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.
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.
Originally posted by blader
Simple. They're not quantized. At least, there is not enough evidence to conclude so.
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!
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.
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)?
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.
Originally posted by LewisWildermuth
And thus Geocentricism rears it's ugly head again.
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?)
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...
Originally posted by npetreley
Can you point me to that study?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?