Is the Quantized Redshift real at all?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
I found some confusing information regarding the quantizaton: according to the work of Tifft and others the effect appears to apply generally, but according to Burbidge and Napier (2000)( arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008026 ) the effect is only observed for quasars (and only a particular type of quasars at that) but not for normal galaxies (see the third paragraph in the introduction of the paper). This would obviously contradict Tifft's earlier observation <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Bell (and Comeau), in their papers on arxiv found a fundamental periodicity in z 0.062 (and its multiple 0.62). This multiplicity is found applying a CREIL effect to the propagation of a far UV continuous spectrum in neutral atomic hydrogen, so that it seems to me that their result is general.
Burbidge found a multiplicity in log(1+z). It is an approximation of the general formula, which works only in a short domain of redshifts (high redshifts).

My studies suggest the effect is bogus and even if this is not the case-what is the point of kicking it around? It seems to be a no gain topic like counting the angels on a pinhead.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />I am not sure whether the effect is real at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is real. Burbidge is talking about a large quantum effect in quasars, corresponding to cosmological distances on the order of a gigaparsec. Tifft is talking about small quantum effects in galaxies, on the order of 300 kiloparsecs (less than the distance to Andromeda). It's apples and oranges. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by tvanflandern</i>
<br /><blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
<br />I am not sure whether the effect is real at all.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">It is real. Burbidge is talking about a large quantum effect in quasars, corresponding to cosmological distances on the order of a gigaparsec. Tifft is talking about small quantum effects in galaxies, on the order of 300 kiloparsecs (less than the distance to Andromeda). It's apples and oranges. -|Tom|-
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

To me the data are rather unconvincing. If you look at the redshift distribution as given in the Burbidge paper (see www.physicsmyths.org.uk/imgs/quant_redshift.gif ), then there are merely a couple of objects (0-6) for each data bin. Since the statistical error is given by the square root of the number of objects, this means that the statistical error would be up to sqrt(6)=2.4. So if one would add corresponding error bars in this sense, everything would be pretty much levelled out.

On the other hand, the smaller quantization found by Tifft (whole fractions of 72 km/sec) apparently applies also to genuine Doppler shifts as observed for galactic rotation curves for instance. ( www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html ). However, I have personally never seen any galactic rotation curve that would indicate such velocity jumps.

I am generally very sceptical about any effects that are not clearly obvious from the data but are only inferred by means of some statistical procedure, as it seems to be the case for the 'quantized redshift'. Burbidge states that the periodicity claim is confirmed in his paper with a 99.7% confidence level. Well, looking at the image I referred to above, it definitely doesn't look 99.7% convincing to me.

Thomas

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Thomas</i>
I am generally very sceptical about any effects that are not clearly obvious from the data but are only inferred by means of some statistical procedure, as it seems to be the case for the 'quantized redshift'.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
The quantification of the redshifts is only a part of the problem of the frequency shifts. Doppler like frequency shifts result from thermodynamically allowed exchanges of energy between beams refracted by a gas containing neutral atomic hydrogen in states 2S or (and) 2P (named H*).
If a continuous far UV spectrum light propagates in atomic hydrogen (15000K hydrogen), the Lyman absorptions produce alternatively redshifts and strong absorptions, generating a spectrum with the fundamental relative frequency shift period z=0.062. Some multiples are interesting, in particular 0.62. It is pure, standard spectroscopy named CREIL effect.
This generation of frequency shifts explains, without strange hypothesis a lot of observations:
- blueshift of the radio from the Pioneer 10 and 11 probes (H* generated by the cooling of the wind beyond 5-10 AU allows transfers of energy from the sun light).
- part of the anisotropy of the CMB bound to the ecliptic (same explanation, the solar wind produced by the corona being bound to the ecliptic)
- complete spectrum of the quasars
- In Arp's alignments, the galaxy is less redshifted because H* is mainly produced by the UV of the quasars, so that the path through H* is larger from them.

and a lot of other axamples!

If you dislike spectroscopy, you can, at least observe that anomalous frequency shifts appear where the beams cross a gas containing H*.