http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs...osmologies.asp

Where does one begin with this article? Overall, it seems that he shows (1) there is a lot of uncertainty in cosmology and (2) other cosmological models can explain some things as well as Big Bang Theory. I suppose the mainstream scientific response would be that B.B.T. is the best overall model (explains the most).

Aside from some comments I can outright disagree with in the article, there are a few arguments presented that are new to me. Can someone offer some insight? Any merit to these statements?

I don't recall that conclusion from the BOOMERANG experiment!

There's more, but I'll start there for now.

We take that into account. It's called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.


Yes there is. It is the area of parameter space that is intersected by largescale structure data and the CMB powerspectrum. Even if we didn't have supernovae, we'd still be in the lambda-cosmology part of the cosmic triangle.
That's not the only place dark matter is from:

1) we see it using nucleosynthesis and structure observations from the Big Bang. It must be cold and collisionless.

2) we see if from lensing studies

3) we see it from cluster gas studies.

MOND does not seem to be the answer. Sorry folks!


Well, this is just false.

Good, because that wasn't the conclusion!
yeah, so? That's just another one of the steps in trying to explain the dark matter. Does this disprove the observational evidence for the big bang? no!

Another Phobos quotes AiG: ..blotches seen in the CMB two-dimensional temperature maps ...interpreted in a different way by Gurzadyan as the effect of mixing of the trajectories of photons within a bundle as they propagate through space.

JS Princeton: We take that into account. It's called the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect.

In Gurzadyan's case, it is not the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect, which is a result of Compton scattering. Gurzadyan contends that the hot spots in a CMB anisotropy map will have a threshold independent ellipticity induced on them, if the photons propagate through negatively curved space, whereas the spots will be circular if the photons propagate through flat space. Gurzadyan & Torres analyzed the COBE DMR maps, and concluded that the elipticity of the spots could be evidence of a negatively curved (open) universe (Testing the effect of geodesic mixing with COBE data to Reveal the Curvature of the Universe, Astronomy & Astrophysics 321(1): 19-23, May 1997, the paper cited by Hartnett in the AiG article "Cosmologists Can't Agree and Are Still In Doubt!").

But AiG's Hartnett seriously overestimates the impact of Gurzadyan's work, and ignores contrary evidence altogether. Hartnett says "Also the CMB data is interpreted by de Bernardis to be consistent with flat space but by Gurzadyan with negative curvature." But Gurazdyan says of his own work, "This result must be interpreted with caution as this effect can be due in part to galactic emission." Hartnett clearly implies a solid conclusion by Gurzadyan, when in reality Gurzadyan & Torres caution against over-interpreting their own result. Hartnett also fails to mention that the reason the CMB data are interpreted as being consistent with flat space-time, is the location of the first peak in the anisotropy spectrum (at the angular scale slightly over 1 degree). That location is incompatible with an open, or negatively curved universe. The clear contradiction between this strong result, and Gurzadyan's weak result clearly favors the flat interpretation, until & unless someone can create compatibility between the first acoustic peak and a negatively curved universe.

So Hartnett's argument based on Gurzadyan & Torres is weak at best. But it is not the only weak spot. Many anti Bangers like to cite Tiffts claim for periodic or quantized redshifts, and Hartnett does likewise, when he says "His data were from galaxies from in all directions in the sky showing that redshifts are quantised, or come in discrete amounts. The big bang F-L cosmologists discount these observations as they don't fit the standard model." Not true. Tifft himself shows that his quantized redshifts fit a more-or-less standard model, with the added feature of quantized time (Three-dimensional quantized time in cosmology, W.G. Tifft, Astrophysics & Space Science 244(1-2): 187-210, 1996). In reality, cosmologists reject Tifft's results because there is a far simpler explanation. Tifft is seeing the effect of structure, walls & voids, which create periodic structures in the pencil beam surveys Tifft used originally, or the small surveys used. Examination of large samples, where the effect should wash out, show no sign of the periodic redshifts (No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data, E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox & M.R. Merrifield, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 336(1): L13-L16, October 11, 2002). Hartnett claims a non-existent bias, when he should know better.

The style of Hartnett's article is consistent. He picks out a minor controversy, and blows it out of proportion, making it look like a real problem. This is a propaganda technique, not a scientific one. There is only one example where Hartnett starts with a real question, before misleading the reader, and that is the question of dark matter.

There is a real problem here, and dark matter is the simplist solution (what fundamental principle prohibits matter from being dark?). But there are other solutions, such as MOND or gravity propagating through extra dimensions in string cosmology. Hartnett presents the controversy as if it represents cosmologists flailing around in ignorance. In reality, dark matter is no great mystery. It's just matter that happens to be dark, and is far less controversial an idea than Hartnett will allow.

My estimation of the AiG article is that it is a typically lame, incomplete, propaganda oriented, creationist fluff piece.

Man, I wish you people could learn to speak layman's english.... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"Some see the glass half full, some see it half empty, and some see it crawling with toxic alien parasites who want to devour your pancreas." - Sgt Aarhus, from the book Ascending by James Alan Gardner

But that criticism doesn't make sense for the results of the quantization in the local supercluster:

Redshift periodicity in the Local Supercluster.
Authors: Guthrie, B. N. G.; Napier, W. M.

Journal: Astronomy and Astrophysics, v.310, p.353-370 (A&A Homepage)

Publication Date: 06/1996
Bibliographic Code: 1996A&A...310..353G
Abstract
Persistent claims have been made over the last ~15yr that extragalactic redshifts, when corrected for the Sun's motion around the Galactic centre, occur in multiples of ~24 or ~36km/s. A recent investigation by us of 40 spiral galaxies out to 1000km/s, with accurately measured redshifts, gave evidence of a periodicity ~37.2-37.7km/s. Here we extend our enquiry out to the edge of the Local Supercluster (~2600km/s), applying a simple and robust procedure to a total of 97 accurately determined redshifts. We find that, when corrected for related vectors close to recent estimates of the Sun's galactocentric motion, the redshifts of spirals are strongly periodic (P~37.6km/s). The formal confidence level of the result is extremely high, and the signal is seen independently with different radio telescopes. We also examine a further sample of 117 spirals observed with the 300-foot Green Bank telescope alone. The periodicity phenomenon appears strongest for the galaxies linked by group membership, but phase coherence probably holds over large regions of the Local Supercluster.

Are you saying that Guthrie and Napier have found voids and walls within the local supercluster?


The Hawkins study involved quasars not galaxies. Quasar quantization (if it exists) is generally discussed as a different set of quantizations than Tifft's proposed galaxy quantization.

Quasar quantization has been roundly disproved using 2dF. Search the literature.

My point was simply that whether any redshift quantization exists or not, the proposed quantization of galaxies by Tifft and others cannot be compared with the proposed quasar quantization (which the Hawkins study has claimed to have disproven) - unless someone has presented a model that claims to connect the two versions of redshift quantization.

But this redshift quantization just seems completely nonsensical to me. I have sitting on my computer a list of 100,000 sloan galaxy redshifts which, when corrected for selection effects, do not show any quantization whatsoever. There are so many redshifts that one can actually differentiate a cluster sampe and we also find no quantization. So, no, I reject the hypothesis. There is no local nor global quantization going on and surveys basically put to rest this red herring.

Out of curiosity, I had looked for quantization in the sample I've been working with for my current analysis. I didn't find any evidence for it either. I'm not sure what Tifft is finding.

The obvious answer is: he isn't finding. He's using selective data which is highly suspect. When you do a straight analysis like you or I you find, surprise! surprise!, no correlation.

dgruss23: The Hawkins study involved quasars not galaxies. Quasar quantization (if it exists) is generally discussed as a different set of quantizations than Tifft's proposed galaxy quantization.

The Hawkins et al study looked for periodicities in QSO redshifts, but only QSO's from galaxy-QSO pairs were selected. This was done because the same W.M. Napier says that the QSO redshifts relative to the paired galaxy show a periodicity, and requested the study. It was discovered that the periodicity predcited by Napier was not there. It was also discovered that there was no periodicity in the observed heliocentric redshift either.

dgruss23: Are you saying that Guthrie and Napier have found voids and walls within the local supercluster?

That's one way to put it. But the real problem is the small numbers. In the paper you cited, there were only 97 galaxies studied, compared to the 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs studied by Hawkins et al. My claim in this case is that 97 is such a small number that no reliable result is likely to come of it (there are ~374 galaxies known in the local supercluster, and 97 is about 26% of that). The same criticism is made in a more formal sense in the literature (The Distribution of Galaxy Pair Redshifts, Nordgren, Terzian & Salpeter, Astrophysics and Space Science 244(1-2): 65-71, 1996; Power Spectrum Analysis and Redshift Data, Newman & Terzian, Astrophysics and Space Science 244(1-2): 129-141, 1996). These authors not only criticize Guthrie & Napier for having data sets that are too small, but Tifft as well. They also reanalyze the same data Guthrie & Napier used, and found no periodicity, a double whammy.

Also note that Hawkins et al. reanalyzed the data from which Burbidge & Napier claim to see periodicity, and conclude that the periodicity is caused by the window function (Burbidge & Napier found 2 periods, one of which they ascribe as a window function artifact, but Hawkins et al. find that both are).

I see the root problem being that periodicities are found always in small samples. Tifft's own work is mostly based on pencil beam surveys, each of which demonstrates a different periodicity structure, which is to be expected if each pencil beam is looking through a different set of quasi periodic structures.

I agree with everything you said Tim. Thanks for the references. As I said, in my own analysis I haven't seen any compelling evidence for quantization.