Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astronomy
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.
|
You get fifty to seventy-five percent for this answer. Geocentrists should know by now they cannot trust the scientific community for information upon which to canonize a theory, because we are too often wrong.
If you are stating that the 'Tifft and Varshni hypotheses', that all quasars are local periodic events is false, this is also true. But the great galaxy surveys
support the thesis there are periodic effects in the quasar population that can be
badly misconstrued as evident of a geocentric universe.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astronomy
Currently, with today's collections of galaxy and quasar redshifts from galaxy surveys, there is absolutely no statistically detectable evidence found for quantization of redshifts.
|
There is a family of concentric observations that is completely supported by this expanded body of evidence:
The large studies have verified that when quasars are grouped by morphological type (AGN, RLBB, RQNB…) the distribution, (in types by redshift),
peak in concentric intervals at redshifts between z ~ 0.8 and 2.0. The population of quasars then declines in look-back time after this 'epoch of quasars'. This is assumed to be evidence of evolution. But if a randomly varying
portion of the redshift in each quasar
is intrinsic, and we
underestimate the attenuation of space, this creates an 'optical illusion', an artifact the explains both the dearth of quasars in “local” redshifted space, and appearance of concentric peaks.
Monte Carlo simulations demonstrate that if a portion of the redshift we observe in quasars is intrinsic, and the distribution is in fact highly uniform, the local population will be displaced into a prior epic. Then as the intrinsic portion of the total redshift diminishes
relative to the total redshift, bands of compressed quasar counts will appear for each morphological type at concentric distances. As the cosmic distance increases, the type of quasars found in the intrinsically redshifted, most local populations (who's magnitudes have been over estimated), Are attenunated faster than predicted, and the quasar count appears to fade.
This explanation makes more sense to me than the supposition that seven billion years after a ‘Big Bang’ event, a population of quasars gradually peaked, then disappeared completely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astronomy
The "controversy" has been laid to rest, and only a few hangers-on such as Halton Arp and William Tift continue to ignore the vast preponderance of the evidence from modern sky surveys...The most recent, most complete, and most accurate measurements of quasar redshifts do not support a distribution of galaxy and quasar "celestial spheres" centered on our location. Indeed, as galaxy surveys have been collecting more and more quasar counts, the quantization coincidences are not seen as model phenomena
|
The small body count statistics used by Arp’s early studies are certainly no longer applicable, but until the great surveys are analyzed for a correlation between each morphological type of quasars this claim is not justified.
For example, assume there are two very different types of quasars: Relatively small quasars in our local galactic cluster that are intrinsically redshifted; and much much larger quasar-like galactic cores that are not intrinsically redshifted. Assume these two types share similar spectroscopic traits and are difficult to tell apart.
In a field limited survey, the local events dominate: There is a statistical correlation between the local events and local galaxies. But as the data base is expanded to include many more of the much larger galactic cores, and the small intrinsically redshift quasars fade from view. The correlation all but disappears in this 'inverse Malmberg' selection effect. I am not saying this is the way it is, but this is an extreme example of what could be happening. We do not understand the nature of QSOs with enough certainty to say otherwise.
The controversy is very much alive, and as you have already found in your discussion with Dgruss, the numbers can still be interpreted in a variety of ways. The search is just beginning.