• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

Caught red-shifted

Originally posted by npetreley
Anyone here care to explain why it is that redshifts are quantized? Please, I can do my own google searches -- I'm not interested in links (unless you include them as support or supplements to your ideas), I'm interested in YOUR understanding of why redshifts are quantized.

Simple. They're not quantized. At least, there is not enough evidence to conclude so.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by blader

Simple. They're not quantized. At least, there is not enough evidence to conclude so.

I'll be the first to say that so-called scientific conclusions are always to be questioned. But how is it that you think that there's an abundance of evidence for evolution (which cannot be observed but only extrapolated from what is observed), and yet you think there is a lack of evidence for quantized redshifts (which can be observed today, here and now)?

Science frontiers

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf084/sf084a03.htm

GALACTIC SHELL GAME

W.G. Tifft, an astronomer at the University of Arizona, has maintained for some two decades that the redshifts of the galaxies do not fall on a smooth curve as one would expect. Instead, Tifft asserts, redshifts are bunched at intervals of 72 kilometers/second and at onehalf and one-third that value. Mainstream astronomers insist that redshifts be interpreted as Doppler shifts due to the expanding universe. Quantized redshifts just don't fit into this view of the cosmos, for they imply concentric shells of galaxies expanding away from a central point -- earth!

Even though more recent redshift data have supported the notion of quantized redshifts, cosmologists find them undigestible, even pathogenic. But replication and non-replication are the essence of science, so B. Guthrie and W.M. Napier, at the Royal Observatory at Edinburgh, undertook another study. They selected 89 nearby spiral galaxies that had not been incorporated in any of the previous surveys. These galaxies had very accurately measured redshifts and were distributed all over the celestial sphere.

"As expected, the galaxies' redshifts showed a smooth distribution. Clearly, no quantization was being introduced by the radio telescopes or the data reduction process. But after Guthrie and Napier corrected each redshift to account for the Earth's motion around the center of the Milky Way -- a different correction for each location in the sky -- out popped a periodicity of 37 km/sec, close to one of Tifft's values. It was so strong that the chance of it being a statistical fluke was less than 1 in 3,000."

Tifft's work therefore seems to have been verified again. But Tifft is now waxing even more iconoclastic, claiming that galactic redshifts have actually changed slightly in just a few years!


Redshift Riddles

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/redshift.html

Remarkably, using the same solar-motion correction as before, the galaxies' redshifts again bunched around certain specific values. But this time the favored redshifts were separated by exactly 1/2 of the basic 72 km per second interval. This is clearly evident. Even allowing for this change to a 36 km per second interval, the chance of accidentally producing such a preference is less than 4 in 1000. It is therefore concluded that at least some classes of galaxy redshifts are quantized in steps that are simple fractions of 72 km per second.
 
Upvote 0
Morat,

I'm afraid to ask, because this sounds like a lead in to some Setterfield c-decay kind of argument for a young earth or some such... I am just wondering though - is there any identifiable implication for any particular cosmological theory that would result if the quantized red-shift were confirmed in the long run?
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
 From what I understand, not really. Tifft's measurements are so small (he runs the edge of the instrument error range) that it points to a small-scale quantum effect.

  Less of an error, as best I can tell, then the margin of uncertainty of the Hubble Flow anyways.

  Another guy, whose name escapes me, claims bigger problems, but Tifft had a variety of explanations, all completely compatable with the Big Bang. 

  C-decay is not a good argument. One of the reasons to hang out on Baptistboard is to watch the occasional pasting Setterfield recieves when he actually produces parts of his model (or, in actuality, supposed results of it).

  To make C-decay work, you have to vary virtually every other constant in a specific manner, or else the universe does weird things.
  
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
  His C-decay model has never been published, even in Creationist literature. I don't blame him. From reading his words (And those of his wife about it), it's basically one ad hoc patch after another.

   It's a series of holes plastered over by bandages with their own holes. Last I saw, he'd gotten cornered over the effects his model would have on the human vocal system. (Adam wouldn't be able to speak).

 
 
Upvote 0
I'll be the first to say that so-called scientific conclusions are always to be questioned. But how is it that you think that there's an abundance of evidence for evolution (which cannot be observed but only extrapolated from what is observed), and yet you think there is a lack of evidence for quantized redshifts (which can be observed today, here and now)?

I could turn the question around at you. How is that you think there's a lack of evidence for quantized redshifts (which is the result of error in small sample sizes that, when tested with large sample sizes, show nothing), but an abundancee of evolution for evolution (the evidence for which can be examined today, here and now?)
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by Morat
  They're an artifact of small sample size and known instrument tolerances. A large sample of well-known and calibrated quasars (the Large Bright Quasar Study) was subjected to the same analysis with negative results. No quantized redshift.

 

Can you point me to that study?
 
Upvote 0

LewisWildermuth

Senior Veteran
May 17, 2002
2,526
128
52
Bloomington, Illinois
✟19,375.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
And thus Geocentricism rears it's ugly head again.

"Hey we may not be the center of our solarsystem but we still are the center of the universe!"

Are you people so desperate to feel special?

If we are not at the center of everything does God love us any less?
 
Upvote 0

Sinai

Well-Known Member
Apr 2, 2002
1,127
19
Visit site
✟1,762.00
Faith
Protestant
Originally posted by blader:


I could turn the question around at you. How is that you think there's a lack of evidence for quantized redshifts (which is the result of error in small sample sizes that, when tested with large sample sizes, show nothing), but an abundancee of evolution for evolution (the evidence for which can be examined today, here and now?)

Excuse me, please, but did you intend the italicized portion of the above quotation to read evidence for evolution?
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
54
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟36,618.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
Yes, typical that an Evilutionist would make stuff up...Morat is Chief High Poobar of the Grand Council of Nasty Scientists Plotting To Take Over the World And Run Those Poor Innocent Creationists Out Of Town On A Rail. He makes stuff up for a living...

Of course, he may simply have not located it or be away from his computer and have not seen the request or perhaps be laughing so hard at the evolution without evidence thread that he hasn't had time or...

But it's a lot more satisfying to call him a liar, isn't it Nick?

I know I would get a lot of satisfaction out of calling you a liar...

But I'm too nice for that, and so I won't.

(gosh, I'm such a liar!)
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by David Gould
Yes, typical that an Evilutionist would make stuff up...Morat is Chief High Poobar of the Grand Council of Nasty Scientists Plotting To Take Over the World And Run Those Poor Innocent Creationists Out Of Town On A Rail. He makes stuff up for a living...

Well, I wouldn't say he makes stuff up for a living, but he does it. I demonstrated that in another thread, where he claimed Ken Ham made a statement in a radio spot that Ham did not make. I don't think Morat actually lied, he just threw around his accusations without actually checking to see if they were correct. So it would be the same MO if he made up his facts about redshift data without actually checking. Perhaps he's just too busy, but I'd sure like to see the link if there is one and he really didn't just pull this conclusion out of his keister.
 
Upvote 0
Originally posted by npetreley


Can you point me to that study?

From http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a10750.html

Many astronomers since Geoffery Burbidge in 1968 have claimed to detect periodicities in the redshifts from large numbers of quasars. But a recent review of the evidence pro and con by Douglass Scott at the University of California at Berkeley ( reported in 'The Space Density of Quasars' ASP vol. 21, p. 264) shows that all of the claims are due to small sample sizes and to various well-known biases in assembling them. When the same analysis is performed on a much larger, well-calibrated sample of quasars called the Large Bright Quasar Survey' absolutely no evidence for periodicities in redshifts can be seen.

In true npetreley fashion, I should probably insert an insult here about your inability to use Google.
 
Upvote 0

Morat

Untitled One
Jun 6, 2002
2,725
4
49
Visit site
✟20,190.00
Faith
Atheist
  Sorry, Nick. Some of us have lives and have to do things like work and sleep. In the future, I'll try to snap right to your requests, instead of doing my job and getting in a full 6 hours, eh?

  Thanks LiveFree. You spared me the effort of digging it up. :) Although I think Nick is the only person who can warp his own reality enough to turn a thread about the dishonesty and deception of his sources into a claim I was deceitful.

 
 
Upvote 0

That's an unreferenced quote from "Ask the Space Scientist."

Now can you or someone else point me to that study?

And why is it that there's something wrong when I ask YOU to back up your claims with a link? You folks request those things all the time, and I've provided links in response -- and to the sources, not to unreferenced quotes by creationists.
 
Upvote 0