Red shift quantization & an orderly universe

[Calypsis4]

This is a final answer to Shenren and other skeptics of 6 day creation as taught in the Bible concerning the matter of an orderly universe as opposed to a scattered, disorganized one. That is the real issue at stake in the red shift quantization discovery of Tifft-Cocke, Napier-Guthrie and others.

My position as stated to Shenren is simply this: God Almighty didn’t create the universe in an explosion (Big Bang or otherwise) with a resultant random scattering of stars & galaxies. What He created He created orderly (Ordo Ex Nihilo) and what Tifft first noticed about forty yrs ago when he discovered that the galaxies are in discrete perodicities is not only scientifically supported by the facts but it is purely logical to those who think biblically. The Lord did not organize the universe as if he were in a child’s game of marbles or shooting a cue ball at a billiard table.

I looked to the experts to see who observed the same phenomena that Tifft found decades ago. I discovered that there was quite a bit of peer reviewed material supporting what he said about the matter and also the following PDF article by M.B. Bell was most enlightening. Unlike Shenren, Bell sees great legitimacy in the red shift quantization position.

Here he is at length. Let’s see if Shenren accuses me of ‘quote mining’ this time.

There are several more pages coming. I will ask any readers to please wait until all of them are posted before replying.

 

[Calypsis4]

The article continues:

More coming.

 

[Calypsis4]

Red shift continued:

and one more page following for the summation...

There are two charts in Bell's article that I did not include but can do so upon request.

At bottom line is the difference between an orderly, designed universe and a disorderly, random one. It is the difference between this...

and this...

Even more it is the difference between this...

Lunar eclipse on April 3, A.D. 33, the death of Christ on the cross, and this...

Even so, come quickly, Lord Jesus!

 

[philadiddle]

I like your picture comparison of an ordered universe and a random one. It's quite funny.

 

[busterdog]

Red shift continued:!

Nice!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7jKfadSeEE

Big Setterfield fan here.

 

[shernren]

Let's be clear about the shifting goalposts here, Calypsis.

You have stopped defending the Napier/Guthrie paper. Please be explicit about not being able to support what it says. It's not often that a creationist sustains discussion of a particular issue over more than two weeks here, so it would be nice to see you agree about where we have been over the past few weeks.

Also, most of these papers are freely available online at arXiv; indeed, it's a lot easier to look through papers on arXiv in PDF form, rather than in picture form as you've posted up here. The Bell paper is here: [astro-ph/0211091] Discrete Intrinsic Redshifts from Quasars to Normal Galaxies

Now let's be clear about the Bell paper you have supplied above. Nowhere throughout the paper does Bell actually show that redshift quantization is real. Whenever Bell claims that the redshifts of QSOs or galaxies are quantized, he always provides citations to other papers. Nowhere in the paper does he refer to any raw samples of galaxy or QSO redshift data.

In other words, this paper is a waste of time. Bell assumes that redshift quantization is real and then proceeds to draw conclusions from that. So what? Arguing from a premise says nothing about the truth or falsity of the premise itself.

In comparison, look at this paper: Tang & Zhang, QSO Redshift Periodicities

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1 + z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 + z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

 

[Calypsis4]

Let's be clear about the shifting goalposts here, Calypsis.

Switching goal posts. What in the world are you talking about?

You have stopped defending the Napier/Guthrie paper. Please be explicit about not being able to support what it says. It's not often that a creationist sustains discussion of a particular issue over more than two weeks here, so it would be nice to see you agree about where we have been over the past few weeks.

No, I don't agree. What makes you say that?

Also, most of these papers are freely available online at arXiv; indeed, it's a lot easier to look through papers on arXiv in PDF form, rather than in picture form as you've posted up here. The Bell paper is here: [astro-ph/0211091] Discrete Intrinsic Redshifts from Quasars to Normal Galaxies

First you complain to me that I 'quote mined' my previous documentation for my position (you lied) and now you bellyache about the form for which I deliver the necessary information. No one can please you, kid.

Now let's be clear about the Bell paper you have supplied above. Nowhere throughout the paper does Bell actually show that redshift quantization is real. Whenever Bell claims that the redshifts of QSOs or galaxies are quantized, he always provides citations to other papers. Nowhere in the paper does he refer to any raw samples of galaxy or QSO redshift data.

Hmm, so four independent studies that confirm the redshift quantization theory...and yet you say it isn't real. So maybe they were measuring tinker toys instead of galaxies?

In other words, this paper is a waste of time. Bell assumes that redshift quantization is real and then proceeds to draw conclusions from that. So what?

Really? Let's see if Bell thought it was a waste of time as you do:

"We examine the V_{CMB} velocities and Tully-Fisher distances of 83 ScI galaxies and find that their velocities contain the same discrete velocity components identified previously by Tifft. (Note: this flies directly in the face of what you just told the readers!) After removing the discrete velocity components, the scatter remaining on the Hubble plot is in good agreement with the Tully-Fisher distance uncertainties. Although there is, as yet, no physical explanation for these discrete components, the fact that they appear to be identical to those found previously by Tifft suggests that their reality needs to be taken seriously."

Comeau - Author Index All archive(s)

The more I read your comments the less respect I have for what you say.

Arguing from a premise says nothing about the truth or falsity of the premise itself.

In comparison, look at this paper: Tang & Zhang, QSO Redshift Periodicities

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson log(1 + z) model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 + z), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

Quite frankly, I think he is lying. I do not believe that all of those independent studies deliberately produced data that flies in the face of the status quo just to fool the scientific establishment. The data they have forwarded establishes an orderly, patterned universe and not one that is helter-skelter, random nonsense as you seem to be perfectly satisfied with believing.

When more data on this subject come up I will post here again but you utterly failed to give a convincing argument for a scattered, unorganized universe.

He telleth the number of the stars; he calleth them all by their names. Psalm 147:4

For the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light: the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. Isaiah 13:10

This scripture gives recognition and legitimacy to the constellations and matches what was said of them being given for 'signs'. Genesis 1:14. God is a Creator of order and pattern, not randomness.

 

[shernren]

Hmm, so four independent studies that confirm the redshift quantization theory...and yet you say it isn't real. So maybe they were measuring tinker toys instead of galaxies?

Maybe, to be blunt, they have no idea how statistics work.

Really? Let's see if Bell thought it was a waste of time as you do:

"We examine the V_{CMB} velocities and Tully-Fisher distances of 83 ScI galaxies and find that their velocities contain the same discrete velocity components identified previously by Tifft. (Note: this flies directly in the face of what you just told the readers!) After removing the discrete velocity components, the scatter remaining on the Hubble plot is in good agreement with the Tully-Fisher distance uncertainties. Although there is, as yet, no physical explanation for these discrete components, the fact that they appear to be identical to those found previously by Tifft suggests that their reality needs to be taken seriously."

Okay, this is again a completely different paper. Do you want to know how these guys were getting their "intrinsic redshifts"?

They were basically plonking the solid lines down on the dots and saying "gee, the dots fall on the lines, we have intrinsic redshifts!" Note firstly that they are using a completely different model from any of the previous studies Calypsis has mentioned (as far as I understand it, Tifft and co claim that there is no overall Hubble flow and that almost all the redshift of cosmological objects should be attributed to intrinsic redshift, while Bell's model has intrinsic redshift on top of significant local Hubble flow as shown by the slope of the lines). Secondly, look how close the bottom few lines are spaced. Of course they are going to get a fortuitous arrangement in which all the bottom dots fall on lines and all the top dots - well, we can forget about those, can't we? (That's what the authors themselves say.)

Quite frankly, I think he is lying. I do not believe that all of those independent studies deliberately produced data that flies in the face of the status quo just to fool the scientific establishment.

Ok, let's look at how Calypsis and I have fared so far in this discussion.

When Calypsis cited Napier and Guthrie, I showed from the paper itself that their conclusions were very weak.
When Calypsis cited Bell (2002), I showed that Bell did not do any novel analysis of galaxy samples in that paper.
When Calypsis cited Bell, Comeau and Russell (2004), I reprinted a graphic used in the paper and argued that the method was all but certain to produce spurious correlations.

When I cited Tang and Zhang, what do I get from Calypsis? "Quite frankly, I think he is lying. I do not believe ... " that word has been chosen exactly, Calypsis, everything you've said up to now has been predicated on nothing but blind belief in a few extremely fallible human astronomers. Quite frankly, I've read through the quantized-redshift papers more thoroughly than you have. I've paid more attention to them than you have. All you've done up to now is throw abstracts and conclusions (and page-scans of an utterly irrelevant paper) at me without showing any proof whatsoever that you actually read the things you claim to support.

If you can show me where Tang and Zhang's analysis is faulty, then do so by all means. Otherwise, you have said something bad about them without any proof for it. I think that is called "lying".

 

[Calypsis4]

Maybe, to be blunt, they have no idea how statistics work.

No, I think it is YOU that doesn't know how statistics work.

Okay, this is again a completely different paper. Do you want to know how these guys were getting their "intrinsic redshifts"?

They were basically plonking the solid lines down on the dots and saying "gee, the dots fall on the lines, we have intrinsic redshifts!"

That is hogwash. What you refuse to acknowledge is that those astronomers that followed up on Tifft/Cocke set out to prove that Tifft was in error, Napier and Guthrie especially. Then ended up confirming what he discovered. That speaks very loudly...to honest people.


Note firstly that they are using a completely different model from any of the previous studies Calypsis has mentioned (as far as I understand it, Tifft and co claim that there is no overall Hubble flow and that almost all the redshift of cosmological objects should be attributed to intrinsic redshift, while Bell's model has intrinsic redshift on top of significant local Hubble flow as shown by the slope of the lines). Secondly, look how close the bottom few lines are spaced. Of course they are going to get a fortuitous arrangement in which all the bottom dots fall on lines and all the top dots - well, we can forget about those, can't we? (That's what the authors themselves say.)

Well, now someone is lying. I don't think it is those who speak of an organized, patterned universe.

Ok, let's look at how Calypsis and I have fared so far in this discussion.

When Calypsis cited Napier and Guthrie, I showed from the paper itself that their conclusions were very weak.

No, they aren't. Men who set out to disprove a theory they don't believe in and yet end up confirming it because they are compelled to do so by the data are not likely to be lying about those conclusions.

When Calypsis cited Bell (2002), I showed that Bell did not do any novel analysis of galaxy samples in that paper.

Keep reading:

When Calypsis cited Bell, Comeau and Russell (2004), I reprinted a graphic used in the paper and argued that the method was all but certain to produce spurious correlations.

I cited what Bell thought about the Tifft discovery and he definitely said it was a legitimate concern. You ignored that deliberately.

When I cited Tang and Zhang, what do I get from Calypsis? "Quite frankly, I think he is lying. I do not believe ... " that word has been chosen exactly, Calypsis, everything you've said up to now has been predicated on nothing but blind belief in a few extremely fallible human astronomers.

It comes down to whom I believe is telling the truth. I see two sets of facts and the data from which they derive those facts. I quoted Genesis 1.14 and the verse about the constellations which speak of a highly organized universe as created by God. Your position is just the opposite. I reject it. The truth is you don't like to have your beliefs in a scattered, disorganized universe upended. It's embarrassing isn't it?

It would seem to me that after four major independent studies of this matter that Bells statement: "This is an amazing result, and it represents the 4th independent instance in which the number (z = 0.062) has been found to be significant," would make some impression on you. The fact that it doesn't is an indication as to just how deeply the error has embedded itself in your thinking.

Don't think for a moment that the Bells, Arps, Tiffts, Cockes, Burbidges, Napiers, and Guthries and their followers are going to sit on this. There will be more data and more outstanding evidence to the truthfulness of their position in the yrs to come.

Quite frankly, I've read through the quantized-redshift papers more thoroughly than you have. I've paid more attention to them than you have. All you've done up to now is throw abstracts and conclusions (and page-scans of an utterly irrelevant paper) at me without showing any proof whatsoever that you actually read the things you claim to support.

If you can show me where Tang and Zhang's analysis is faulty, then do so by all means. Otherwise, you have said something bad about them without any proof for it. I think that is called "lying".

That's right, without apology. Anyone who believes that God Almighty created a scattered, disorganized universe...already KNOWING that the atom is created highly organized...the DNA was created highly organized...and the earth was created highly organized (the balance of nature no less?) and that that solar system was created highly organized....is, quite frankly, a fool.

But if other astronomers who HAVE revealed the truth of this situation can't persuade you, then how will I, as a non-astronomer do so?

If I come across more data on the issue I will return to this subject. I won't answer you again.

P.S. God Almighty never creates anything disorganized; (Ordo Ex Nihilo).

 

[Assyrian]

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void

 

[shernren]

Since this:

If I come across more data on the issue I will return to this subject. I won't answer you again.

P.S. God Almighty never creates anything disorganized; (Ordo Ex Nihilo).

is all that the "quote" function picks up, it's all I'll bother to respond to as well.

I am the LORD, and there is no other,
besides me there is no God;
I equip you, though you do not know me,
that people may know,
from the rising of the sun and from the west,
that there is none besides me;
I am the LORD, and there is no other.

I form light and create darkness,
I make well-being and create calamity,
I am the LORD, who does all these things.
[Isa 45:5-7 ESV]

I'm pretty sure someone is ignoring the Bible in this conversation, but I can't quite figure out who it is. Can you?

 

[pgp_protector]

If I come across more data on the issue I will return to this subject. I won't answer you again.

P.S. God Almighty never creates anything disorganized; (Ordo Ex Nihilo).

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void

LOL Game, Set, Match

 

[busterdog]

LOL Game, Set, Match

Not.

Rhetoric is not the same as exegesis.

Time and again, the debate plays out this way.

 

[Assyrian]

Sadly true.

 

[crawfish]

Not.

Rhetoric is not the same as exegesis.

Time and again, the debate plays out this way.

Rhetoric is only where Creationists have given up on literalness.

 

[laconicstudent]

Sadly true.

Ah, I see Calypsis has also ignored you? Welcome to the club. Calypsis doesn't really enjoy talking to people who can use Google Scholar to find research refutations to his claims. Or demand that he cite sources.


I'm still waiting for Calypsis to source all his claims about Geology proving the global flood.

 

[Calypsis4]

For the readers who aren't easily fooled by their cheap talk.

The evidence was stated in the topic post and it was NOT undermined by any follow-up by the skeptics. God created an orderly universe and the fact that their were four major independent studies done by different astronomers, some of who set out to debunk the idea & yet ended up confirming it, speaks much more loudly than what the skeptics said in response.

The Creator God did not throw out the universe in helter-skelter fashion and the obvious pattern and function of our solar system alone is the first and best example of that fact. Red shift quantization evidence is no surprise to those of us who believe in an intelligent Creator who never does anything at random.

 

[busterdog]

LOL Game, Set, Match

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I [am] the LORD, and [there is] no other.

Hey, but dont let scripture stop you and laconic from making fun of people.

At least no one has to hack your emails to know what is going on.

 

[busterdog]

For the readers who aren't easily fooled by their cheap talk.

The evidence was stated in the topic post and it was NOT undermined by any follow-up by the skeptics. God created an orderly universe and the fact that their were four major independent studies done by different astronomers, some of who set out to debunk the idea & yet ended up confirming it, speaks much more loudly than what the skeptics said in response.

The Creator God did not throw out the universe in helter-skelter fashion and the obvious pattern and function of our solar system alone is the first and best example of that fact. Red shift quantization evidence is no surprise to those of us who believe in an intelligent Creator who never does anything at random.

I appreciate the science you are using and I understand why it is such a different perspective from orthodox atheistic cosmology.

But, I am not sure I understand your point about order in the universe.

The Big Bang model shows a great deal of imagined order at certain stages. One could say that a failure to follow the most likely route of dispersion due to vacuum energy suggests an uncanny and astounding degree of order.

Science can find or pretend to find order anywhere. I dont know that one model as more order than the other. What they most rail against is the ability of God to say what the order is ahead of their ability to define it. They mostly wish to define an orderly cosmology that marginalizes God.

 

[Assyrian]

Not.
Rhetoric is not the same as exegesis.
Time and again, the debate plays out this way.

Isa 45:18 For thus says the LORD, Who created the heavens, Who is God, Who formed the earth and made it, Who has established it, Who did not create it in vain, Who formed it to be inhabited: "I [am] the LORD, and [there is] no other.
Hey, but dont let scripture stop you and laconic from making fun of people.
At least no one has to hack your emails to know what is going on.

You know you disappoint me Busterdog. I know you love the Lord and you have a good heart, and yet you step in after the torrent of abuse, insult and evasion, and accuse us of rhetoric.