound one should do two things (i) mention the interpretation (!) and (ii) go do more work. Tifft did (ii), I have no idea if he did (i). [/QUOTE] [/b] I think we can let the subject of Tifft rest. He reported his findings and the findings were confirmed.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] Unless I'm mistaken Stewart is a creationist who is going out of his way to pretend that the data doesn't suggest genuine Mlky Way centrism. PLease don't sue me for this anyone - it is simply an impression I have gained! [/QUOTE] [/b] I won't sue you. I will thank you for stating that this is simply your impression and nothing more.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] You suggest I am jumping to conclusions. But both Stephenson and Varshni express the Milky Way interprettion as somehting not just unexpected but 'unaesthetic'. Varshni refers to the explanaiton as the (quote) 'unaesthetic possibility' (unquote). You can decide why it is 'unaesthetic' (ie doesn't feel nice) but we all know about the principle that states we shouldn't expect to be in a special place (Anthropic principle?). [/QUOTE] [/b] Uh, no, but the thought that you were jumping to conclusions had occurred to me. What I have been attempting is for you to explain yourself a little further and present evidence you have found. I find it a little frustrating to ask questions and get replies that do not answer the question, ask me if I'm serious, and dance from redshifts to atheistic bias, naturalism, and now aesthetics and anthropic principles.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] Are you aware of the Anthropic principle? It is an extremely sensible principle if there is no God. [/QUOTE] [/b] I presume you refer to the strong anthropic principle. I do not understand how it relates to the topic of this thread.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] You don't have to accept my explanation although I think it is dead obvious. In a natural world we shouldn't be at the centre of even a one billion light year section of the universe. [/QUOTE] [/b] I think it obvious that whatever our location in the universe (natural or otherwise) we would be at the center of some volume of some distance. (Continue to use 1 billion light years for the distance, I have no problem with that.)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] The alternatives to genuine Milky Way centrism involve all sort of new physics/effects that have gone nowhere. The obvious interpretation is Milky Way centrism (as stated by mainstream Varshnui and Stephenson independently). This is an atheistic (or forced natrualism in other words) extreme violation of Ocaam's razor. The simple explanaiton is that we are surounded by approximate shells of galxies out to 1 billion lilght years in all directions. [/QUOTE] [/b] I do remember saying I agreed with the "shell like" interpretation of the data. We agreed that this does not imply the Milky Way is the center of the universe. So how is this a violation of Occam's razor ? What makes you believe that new cosmological theories have gone nowhere? From the little reading I have done I seem to remenber that p-branes and alternate universe concepts look quite appealing, but now I digress, this is off the topic.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] It would easily be a Nobel prize for Tifft if not for entrenched forced natrualism. It was arguably the most exciting discovery of the 20th century. [/QUOTE] [/b] Please explain "entrenched forced naturalism".
quote: I already knew that ! Clear Skies ! Frank [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-22-2002][/B][/QUOTE]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
TB,
Thanks for the reply. I now have a much better understanding of your reasoning.
quote: I think you are assuming a dichotomy. Yes we are here, but perhaps there does not have to be a good reason for it, or the good reason is simply that we are here. The odds of winning the lottery are pretty high, but people still win. My gut feeling is that we are here for a good reason AND there is something more to redshifts. If you insist on the either/or, then rebut the above statement. I say this because I suspect that your opinion is that we are here for a good reason, and will find it difficult to argue that there isn't anything more to redshifts than we already know.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] Given that redshifts as distance indicators are the current mainstream standard then the fact that shells are not pronounced by most researhcers as the standard interpretaiton of quantizaiton is becasue they don't like option (i). Why? It has been stated by some (including Varshni) that it is 'unasthetic' - we don't like being special. If you think this is unrelated to atheism I think you are stretching the point beyond credability but you are free to hold whatever opinion you like. [/QUOTE] [/b] This is difficult for me to argue because I don't agree to the assumed dichotomy above. Let me think about it some more.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] The Anthropic prinsiple is the principle that says becasue we aren't special that the universe should look the same from any vantage point. It of course assumes that the universe is a symmetrical place and that we aren't special. It's respectability is that it fits the redshift data - or it used to prior to quantization. It is related to this issue very closely. [/QUOTE] [/b] You and John discussed this in messages 36, 37, 38. Although my interpretation of the anthropic principle varied a little, I concur with John and don't feel I have anything of substance to add at this point.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] The problem isn't that we are at the centre of something - if you define a sub-volume around an object then that object is automatically at the centre as you pointed out. The point is that the data suggests there are shells of galaxies centred on us and no-one else! That is a different beast. You know this - read Varshni and Stephenson again if you doubt it. [/QUOTE] [/b] Ahhh, I see your point now, I didn't see it before. What I missed was the "no-one else" part. I'd like to research and prepare an argument against this. I should be able to get back to you early next week.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] I am only claiming that alternative redshift quantization theories have gone nowhere - the rest of cosmology is streaming along and I agree with it. [/QUOTE] [/b] OK. You might find the following link of interest:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/science/space/23UNIV.html [QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] The "entrenched forced naturalism" is the peer group pressure that makes one have to apologize for suggesting that the unambigous interpretation of the data is that we are at the centre of a large part of the universe. If you really think this peer group pressure does not exist then I suggest you try it out at an astrophysics departmental coffee room and find out.
[/QUOTE] [/b] My only experience in this area is with other members of a local stargazing club, many of whom were astronomy students at the local junior college. I haven't noticed it. Is this related to message 39, scientists can't use the "G" word ?
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[b] If we really are at the center of such a large volume it is tantamount to proof of God's existence. That is why it is avoided like the plaugue. [/QUOTE] [/b] I think John covered this in message 36. Clear Skies ! Frank [This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-23-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
[B] Setterfield simply does not adress the issue as to what the quantized redshifts would really mean if redshift was a direct velocity/distance measure! All he says is that it would mean it would be like cars going at multiples of 5 km/hr and rules it out on that basis! You tell me where he really rules out centrism please. [/QUOTE] [/B] I think Setterfield is saying that redshift is not a direct result of velocity/distance, that there is more to it. I don't see a big problem with this, if you do, please point it out. He rules out centrism here :
quote: Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Hi TB,
I find it a little difficult to argue/agree with Humphreys' position as I can't see the paper and don't understand what you are saying he is saying. I really am getting a little lost here, so if you don't mind a few questions -
quote: What effect washes out ? Redshift ? Are you saying redshift goes away?How is the calculation made ? What is the reasoning that the universe expanded from some location in the Milky Way ? Are we talking about where the Milky way is now? More in a little bit. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
A few more questions TB:
quote: What is it that Humpreys claims to see happening from other vantage points?Where are these vantage points? (1.6 ly away ?) Why is this daring and why is everyone else scared? quote: What noise do you mean? Background radiation? If so, how does this relate to .05 ly?
quote: Seems we are back to being back at the center of a volume of the universe that we observe. Consider that we are in galaxy M (milky way) and there is an observer in galaxy K (Klingon home galaxy), the direction from from M to K is MK, the direction from K to M is KM and the distance between K and M is X. Assume both observing points have the same observinig instruments. Does it not make sense that observer K can see further in direction MK than we do by a measure of X, and less than we observe in direction KM by a measure of X? If true, then observer K may use your line of reasoning and conclude he is at the center of expansion.Else, if false, why is it false ? Also, I have done a little poking around for Dr. Humphreys. Not a lot but did find the following links: http://www.trueorigin.org/rh_connpage2.pdf and http://www.answersingenesis.orgs/docs/543.asp From the second:
quote: The first link has a similar conclusion. Do you think he may be putting a higher priority on pushing the bible as scientifically reliable than avoiding any errors or mistakes in his own work? Clear Skies! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Thanks for the explanation. So it is the "clumping" of values of redshifts around "preferred" values that goes away. Interesting. I presume you imply that from a point more than 1.6 light years away we would observe an even distribution of plotted redshifts. This is the opposite of what Setterfield said, but no matter. I interpret your message to Percy to mean that the Humphreys article will be available in the near future. Allow me to give it a good read.
I think the "new physics" is simply an attempt to better explain what we observe and includes more issues than just quantization, e.g., there is an interesting article in the current issue of Scientific American (August, 2002) by Mordehai Milgrom proposing an alternative to dark matter. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
TB,
As above, allow me to give the Humphreys article a read. BUT....
quote: is fair enough but dodges the question I posed. Do you think Humphreys is putting a higher priority on presenting the bible as being scientifically reliable as opposed to the correctness of his own work? Just looking for your opinion here. Thanks. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Very interesting article. I have also followed the past few exchanges you have had with John. I will say I concur with John and will try to avoid repeating what he has already said.
quote: There is no argument that there is this "shell" like appearance. But, this is certainly not the conclusion reached in the article and ignores other models and interpretations mentioned, e.g., the redshift periodicity is an optical illusion; it is not a genuine measure of distance. Please correct me if I am wrong on this, but, did not creationists support the idea that redshifts were not a true measure of distance/speed in the past, ala Halton Arp ? I get the feeling that you ignore the rest of the article because it does not support your current interpretation.
quote: Period ? Do you mean the issue is resolved ? I think not. I'd prefer a question mark, meaning the best course is to do a lot more study, improve our model, and develop "better" physics, which the article suggests.
quote: I suggest it means we don't have it right yet, we need to do more work. BTW, did you get a chance to get the Humphreys' article off to Percy yet? Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
Hope you were not injured in the scanner explosion. ""
Let me give this and Karl's link a read. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
I was actually quite stunned to find the phrase "enemies of God" in a (supposedly) scientific/technical article. I would expect this from Osama bin Laden perhaps, but not here. Is this my mistake or not ?
Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
frank Inactive Member |
OK, matters of style aside, I still have some other serious problems with this article.
Towards the end of section 4, Humphreys states "Accounting for that motion converts the galactocentric redshifts to a frame of reference which is at rest with respect to the CMB, and thus presumably at rest with respect to the universe as a whole." This is a pretty big assumption, one that he makes no argument to support, and in fact he appears to contradict at the beginning of section 7, i.e., "our galaxy is moving with respect to the centre of the universe". So I must question how could we be "at rest" with respect to the universe as a whole. We observe redshifts we presume to interpret to be receding from us but also blueshifts appearing to be closing with us, e.g., Messier 31. Yes, I have other problems with his analysis as well, but I think his presumption is a good place to start. Clear Skies ! Frank
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024