Shift on Red Shift

[KerrMetric]

The terms quantisation and periodicity have been used interchangeably for both the low redshift Tifft data and the QSO data.

What people should do is always point out the source data set (high redshift QSO or low redshift galaxy data) no matter what term (periodicity or quantisation) they use.


Of course, none of this etymology, has any effect on the basic question. Do periodicities exist in either low redshift galaxy pair/cluster studies or the QSO/large galaxy surveys.

To which the answer seems to be no. The few people arguing that such periodicities exist in the data are in the vast minority and the latest large surveys seem to show no such effects.

Not only that - even the prior small statistic studies seemed to be a effect of poor experiment setup, errors in basic statistics and perhaps even data fudging or shall we say preselection.

 

[HSetterfield]

That they are being used interchangeably only shows that either those using the terms are not aware of what they mean/the difference between them, or that they are trying to load an argument in their favor by using the two terms synonymously.

One has to do with numbers of galaxies in a given redshift.

The other has to do with redshift bands which can run through the centers of galaxies..

Is there part of Barry's explanation you don't understand?

 

[KerrMetric]

How far are you willing to go with that?

In my experience as an outsider, I see the field of discussion is often regarded as a private fight in which admission is selective.

If you are a member of the club, you are free to slug it out on basic premises. However, you cannot challenge a basic premise unless you are in the club.

The only thing I ca say to that is that on message boards 99.9% of people haven't a clue about what is going on in a technical physics discussion. This is the same in any esoteric area.

So, what I would like to know is whether there is any dispute within the scientific community about such matters. Because, my next step is to go into the literature and find that this is not the case.

Not of any consequence. Apart from an Arp submission every year or two this whole subject is considered a waste of time these days. The early studies were with tiny data sets and a flawed analysis. The later large surveys have put this issue to bed as far as 99%+ of astronomers are concerned.

And, perhaps you could also tell me if you have a definition of quantization and periodicity.

The terms have been used synomynously for the same type of effects.

One is the small delta redshifts a la the Tifft data and the other are for peaks in the power spectra of the redshift in higher redshift galaxy/QSO data sets.

 

[HSetterfield]

KerrMetric, saying it over and over again does not make it become more and more true!

 

[KerrMetric]

I think that is what you are doing.

The fact is that none of these effects have ever held up with modern data.

Either the Tifft "quantisation" or the QSO survey "periodicities". go away.

And the 21cm observations that show "quantisation" inside a galaxy is considered pure garbage by people in that field. The scatter in the data don't allow such "quantisations" to be found. It's finding patterns in noise.


Brief history of the terms here:

Tifft's early work was about "periodicities" of the order 72 km per sec. in low redshift galaxy pair/cluster studies - highlighted by poor analysis or even deliberate fudging

Tifft then went on to the 21cm observations of rotation curves and getting redshifts from them. Here is where HSetterfield wants to say "quantisation" because the values are down at the 2 and 5 km per sec level. This work is considered garbage by the vast majority because internal motions of the galaxies and experimental errors dominate the data. It's a case of noise being interpreted as something.

Large redshift periodicities were found in early surveys by people like Karlsson. These were said to be in mulitples of the earlier mentioned 70 km/sec number of Tifft. These have been falsified by modern large scale surveys.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

In my experience as an outsider, I see the field of discussion is often regarded as a private fight in which admission is selective.

If you are a member of the club, you are free to slug it out on basic premises. However, you cannot challenge a basic premise unless you are in the club.

This discussion starkly illustrates the problem with many technical discussions. I have only an undergraduate understanding of physics, i do not have either the background, the time or probably the ability to get into this discussion.

So who do i trust is right? or how do i judge or adjudicate between what appear to be different definitions or different theories?

if i do not have the ability to enter into the technical discussion, i can only accept the theories on some level as faith in the science or perhaps faith in the trustworthiness of the scientists making the claims. how am i to decide?

can the majority of scientists be wrong and a few be right? is counting noses the right way to approach this problem?

i understand biology much better than i do physics, there are several times recently in biology where this exact thing did occur, i'd cite priors and ulcers as infection for 2 good examples. but would i have been wrong to accept the prevailing wisdom before the evidence convicted the majority to change their opinions?

you know what they say:
no one ever got fired for buying from IBM.

as a layman, i am almost obligated to go with the standard established science, it is up to the mavricks to prove to, and convince their PEERS first that they are wrong and the alternative is true. in the absence of that paradigm shift or massive change in theory, i am wise to stick to the majority. for things which i might find persuasive because of my ignorance are the very things that the educated in the field will not be convinced by. does that "prove" that the experts are always right? of course not.

However, you cannot challenge a basic premise unless you are in the club. i do not believe that it is mere membership in the club that is in view, but a demonstration that you have the level of sophisticate knowledge that indicates that you could be part of the club that is in view here.

 

[busterdog]

deliberate fudging

garbage

To respond to RMWilliams, I am not a trained physicist, but I have a certain amount of experience with the evaluation of scientific opinion. Opinions such as those stated above are of no help to anyone.

If it is so clearly true, then it can be explained to the likes of even me and it can be done without insult.

Here's more from the alleged "1%":

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V13NO1PDF/V13N1HAN.pdf


"""The so-called redshift controversy has been disputed for forty years, but has not been conclusively refuted, either physically or statistically. If just one of the hundreds of examples of high redshift quasars is physically associated with a nearby low redshift galaxy, then the Cosmological Hypothesis is at risk. This is, and has been, politically unacceptable within the astronomical community (see * and ‡). As related in Hoyle, Burbidge, and Narlikar [16], a “leading observer”
expressed the opinion that “if no theory is available to explain the observations [of apparent quasar-galaxy associations], then the observations must be in error.” This pretty much sums up the continuing state of affairs. It is not science. In this paper an attempt has been made to apply a “theory” [Wolf scattering] to those “observations.” This particular theory is supported by experimental results and its application to the radiation from quasars both accounts for their redshift and appears physically reasonable. """

Arp is associated iwth this journal, so perhaps some would dismiss it.

What appears is that there is a dispute in science. That one series of posts says its all garbage hardly carries the day from what I know about discussions within a fellowship.

I also know enough to know that if the other parameters on which your non-quantized redshift model depends, ie, a clear theory of gravitation and dark matter in the spaces through which this light travels, then there is apparently enough risk that either noise or silence are being improperly translated into significant correlations.

That doesn't prove Tift is right. However, it does require humility when addressing the theorists in question and real inquiry on this board rather than summary rhetorical execution.

 

[KerrMetric]

It's garbage because most of the points have been falsified and the few remaining are just so vague as to not be really addressable.

The fact that the world astronomical community got over this nonsense years ago should tell you something. The fact that only a couple of old has beens clinging to their pet theories are the ones still mentioning this rubbish should also tell you something, especially as compared to the several thousand researchers for whom these questions were settled years to a couple of decades ago.

Tifft was wrong and still is wrong. The so called QSO/galaxy links of Burbidge/Hoyle/Narlikar have never passed muster upon detailed examination. And don't be fooled - such examination has occurred in the past.

If two or three mathematicians told you 2 + 2 = 54464 - do you consider that also a "dispute in science"?


When I see websites linked to with Lambert Dolphin and Barrry Setterfields names I know I am not dealing with scientists. What is more likely is I am dealing with fudged data sets and outright silliness.

 

[HSetterfield]

Well, as the wife of one of those well-known cranks and frauds, and a good friend of the other one, it's kind of fun to be able to host the numbers of physicists and others from around the world who come to talk to Barry here in Oregon.

I guess there's a really big group of people who appreciate cranks and frauds!

Funny, and they all seemed so intelligent and educated!

I guess they all just fooled me....sigh....

And more are coming. I'll tell them you consider Barry and crank and a fraud and see what they say.

You know something I was told once, though? That when someone resorts to ad hominem attacks (like calling someone a crank and a fraud), they had run out of arguments and were getting desperate.

 

[HSetterfield]

Aha, you just edited your post to take out 'crank and fraud'. But I saw it and know what you wrote.

 

[HSetterfield]

I just told Barry you called him (and Lambert) a crank and a fraud. He grinned and hugged me and said, "What? Again?"

Please, you should let the Stanford Research Institute International know that one of their senior physicists from a few years ago was a crank and a fraud (that's Lambert, folks...)

and fudged data? Which data points are you disputing? They are all there in this article:
http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html

Barry just walked in again and asked me who it was who called him a crank and a fraud and I told him "I don't know, just one of those folks on a forum."

And his reply? "Yes. They never do give their names."

 

[Servant222]

You bring up two good points:

1. As Christians, we have a responsibility to be temperate with our language.

2. Why do we have to be so secretive about our identity?

I am cautious about name disclosure only because there is so much abuse on the Internet. But if anyone wants to know more about me, including my full name, profession, etc. etc., feel free to sent me a PM.

 

[KerrMetric]

Well, as the wife of one of those well-known cranks and frauds, and a good friend of the other one, it's kind of fun to be able to host the numbers of physicists and others from around the world who come to talk to Barry here in Oregon.

I guess there's a really big group of people who appreciate cranks and frauds!

Funny, and they all seemed so intelligent and educated!

I guess they all just fooled me....sigh....

And more are coming. I'll tell them you consider Barry and crank and a fraud and see what they say.

You know something I was told once, though? That when someone resorts to ad hominem attacks (like calling someone a crank and a fraud), they had run out of arguments and were getting desperate.

LOL.

Lambert Dolphin is a well known internet nutcase dabbling in areas he knows zilch about. Barry Setterfield is someone who dropped out of school and is patently not qualified in physics.

Barry Setterfield has also been lambasted by the scientific and Creationist communities alike for BLATANT fraud in regard to the initial speed of light paper he wrote. The usage of the Romer result was nothing short of fraud.


And I guarantee you that no academic physicists of note take either seriously. No academics come callng to Oregon to converse with either. The concept is ludicrous.

You can't really get any more crank than Dolphin. He's an internet legend.

 

[KerrMetric]

I just told Barry you called him (and Lambert) a crank and a fraud. He grinned and hugged me and said, "What? Again?"

Please, you should let the Stanford Research Institute International know that one of their senior physicists from a few years ago was a crank and a fraud (that's Lambert, folks...)

and fudged data? Which data points are you disputing? They are all there in this article:
http://www.setterfield.org/cx1.html

Barry just walked in again and asked me who it was who called him a crank and a fraud and I told him "I don't know, just one of those folks on a forum."

And his reply? "Yes. They never do give their names."

You do realise that the entire academic community (if they have heard of Setterfield or Dolphin (which most haven't by the way)) considers these people amateurs cranks.

You do realise that don't you?


Can you please point me to Barry Setterfields peer reviewed papers in recognised Physics or Astronomy journals?

Can you please tell me mainstream academics at world renowned universities that actually converse or collaborate with Barry?

Can you do the same on these science topics relating to Creationism for Lambert Dolphin?


Thanks

 

[KerrMetric]

You bring up two good points:

1. As Christians, we have a responsibility to be temperate with our language.

2. Why do we have to be so secretive about our identity?

I am cautious about name disclosure only because there is so much abuse on the Internet. But if anyone wants to know more about me, including my full name, profession, etc. etc., feel free to sent me a PM.

With regard to:

1) We also should not be shy about calling frauds as frauds either.

When people doctor data the way Setterfield did - what other word should we use?

2) Because the internet is a place of nutcases.

 

[HSetterfield]

KerrMetric
You are something else!

1. You at least should spell Roemer right.

2. What was fraudulent about Barry's presentation?

3. Other physicists seem to be interested in Barry's work and we even know their names, unlike who you are with your vitriolic comments.

4. You are calling me a liar about men coming to talk to Barry. OK, that's your thing. In the meantime, I have had to postpone some visits because we try to limit our visitors to two sets a month. I don't really care if you believe me or not, actually. I know what the reality is here.

5. Just for the bananas of it, here is the link to the telescope that bears his name and was declared by the university folks who visited to be the best one in Oregon -- and Barry is the astronomer who teaches at the observatory: http://www.newhopechristian.net/Observatory/default.asp

6. Again, you have accused Barry of blatent fraud. Please inform us as to what you are referring to and which paper you are referring to.

7. Then again you said Barry doctored the data. You are making some serious accusations and it is not unreasonable of me, I don't think, to ask you to back them up with something more than your verbiage.

Back up what you are accusing him of, please, or stop the slander.

 

[busterdog]

It's garbage because most of the points have been falsified and the few remaining are just so vague as to not be really addressable.

The fact that the world astronomical community got over this nonsense years ago should tell you something. The fact that only a couple of old has beens clinging to their pet theories are the ones still mentioning this rubbish should also tell you something, especially as compared to the several thousand researchers for whom these questions were settled years to a couple of decades ago.

Tifft was wrong and still is wrong. The so called QSO/galaxy links of Burbidge/Hoyle/Narlikar have never passed muster upon detailed examination. And don't be fooled - such examination has occurred in the past.

If two or three mathematicians told you 2 + 2 = 54464 - do you consider that also a "dispute in science"?


When I see websites linked to with Lambert Dolphin and Barrry Setterfields names I know I am not dealing with scientists. What is more likely is I am dealing with fudged data sets and outright silliness.

More maliciousness.

Arp too? He is a fraud. Must have bribed someone at the Max Planck Institute? Magueijo is what, just a young turk.

I would appeal to the TEs here to call this what it is and help to get back to exchanging information.

 

[busterdog]

It's garbage because most of the points have been falsified and the few remaining are just so vague as to not be really addressable.

The fact that the world astronomical community got over this nonsense years ago should tell you something. The fact that only a couple of old has beens clinging to their pet theories are the ones still mentioning this rubbish should also tell you something, especially as compared to the several thousand researchers for whom these questions were settled years to a couple of decades ago.

Tifft was wrong and still is wrong. The so called QSO/galaxy links of Burbidge/Hoyle/Narlikar have never passed muster upon detailed examination. And don't be fooled - such examination has occurred in the past.

If two or three mathematicians told you 2 + 2 = 54464 - do you consider that also a "dispute in science"?


When I see websites linked to with Lambert Dolphin and Barrry Setterfields names I know I am not dealing with scientists. What is more likely is I am dealing with fudged data sets and outright silliness.

More maliciousness.

I would appeal to the TEs here to call this what it is and help to get back to exchanging information. Mt. 18 says to take it to the Church when a brother persists.

 

[shernren]

More maliciousness.

I would appeal to the TEs here to call this what it is and help to get back to exchanging information. Mt. 18 says to take it to the Church when a brother persists.

Perhaps you should try checking out the authors he mentioned in #56 as I'm doing now, and get around to refuting those, instead of getting angry that he happened to call your hero a crank and fraud.

 

[shernren]

And for a little humor: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/94q1/planckchange.html