Having not been around for the "Quantized Redshift" discussion which was closed about a year ago, I wonder if it is appropriate to raise this matter again?
I quote from the original post in that thread by astronomy:
Quote:
|
Many in the fringe and completely outside of the scientific mainstream have made noise surrounding the idea that observed redshifts are quantized. A large percentage of these people explicitly reject the Big Bang model of the universe and try to explain the Hubble Law Expansion observed relationship that connects redshifts with distance as being due to alternative effects. Modern geocentricists have also joined in, hoping to use the quantization of redshifts as proof, not of an incorrect redshift-distance relation, but rather as an indication that our observing point is the center of the universe. As it stands now, there is no evidence for redshift quantization, so the enterprising geocentrist must look elsewhere for evidence that we are at the center of the universe.
|
Of course a number of serious astronomers have put forward evidence, including W Tifft, Guthrie, Napier, Arp and others. I prefer the word "periodicity" rathert than "quantization" because it is not strict quantization but rather a strong tendency.
There are several reasons which I mention briefly for raising this again:
1. There is a way of looking at this promoted by Arp and Narlikar, that it is not a redshift with distance, but a blue shift with time. This means that matter jumps in frequency at regular intervals, so we simply see distant galaxies as all galaxies were in the past, red shifted.
2. This basis does not lead to us being at a special place because wherever you are you see the same steps of red shift in time.
3. I suspect that the reference to there being no evidence now is based on an analysis method that assumes that redshifts accurately measure distances and can be worked on as a vector field. This is not true in the Arp-Narlikar proposal and so the evidence is actually destroyed.
4. The galaxy red shift data of W Tifft continued to show the periodicity of redshifts after removal of the CMBR once the measurement was made. This would randomize data if there was not a real effect.
5. Guthrie and Napier doubted Tifft's data and did their own analysis using new data and finding quantization.
6. Some surveys show the periodicity very clearly as this one:
7. The periodicity found in the above survey is totally consistent with it being a standing wave formation that has a corresponding period geological cycle of 586 million years using the latest Hubble constant. This geological cycle is reported by a number of geologists, but the accurate period is attributable to Prof S Afanasiev of Moscow in his book "Nanocycles method". Assuming that this is a correct match does incidentally allow an accurate value for the Hubble constant of 71.2 km/s/Mpc, with the possibility of several digits greater accuracy.
8. W Tifft reported in the late 1970s about a dozen periodicities. These same periodicities are predicted by the Harmonics theory and it has no variable parameters to fiddle (unlike other cosmologies). The match is at p<10^-10 level.