Quantized redshift anomaly

More
19 years 9 months ago #12109 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Posted - 28 Jan 2005 : 13:33:07

Tommy, The redshift you refer to above is the Lyman Alpha Forest lines is it not? The lines are being modeled as a redshift being caused by molecular clouds that are in the IGM between here and the source of the redshift. <hr noshade size="1">

No, the Lyman Alpha Forest lines are not what I am talking about. I think I am talking about redshift in general coming from galxies in general which is in general observed as quantized. I think this is a falsification of the Doppler interpretation, and I think it removes much of the evidence for expansion of space and leaves me wondering if the Big Bang isn't about to go "poof"

I find it curious that redshift quantization seems to be unheard of in this discussion group.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #12484 by johnduff
Replied by johnduff on topic Reply from john williamson
Tommy

I think most users of this forum are famillior with the quantized Red Shift observations, but nobody has come up with an explanation that they have any confidence in. We're all sort of standing around waiting for somebody to get an idea which can then be expanded or, more probably, be refuted.

Also note that Red Shift quantization comes in two flavors

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #12328 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Message Preview
Thomas, you write here

quote:
Communication between mature adults, at least about intellectual matters, is supposed to maintain respect for the opinions of others, even though you may realize that in the real world people have interests that sometimes compete with their interest in pure truth. They may have been raised with religious beliefs. They may have a job in the field and their income depends on support for certain paradigms. They may need to curry favor with other influential people.



but you wrote there


quote:
Whatever your opinion about the artificiality of the “Face” may be, and whatever the actual merits of the issue may be, it seems beyond dispute that allowing world opinion to be based on the image in Figure 3 was scientifically inappropriate. When considering why this happened, we appear to be left with an unhappy choice between dishonesty and incompetence.



So what am I supposed to believe? I am sorry to say, but the more I learn of science the more I come to realize that for every theory there is an opposite theory, and each side is calling the other side by some derogatory name. We cannot assume anymore that if it is scientific it is the truth.

What I would do if I were in charge would be to start all over. Compile what we know is factual, and see what picture it paints.



Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #12111 by tvanflandern
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Tommy</i>
<br />So what am I supposed to believe?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I concede the inconsistency, and am impressed that you have read enough of what I have written to find this isolated example. With the passage of time and learning of more circumstances, I now see that the inappropriate switch of a double-filtered image for the real image was motivated by financial and self interests, and not by either dishonesty or incompetence in the ordinary sense of those words. It is difficult to be objective about intrinsically subjective matters when jobs and careers are at stake.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We cannot assume anymore that if it is scientific it is the truth.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Science doesn't deal in absolute truths, but in the quest for truths. When you see biases and beliefs influencing conclusions, that is not science. The essence of scientific method is testing with controls against bias because testing alone will almost always tend to confirm prior beliefs. Favorable outcomes are rarely scrutinized or checked, whereas unfavorable outcomes are dissected and challenged until reasons can be found for discarding some of the data or until an <i>ad hoc</i> helper hypothesis can be invented to explain away the "failure". -|Tom|-

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #12146 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
Posted - 28 Jan 2005 : 22:37:17

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">johnduff

I think most users of this forum are familair with the quantized Red Shift observations, but nobody has come up with an explanation that they have any confidence in. We're all sort of standing around waiting for somebody to get an idea which can then be expanded or, more probably, be refuted.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Thank you. That sounds reasonable to me. BUT, haven't the original measurements been verified by Burbridge and Napier? And Bell? It has been a long time and nothing I could find refuted them. As far as an explanation, isn't that a different problem? Regardless, here is what I found on that so far

-THE REDSHIFT AND THE ZERO POINT ENERGY

Barry Setterfield & Daniel Dzimano

15th December 2003.
from: www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

Excerpted by TM

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">"If the redshift of light from distant galaxies is due to the behaviour of atomic emitters within those galaxies as a universal phenomenon, it can only be in response to the changing properties of the vacuum. The key property of the vacuum that is universal and implicated here is the Zero Point Energy (ZPE). The outcome of this line of investigation is that the behaviour of the ZPE allows a formula for the redshift to be derived that is the same as the relativistic Doppler formula, but without it having anything to do with space-time expansion or the motion of galaxies. Furthermore, the observed size of Tifft’s basic quantization can be reproduced. "<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I have a question in mind, don't know how to ask it...I am wondering what line of reasoning led someone to conclude that the redshift was a measure of acceleration in the first place? Because, as Thorne and Wheeler pointed out, we will see quasars receding away from us at the speed of light And beyond...

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Also note that Red Shift quantization comes in two flavors<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I wasn't aware of two flavors, what are they?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
19 years 9 months ago #12277 by Tommy
Replied by Tommy on topic Reply from Thomas Mandel
quote:
We cannot assume anymore that if it is scientific it is the truth.
<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">

With the passage of time and learning of more circumstances, I now see that the inappropriate switch of a double-filtered image for the real image was motivated by financial and self interests, and not by either dishonesty or incompetence in the ordinary sense of those words. It is difficult to be objective about intrinsically subjective matters when jobs and careers are at stake.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Well, now we are getting closer to the truth of the matter. (BTW, I am not using truth in the sense of absolute truth, but in the sense of scientific truth - what the scientist would call a fact.) There are two required aspects of a crime, the motivation and the act. Taking someone's else purse out of a store is not criminal if one believed it was their's. I believe it is the crime of science when a scientist states something as fact when he knows it is not a fact. It is the same as murder to me - the murder of truth. And it is like manslaughter when a scientist states a fact when it is actually a theory or opinion. The truth is not murdered, but slaughtered none the less.

It seems to me that the study of "evolution" is turning out to be a study of vested interests. We have the opposing physical and metaphysical viewpoints. Each one has it's share of incompetence and outright liars. And the corrupt. I suppose we should just stand around and wait for someone to have a good idea, but meanwhile thousands of thousands of people are dying. The "truth" of science has become a matter of life and death.

I don't see religion (all religion as one) in competition with science. Religion in the most general sense is metaphor just like much of science is a metaphor. The battle being waged by both of them is really a battle of the incompetent and corrupt among them. Those who do not know what they are talking about.

One of the primary observations of religion is wholeness. And it just isn't true that religious knowing is only faith, a deep analysis shows that direct experience is the ultimate turht in religion too. There are many different names for this wholeness. There is only one wholeness. Science would do well to study and acknowledge what religion has to say about wholeness, that wholeness taken apart is not wholeness. The whole that is greater than its parts is not one of its parts. That what we symbolize as reality is just an metaphorical illusion.

But illusion is all we have,and it has served us well. And yet the mistake being made by far too many is the assumption that the illusion is real. In fact, by acting as if it were real, we make it real. But then there is delusion. Delusion is believing that the taken apart is ALL that is real. And they miss out on what everyone else had to say.

We have found this wholeness. The vacumm of empty space is not empty, it is full. Just like they said a thousand years ago. The Void is a fullness, what science now calls a plenum. But our Bable language has created many names for the Dirac Sea of quantum foam in the quantum vacuum by the ZPE, depending on what one is looking at/for. But it is there nonetheless.

One of the measured qualities of the vacumm is called non-locality. A photon once entangled with another photon remains entangled even when separated in space. They remain connected, not at the speed of light, but instantaneously. They act as if they are a single entity.

So this is our starting point. Not a nothing, but a something that is everywhere all the time. A No-Thing. And the real question is how did No-Thing become Everything. This is an important question, because the answer describes the very first principle of our existence. The very first thing to happen establishes a principle. How did the whole differentiate into parts? Once we grasp that, then the next question is what came next? Was there a second principle or was there a reiteration of the first principle? A complementary principle for example? So we would start with a whole which differentiated and then re-integrated into mini-wholeness.

Meanwhile, I happened across an astrophysicist's opinion of quantized redshift. He writes that it has gone nowhere, witness the quietness. He dismisses it as bad data, and bases his opinion on the fact that none of the papers made it past the referees.






.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.339 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum