Interpretation of redshift (split from Cosmological Principle)

[RayTomes]

4 hours ago, beecee said:

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

The redshifts reported by Tifft and by Guthrie and Napier are very significant. They are not selection bias. You should learn some statistics and read the published papers.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, RayTomes said:

The redshifts reported by Tifft and by Guthrie and Napier are very significant. They are not selection bias. You should learn some statistics and read the published papers.

I've read enough [although certainly no expert] to understand that cosmological redshift is caused by expanding space, and that the redshifts reported byTifft and others, are rejected as the over-riding basis of the origin and evolution of the universe we observe.

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.

Here is an account by Brian Koberlein.....

https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2014/05/30/seeing-red/index.html

 

extract:

"What we found was that the ideas of Arp and Tifft don’t agree with observation. What once hinted at redshift quantization is now seen to be due to a clustering of galaxies.  When large number of galaxies or quasars are analyzed, the quantization pattern fades. We’ve also found the scale at which galaxies cluster matches the clustering prediction of cold dark matter. The idea that quasars are  ejected from galaxies also doesn’t match the distribution of quasar redshifts. A recent study published in the Astrophysical Journal looked at both quasar periodicity (redshift quantization) and ejected quasar using the SDSS database, and found that neither matched observation.

And AO 0235+164? Turns out that it’s a quasar behind a closer galaxy.  The emission line with a higher redshift is from the quasar, and the absorption line with a lower redshift is from the closer (foreground) galaxy.  There are several similar examples, and many of them also show gravitational lensing of the quasar’s light around the galaxy.

So both of these models have been largely rejected.  With nearly a million measured galaxies and quasars, it has become clear that the one model that best matches the data is an inflating universe with dark energy and cold dark matter.  There are still a few researchers who strongly disagree. Their work sometimes get published in a peer reviewed journal, and that’s fine.  It’s always good to have a few dissenters pushing to keep the rest of us honest.

Of course there is another pattern that has arisen, and that is the one where every time somebody writes about how quantized redshift and Arp’s non-inflationary universe model doesn’t match the data, a flood of amateur commenters hit your page to declare how wrong you are. They troll your comments and send you angry personal messages. They’ll post link after link to other papers, and demand you go through each one in detail.  When you don’t accept their view they accuse you of bias and closed mindedness.

Which is why every time the topic comes up, it has astrophysicists seeing red".

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

A question for you Ray......we once thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth and we were the center of the universe. Since those days, science has shown we are just another planet revolving around an insignificant yellow dwarf Sun, positioned in the outskirts of an insignificant spiral galaxy, among many billions of other galaxies within the observable universe. Why then would the Milky Way be the center of the universe, [other then of course, the center of our observable universe, which any living being can claim, where ever they are in the universe] as this hypothetical you are pushing is telling us? That, and that alone, in my mind, tells me that your thoughts and the hypothetical you are pushing, is just total unbelievable fantasy. Again, why?

Edited April 13, 2019 by beecee

[RayTomes]

On 4/13/2019 at 8:09 AM, beecee said:

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

How do you figure that?

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

" The current status of a continuing programme of tests for redshift periodicity or ‘quantization’ of nearby bright galaxies is described. So far the redshifts of over 250 galaxies with high-precision HI profiles have been used in the study. In consistently selected sub-samples of the datasets of sufficient precision examined so far, the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ∼ 71 .5km s^-1 in the Virgo cluster, and ∼37. 5km s^-1 for all other spiral galaxies within ∼ 2600km s^-1. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high. "

[beecee]

21 minutes ago, RayTomes said:

The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high. "

Not high enough though to change the mainstream rejection of it, and the facts that "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."as per my previous link....

 

ps: You havn't answered my question yet.

Edited April 14, 2019 by beecee

[RayTomes]

23 hours ago, beecee said:

Not high enough though to change the mainstream rejection of it, and the facts that "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."

 

I agree that it has no support from "mainstream" astronomers. Mainstream means sheep. It has support from people that have inquiring minds.

All the analysis that is done in the correct way shows quantization. They are rejected for one reason only - it cannot re reconciled with big bang theory. 

Theories are supposed to fit facts, not the other way around. Big bang cosmology is a joke. Every time it is wrong they invent a new type of thing that you can't see to "explain" it.

On 4/13/2019 at 1:31 PM, beecee said:

...

 

A question for you Ray......we once thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth and we were the center of the universe. Since those days, science has shown we are just another planet revolving around an insignificant yellow dwarf Sun, positioned in the outskirts of an insignificant spiral galaxy, among many billions of other galaxies within the observable universe. Why then would the Milky Way be the center of the universe, [other then of course, the center of our observable universe, which any living being can claim, where ever they are in the universe] as this hypothetical you are pushing is telling us? That, and that alone, in my mind, tells me that your thoughts and the hypothetical you are pushing, is just total unbelievable fantasy. Again, why?

Like Sheldon Cooper, you haven't mastered irony yet.

I said that if big bang is right then we must be in a very special place in the Universe. I don't believe that for a moment.

So clearly my other explanation, the big bang being wrong, is what I believe.

In that case we need to look at Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis. Forget what you know about big bang and expansion of space etc. Instead consider the idea that the mass of particles changes with time as proposed by Narlikar. He didn't give a reason for that but I can tell you why (wait for Harmonics Theory thread). In that case as particle masses increase over time (at the usual Hubble rate of about 1 part in 1.4x1010 per year) all spectral lines will automatically become more blue over time. The further a galaxy is away, the more we are looking back in time, so the redder are the spectral lines. This is an equally valid approach to expanding space.

It has the advantage that it can accommodate quantization of redshifts because it represents steps in the mass of particles changing over time. No need for special places in the Universe.

 

[beecee]

39 minutes ago, RayTomes said:

I agree that it has no support from "mainstream" astronomers. Mainstream means sheep. It has support from people that have inquiring minds.

All the analysis that is done in the correct way shows quantization. They are rejected for one reason only - it cannot re reconciled with big bang theory. 

Theories are supposed to fit facts, not the other way around. Big bang cosmology is a joke. Every time it is wrong they invent a new type of thing that you can't see to "explain" it.

Sorry, I'm not into unsupported conspiracy theories. I've seen the same silly allegation a hundred times from many alternative pushers for a variety of reasons we won't go into now.

The BB has much going for it and is why it is overwhelmingly supported.

Quote

 

Like Sheldon Cooper, you haven't mastered irony yet.

I said that if big bang is right then we must be in a very special place in the Universe. I don't believe that for a moment.

So clearly my other explanation, the big bang being wrong, is what I believe.

 

The BB does not in any way point to us being the center of anything, other then our observable universe. Nothing special at all, except on the off chance it is the only body with life. Not sure where or how you fabricated that. Which makes you right [not the center] for the wrong reasons. [misinterpretation of the BB]

Edited April 15, 2019 by beecee