Interpretation of redshift (split from Cosmological Principle)

[RayTomes]

Hasn't it been shown that the amount of matter in a sphere centred on us is not proportional to the cube of the radius, but to a much lower power? This indicates a preferred location for us. We'll obviously we must be where a planet is. 

Secondly, the proven existence of periodicity in redshift (e.g. 72 km/s and related as found by Tifft, Arp, Guthrie and Napier and others) means that either

A. We are in a special location, or

B. The velocity interpretation of redshift is seriously flawed. 

I favor B and Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis. 

Edited April 2, 2019 by RayTomes
Typos

[Strange]

3 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Hasn't it been shown that the amount of matter in a sphere centred on us is not proportional to the cube of the radius, but to a much lower power? This indicates a preferred location for us. We'll obviously we must be where a planet is. 

Can you provide a reference for this. I have never heard it before. 

It may no indicate a special location for us; it could be true of any location (if it is true).

3 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Secondly, the proven existence of periodicity in redshift (e.g. 72 km/s and related as found by Tifft, Arp, Guthrie and Napier and others) means that either

I don't think this has been proven. In fact I am fairly sure it has been falsified. Again, can't see why it would imply a special location, even if true.

3 hours ago, RayTomes said:

The velocity interpretation of redshift is seriously flawed. 

Cosmological redshift is NOT caused by velocity.

[beecee]

4 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Hasn't it been shown that the amount of matter in a sphere centred on us is not proportional to the cube of the radius, but to a much lower power? This indicates a preferred location for us. We'll obviously we must be where a planet is. 

Secondly, the proven existence of periodicity in redshift (e.g. 72 km/s and related as found by Tifft, Arp, Guthrie and Napier and others) means that either

A. We are in a special location, or

B. The velocity interpretation of redshift is seriously flawed. 

I favor B and Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis. 

Firstly other then being the center of our observable universe, there is no preferred location, secondly  the periodicity of redshift is only a hypothetical pushed by some. Cosmological redshift is caused by space expansion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

"Redshift quantization, also referred to as redshift periodicity,^[1] redshift discretization,^[2]preferred redshifts^[3] and redshift-magnitude bands,^{[4][5] is the hypothesis} that the redshifts of cosmologically distant objects (in particular galaxies and quasars) tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value."

Thirdly this is mainstream science, not a vehicle for pushing alternative science.  http://ray.tomes.biz/

Edited April 2, 2019 by beecee

[RayTomes]

17 hours ago, Strange said:

Can you provide a reference for this. I have never heard it before. 

It may no indicate a special location for us; it could be true of any location (if it is true).

I don't think this has been proven. In fact I am fairly sure it has been falsified. Again, can't see why it would imply a special location, even if true.

Cosmological redshift is NOT caused by velocity.

Guthrie and Napier set out to prove Tifft etc wrong, and instead proved him right. All studies done correctly show that the 72 km/s quantum and others do exist. The reason it is not taught as fact is that big bang cosmology cannot explain it. 

Observation comes first. Theories must explain facts not the other way around. 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, RayTomes said:

Guthrie and Napier set out to prove Tifft etc wrong, and instead proved him right. All studies done correctly show that the 72 km/s quantum and others do exist. The reason it is not taught as fact is that big bang cosmology cannot explain it. 

I also saw Arp among those names. While otherwise like Hoyle, and Hannes Alfvén,   a reasonable astronomer, but he also got things wrong. Enough said.

And on checking out your "72kms/s quantum redshift", I pulled up this....https://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show a creationist site claiming similar. Again, enough said.

Quote

Observation comes first. Theories must explain facts not the other way around

Yep, exactly....we observed redshifts before theorising the universe expanding. Einstein even fell for that one. Later data forthcoming from WMAP and other experiments showed that expansion was  accelerating when the knowledge of the day reasoned gravity would be slowing the expansion. So again, so much balony for your silly claims that mainstream science, is hiding or fudging with the real observational data.

While other alternatives exist, and papers on those alternatives are published everyday, so far the vast majority of evidence from many different quarters [as opposed to one] support the BB and an expanding universe.

In summing, and from what little I do know, is that the hypothetical redshift quantization, is at best poorly understood, hence the usual speculative models being posted on, by those that see other possibilities. At best your claim on redshift is debatable, and at worst, explainable by other poorly understood data. Picking the speculative scenario that best supports a personal position, is this shown by the creationists jumping on the bandwagon.

I also find it hard to accept that other galaxies are orbiting our own, and see that as akin to the geocentric thoughts of Ptolemy, more then 2000 years ago...silly.  

Edited April 3, 2019 by beecee

[Strange]

6 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Guthrie and Napier set out to prove Tifft etc wrong, and instead proved him right. All studies done correctly show that the 72 km/s quantum and others do exist. The reason it is not taught as fact is that big bang cosmology cannot explain it. 

As you are unwilling to provide references to support your claims, there is not much I can say.

6 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Observation comes first. Theories must explain facts not the other way around. 

Sometimes theory comes first: it makes predictions that are then confirmed by observation.

Sometimes observations come first and a theory is devised to explain them.

Neither is better than the other.

[swansont]

7 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Guthrie and Napier set out to prove Tifft etc wrong, and instead proved him right. All studies done correctly show that the 72 km/s quantum and others do exist. The reason it is not taught as fact is that big bang cosmology cannot explain it. 

Observation comes first. Theories must explain facts not the other way around. 

!

Moderator Note

You were asked for a reference. This is not a reference.

 

[Bufofrog]

On 4/2/2019 at 12:43 AM, RayTomes said:

Hasn't it been shown that the amount of matter in a sphere centred on us is not proportional to the cube of the radius, but to a much lower power? This indicates a preferred location for us. We'll obviously we must be where a planet is. 

No, that has not been shown and it does not make any sense as far as I can see.  The matter contained in a given sphere can be calculated by:

\[\rho \times \frac{4}{3} \pi r^3 = Mass\]

What do you mean "a much lower power"?  None of this has anything to do with a preferred location...

On 4/2/2019 at 12:43 AM, RayTomes said:

Secondly, the proven existence of periodicity in redshift (e.g. 72 km/s and related as found by Tifft, Arp, Guthrie and Napier and others) means that either

Where is this alleged periodicity?  72 km/s is a velocity, nothing to do with a period.  I am not sure what that velocity has to do with anything anyway.  The Hubble constant is approximately 72 (km/s)/Mpc.

On 4/2/2019 at 12:43 AM, RayTomes said:

A. We are in a special location, or

B. The velocity interpretation of redshift is seriously flawed. 

I pick C.

C.  We are not in a special location and the redshift is a convenient way to determine how far away a very distant celestial object is. 

Edited April 3, 2019 by Bufofrog

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Bufofrog said:

No, that has not been shown and it does not make any sense as far as I can see.  The matter contained in a given sphere can be calculated by:

 

ρx43πr3=Mass

 

What do you mean "a much lower power"? 

I am guessing he might have read something about the entropy of a spherical volume being (in certain circumstances) proportional to the surface area of the sphere rather than the volume. And either not remembered it or not understood it, so has come up with this garbled version.

[Bufofrog]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

I am guessing he might have read something about the entropy of a spherical volume being (in certain circumstances) proportional to the surface area of the sphere rather than the volume. And either not remembered it or not understood it, so has come up with this garbled version.

Interesting, I have not heard of that.  I will look it up - thanks!

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Bufofrog said:

Interesting, I have not heard of that.  I will look it up - thanks!

Also known as the holographic principle. Greatly beloved (but wildly misrepresented) by "personal theorists".

[Bufofrog]

23 minutes ago, Strange said:

Also known as the holographic principle. Greatly beloved (but wildly misrepresented) by "personal theorists".

That I have heard of.  I do not have a physics degree so there is LOTS about physics I do not know.  I am a chemical engineer by trade (which means I do not know enough to be a chemist or an engineer.)

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Bufofrog said:

No, that has not been shown and it does not make any sense as far as I can see.  The matter contained in a given sphere can be calculated by:

 

ρ×43πr3=Mass

 

What do you mean "a much lower power"?  None of this has anything to do with a preferred location...

If I had to guess, (and that's all I have ATM, since there was no supporting info) is that the local mass density does not vary as 1/r^3 (not 3rd power of r) which would not be surprising, since our galaxy is more disc-shaped as opposed to spherical, and there's more or less empty space before you reach the next galaxies. But I don't see how that would lead one to conclude that we are at the center of the universe.

 

[OldChemE]

On 4/1/2019 at 9:43 PM, RayTomes said:

Hasn't it been shown that the amount of matter in a sphere centred on us is not proportional to the cube of the radius, but to a much lower power? This indicates a preferred location for us. We'll obviously we must be where a planet is.  

 

The amount of matter in a sphere is only proportional to the cube of the radius if the sphere is of uniform density.  It is the volume that is proportional to the cube of the radius.  If the density if not uniform, the relationship is totally case-dependent.  Either way is says nothing about a "preferred location."  We don't have to be where the planet is if we are someplace else-- such as in orbit.

[RayTomes]

On 4/2/2019 at 9:47 PM, beecee said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

"Redshift quantization, also referred to as redshift periodicity,^[1] redshift discretization,^[2]preferred redshifts^[3] and redshift-magnitude bands,^{[4][5] is the hypothesis} that the redshifts of cosmologically distant objects (in particular galaxies and quasars) tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value."

Thirdly this is mainstream science, not a vehicle for pushing alternative science.  http://ray.tomes.biz/

Interesting article. It includes a number of articles that support the periodicity of redshifts. Some of these by people that tried to show it wasn't so.

I quote " Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. " This is true. It just goes to show that people will hang on to a bad theory and ignore evidence against it.

Knowing only of the reported 72 km/s periodictity I was able to predict a number of other periodicities in usenet forums in the early 1990s. A poster referred me to an Arp paper which had observational evidence of 11 of the 12 values that I predicted in the range studied. Probability of this if Tifft vales are not real and if Harmonics theory is wrong is less than 1 in 10^20.

[beecee]

10 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Interesting article. It includes a number of articles that support the periodicity of redshifts. Some of these by people that tried to show it wasn't so.

And they are wrong, just as Arp was wrong, and Hoyle was wrong, according to the evidence. And of course the overall message of the article is that it is only an hypothesis.

Quote

I quote " Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. " This is true. It just goes to show that people will hang on to a bad theory and ignore evidence against it.

At this stage it is obvious that it is you being ignorant and ignoring the evidence that supports the status quo.

 

Quote

Knowing only of the reported 72 km/s periodictity I was able to predict a number of other periodicities in usenet forums in the early 1990s. A poster referred me to an Arp paper which had observational evidence of 11 of the 12 values that I predicted in the range studied. Probability of this if Tifft vales are not real and if Harmonics theory is wrong is less than 1 in 10^20.

If your predictions were correct and the evidence supported your hypothesis was convincing, it would be accepted and mainstream by now. It isn't and isn't likely to ever be.

[RayTomes]

On 4/3/2019 at 9:45 PM, Strange said:

As you are unwilling to provide references to support your claims, there is not much I can say.

Sometimes theory comes first: it makes predictions that are then confirmed by observation.

Sometimes observations come first and a theory is devised to explain them.

Neither is better than the other.

Wow, no-one knows how to use a search engine! First link for search of "guthrie napier red shift quantisation" is

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02709337

Well said about theory and observation. Agree  totally.

On 4/7/2019 at 8:07 AM, beecee said:

And they are wrong, just as Arp was wrong, and Hoyle was wrong, according to the evidence. And of course the overall message of the article is that it is only an hypothesis.

At this stage it is obvious that it is you being ignorant and ignoring the evidence that supports the status quo.

If your predictions were correct and the evidence supported your hypothesis was convincing, it would be accepted and mainstream by now. It isn't and isn't likely to ever be.

You are just spouting from ignorance.

No-one has refuted redshift periodicity claims. They have repeatedly been found when the correct procedure is used for analysis.

Your last paragraph is laughable. The last sentence might be right, but it says something about current ignorance of big bang cosmology.

[Intrigued]

1 hour ago, RayTomes said:

Wow, no-one knows how to use a search engine!

It is a good idea to provide citations in a recognised format when a reference is requested, or a paper or text is mentioned, or an assertion requires justification. Why?

• It is an accepted convention in science
• It enables readers to better appreciate your arguments
• It is implicit within forum rules
• It is courteous

Snide comments, such as you have made here, focus readers attentions upon your style and not your substance. That's self defeating. A smart person would reflect on that.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, RayTomes said:

Wow, no-one knows how to use a search engine! 

It is your responsibility to provide the information. 

[beecee]

5 hours ago, RayTomes said:

You are just spouting from ignorance.

No-one has refuted redshift periodicity claims. They have repeatedly been found when the correct procedure is used for analysis.

Your last paragraph is laughable. The last sentence might be right, but it says something about current ignorance of big bang cosmology.

Again, the position is at this time that your claims are hypothetical at best, and the BB stands as is, despite yourself ignoring that overwhelming supported evidence. My last paragraph stands as does  your obvious suggestion and  silly claims that mainstream science, is hiding or fudging with the real observational data. There is absolutely no reason why that would be the case. Supporting data you seem to apparently to rely on,  seems to  have been either discredited, or explained away by natural mechanisms and other possibilities.

see.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

"Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. Although there are a handful of published articles in the last decade in support of quantization, those views are rejected by the rest of the field"

Edited April 8, 2019 by beecee

[swansont]

7 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Wow, no-one knows how to use a search engine! 

This hypothesis is not supported by the evidence.

The salient point is that you own the burden of proof, and it is your responsibility to provide evidence for your claims. Full stop. Meaning that "go use a search engine" is not something you get to use to buttress your claims.

[Strange]

7 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Wow, no-one knows how to use a search engine!

When I search for information on "quantised red shifts" I find results showing it has been falsified. Is that what you hoped for?

7 hours ago, RayTomes said:

Well said about theory and observation. Agree  totally.

Interesting. Especially as I was pointing out that you were wrong.

[swansont]

"Quantized" does not mean "not a random distribution"

IOW, a distribution that has some peaks in it is not quantized. Quantized would mean that values other than allowed quantum values simply do not exist.

[RayTomes]

On 4/9/2019 at 1:41 AM, swansont said:

"Quantized" does not mean "not a random distribution"

IOW, a distribution that has some peaks in it is not quantized. Quantized would mean that values other than allowed quantum values simply do not exist.

When others use the term quantised concerning redshift, they mean having multiple peaks in the distribution at regular intervals. These periods can be found from data using FFT and other cyclic analysis methods.

I prefer the term periodic because in the case of redshifts, Tifft has found multiple periodic values such as 144, 72, 36, 24, 18 .... km/s. So that is why I don't say quantised but periodic.

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, RayTomes said:

When others use the term quantised concerning redshift, they mean having multiple peaks in the distribution at regular intervals. These periods can be found from data using FFT and other cyclic analysis methods.

I prefer the term periodic because in the case of redshifts, Tifft has found multiple periodic values such as 144, 72, 36, 24, 18 .... km/s. So that is why I don't say quantised but periodic.

Either way a coincidental finding, remains hypothetical, and probably nothing more then selection bias..