Red shift quantization & an orderly universe

shernren said:

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.

Click to expand...

shernren said:

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?

Click to expand...