If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 02:14 AM
rtomes's Avatar
rtomes rtomes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 717
Default Quantized Redshift revisited

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.
__________________
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/ Home page
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a Wobbly Universe blog

Last edited by rtomes : 09-August-2007 at 02:17 AM. Reason: typo
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 03:30 AM
rtomes's Avatar
rtomes rtomes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 717
Default Need advice on research related to quasars

I cannot tell which is the correct part of the forum for this. Please
move it if somewhere else seems more appropriate.

In order to test the ideas outlined below, I would like to get some
sky survey data. I need both galaxies and quasars for the same
SMALL area of sky. I do not want terrabytes of data, something
like a few MB from a selected sky area would most suit. I would
appreciate advice and perhaps a little assistance from any
experienced astronomers in doing this.

According to Halton Arp, quasars are not at cosmological distances, but
are ejected by nearby galaxies. They are ejected in pairs along the main
axis of the galaxies at fairly regular intervals. Arp gives many
examples of such pairs and they certainly look good to me as they do
indeed have matched pairs for red shift. The closest pairs often have
very high red shifts that then drop as you go outward from the galaxy,
typically in a sequence like (1+z) = 3, 2.4, 2, 1.6, 1.3, 1.06 (from
memory) which values have common ratios of 1.23. He and Narlikar explain
the high red shifts when ejected as due to the matter having lower
vibration frequency and that the frequency increases as the quasar's
matter comes into wave contact with other matter. These ideas are very
consistent with my own ideas about the wave structure of matter and the
increases of frequency of matter over time. Narlikar has shown that his
equations are a general situation in which the standard physics
equations are a special case that assumes mass of particles remains
constant.

I have just been doing some back of the envelop calculations to see how
often the quasar frequencies would change. From galaxy dynamics and the
fact that the quasars do not achieve escape velocity (they probably
eventually go into orbit like our magellanic clouds), I estimate that
they must be ejected at a velocity of the order of 500 km/s. For
galaxies seen other than edge on, this value could be be measured as
~half the difference of the matched pairs velocities unless the random
component is too high. The distances of consecutive quasars after they
are shot out I have assumed are about 50,000 light years from
remembering the photos of Arp. So dividing 50,000 light years by 500
km/s gives the time interval between successive quasar ejections. If I
did the calculation right the answer is very roughly 30,000,000 years.
This is near to the 27,000,000 year mass extinction period and would
certainly explain mass extinctions, because huge changes would happen in
the mass of particles in the quasar at this interval, but as a
consequence the particle masses in the galaxy would also change by a
modest amount. It is worth mentioning that the solar system is believed
to pass through the plane of the galaxy roughly every 30,000,000 years
also. That same figure would apply over much of the galaxy, not just
where we are. So it seems to be a system wide oscillation.

This idea can be tested out much more thoroughly by getting details of
Arps quasar pairs and measuring what we can about them. The ejection
velocity should be able to be determined by the rate of deceleration of
the quasars which only go a certain distance from the galaxy. In fact, I
think that the Magellanic clouds are residual ones of these ejections
long afterwards when they have become more or less in line with ordinary
matter frequencies. I would note that our galaxy does not appear to be
an active galaxy at the present time based on the size of the black hole
at its centre and the lack of extremely bright quasars nearby.

My prediction is that such analysis should show that the ejection period
matches some known mass extinction period or some known geological period.

Just one thing that doesn't make sense to me yet. The phase of the
quasar events is such that we are 1/4 of the way between events right
now. This is calculated by ln(1.06)/ln(1.23) being the most recent
events compared to the event interval. The events themselves would take
place at the galaxy core, so there would be a time delay to reach us. We
are just 30,000 light years from the centre of the galaxy and at the
speed of light any effect would reach us in negligible time compared to
the 1/4 of 30,000,000 years. However on the 27,000,000 year cycle we are
about half way between events and not 1/4. This is a problem with the
idea unless the effect reaches us from the galaxy centre at a speed much
less than the speed of light. It would have to be a speed of the order of
500 km/s which I suppose is quite conceivable of the quasars are
themselves ejected at 500 km/s.
__________________
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/ Home page
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a Wobbly Universe blog
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 03:57 AM
Kelfazin's Avatar
Kelfazin Kelfazin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 1,410
Default

Just a thought (and you might wait for a mod to weigh in), you could ask this on the Q&A forum too. I wouldn't put all this info in there due to the ATM content, but I don't think it would hurt to ask for help in finding the data.
__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 04:21 AM
rtomes's Avatar
rtomes rtomes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 717
Default

I didn't see a Q&A forum or I would have gone there. Will go wandering the corridors again. Thanks Kelfazin!
__________________
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/ Home page
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a Wobbly Universe blog
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 04:28 AM
Ari Jokimaki Ari Jokimaki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 995
Default

I have been doing some research on discordant redshift related issues for a while now (nothing major, just a layman probing the issue). Here's just a few places you could use:

NASA Extragalactic Database (NED)
HyperLeda
Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS)
Simbad
__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 04:33 AM
rtomes's Avatar
rtomes rtomes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 717
Default

Thanks Ari. I did look at Sloan before but couldn't find a way to get a small sample from a specific part of the sky.

I just tried the first one of these, putting in a location, a small radius and selecting galaxies and quasars, selecting text with tab separation and a few other settings and pressed go and got ... a crash error! Help, I need an experienced driver.
__________________
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/ Home page
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a Wobbly Universe blog

Last edited by rtomes : 09-August-2007 at 04:40 AM. Reason: more info
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 05:13 AM
Kelfazin's Avatar
Kelfazin Kelfazin is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 1,410
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
I didn't see a Q&A forum or I would have gone there. Will go wandering the corridors again. Thanks Kelfazin!

Second forum from the top, right under About BAUT

http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/
__________________
I was just sitting here contemplating the immortal words of Socrates who said, "I drank what?"

"Think of the rivers of blood spilled by all those generals and emperors so that, in glory and triumph, they could become the momentary masters of a fraction of a dot." --Carl Sagan "Pale Blue Dot"
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 06:32 AM
Ari Jokimaki Ari Jokimaki is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
Thanks Ari. I did look at Sloan before but couldn't find a way to get a small sample from a specific part of the sky.
SDSS website is somewhat complex, hard to find stuff there. Right now I don't remember if it even has the option you want...

Well, here's radial search, check out also other search options at the left in the linked page.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
I just tried the first one of these, putting in a location, a small radius and selecting galaxies and quasars, selecting text with tab separation and a few other settings and pressed go and got ... a crash error! Help, I need an experienced driver.
NED is little picky about the format of given coordinates, here's some help on that.

Entering coordinates like this works:

RA or longitude = 01h02m03.4s
DEC or Latitude = +15d16m17s

Or you can give them as degrees like this:

RA or longitude = 1.2
DEC or Latitude = 3.4

But as I tried these and some other things I didn't get any crash errors, at worst I got a "Bad RA or longitude" error. I don't know what could cause that. But perhaps we can make a test search, a really simple one, put these values into NED's near position search:

RA or longitude = 1
DEC or Latitude = 2
Search Radius (arcmin) = 10

And then click "Near position search". I get a list of 17 objects starting from a galaxy called "APMUKS(BJ) B005719.36+014338.1".
__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in the crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 07:01 AM
matt.o matt.o is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 136
Default

For SDSS, I think you'll find that you have to put in a coordinate which lies within the survey area in order to get meaningful results. See http://www.sdss.org/dr6/coverage/index.html and take a look at the survey coverage images to get an idea of which coordinates you can put in.
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 09:24 AM
czeslaw czeslaw is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,279
Default

There are Galaxy Clusters around the Cosmic Voids. The Cosmic Voids diameter is usually about 30 Mps and grows. We observe a multiple distance between Galaxy Clusters and a redshift because the expansion of the Cosmic Voids.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 09:44 AM
matt.o matt.o is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 136
Default

Why don't you reproduce the above graph using data from larger surveys such as the two-degree field galaxy redshift survey, or the larger Sloan Digital Sky Survey?
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 10:31 AM
rtomes's Avatar
rtomes rtomes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 717
Default

Thanks everyone, I managed to get some samples of like 1000 or so objects successfully and get them into a spreadsheet.
__________________
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/ Home page
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a Wobbly Universe blog
  #13 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 10:59 AM
rtomes's Avatar
rtomes rtomes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 717
Default

Thanks czeslaw, I am familiar with most of the material in wikipedia on this.

Matt.o, I am interested in doing some analysis of these surveys (or small parts of them), and have asked some questions elsewhere on getting such data (with some success).

My main interest in this thread is to discuss some of the issues. I think the most important one is that I suspect that the latest methods of analysis might not be sensitive to the methods used by Tifft, Arp and the USA-Australian project shown in the above graph. I would like someone who understands the methods used to discuss that with me if possible. But I will explain what I understand of ideas that I arrived at independently of Arp which agree with his as I understand them.

Consider the possibility that the masses of particles are not constant over time, but experience increases of certain amounts at intervals of time. The result would be that all spectral frequencies would increase in steps at intervals of time. When we look at distant galaxies, we would see them as they were long ago when all galaxies had lower frequencies, so comparing them to the laboratory frequencies we would see them as red shifted.

For the pattern to be seen it seems sufficient to reduce all redshifts to the CMBR rest frame. There is no problem when observing a small area of sky (so called pencil beams like the above example) because the correction for our motion is essentially the same for all the galaxies in the sample. Once reduced to this rest frame the pattern should be visible over the whole sky. This does not mean that we are at the centre of the Universe, because all locations see the same pattern of steps of frequency.

The large surveys done over the whole sky will not show these effects if they do not correct for our motion relative to the CMBR. Also, I am unsure if some surveys also do comparison between pairs of galaxies other than ours and another. If they do, they will use vector differences based on the redshift being a true measure of distance and it being a vector field. If Arp and I are right then it is not a vector field. For example consider two galaxies that are seen from here and are exactly 90 degrees apart in the sky. let us say that we see each as having a 72 km/s red shift. It is natural to assume that if the two galaxies have no random motions that they will see each other as having sqrt(2)*72 km/s red shifts. But that would not be the case. They would either see a 72 km/s or a 144 km/s difference because the frequencies are changing in steps of 72 km/s and no actual motion is involved. We cannot tell which of those two would be the answer.

Does this make sense?
__________________
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/ Home page
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a Wobbly Universe blog

Last edited by rtomes : 09-August-2007 at 11:02 AM. Reason: typos
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 11:12 AM
rtomes's Avatar
rtomes rtomes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 717
Default

From the above quoted wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

Quote:
"The above an intrinsic redshift hypothesis, if true, will have far-reaching consequences for cosmology and the nature of QSOs. Most of those previous studies on the Karlsson formula used rather small samples (except for Arp et al. 2005), and have been suspected that the claimed peaks were due to artifacts associated with selection effects (Basu 2005). To avoid such a heterogeneous selection manner as well as personal prejudice, Hawkins et al. (2002) tested the periodicity in log(1 + zqso) with 2dF redshift survey data with 67291 nearby galaxies and 10410 QSOs; it was found that there is no periodicity in log(1 + zqso). However, Napier & Burbidge (2003) argued that in order to use the 2dF sample to properly test the original hypothesis, it is necessary to establish for each pair that the galaxy is at least a late-type active spiral system. Arp et al. (2005) also re-examined the 2dF sample and claimed that they found that the redshifts of brighter QSOs in the QSO density contours fit very exactly the long standing Karlsson formula and confirm the existence of preferred values in the distribution of quasar redshifts."
I want to explain why, if Arp is right, the Hawkins result is expected to be null and the Arp result is successful. According to Arp, QSOs are not at cosmological distances implied by redshift but have two componets to the redshift that he calls "internal" and I guess "external" or cosmological. The periodicity in QSO redshifts is in the internal component so that it shows up in samples that are nearby (all at small z compared to the periodicity in log(1+z)). The Hawkins result includes QSOs which are distant and therefore have large cosmological redshifts. This will totally blur out all the peaks in the internal redshift. When Arp uses only bright QSO then he effectively selects the nearby ones that all have small external z component so no blurring results.

The problem is that when analysis is done to compare two models, you cannot make the assumptions of one model when testing the other. Unfortunately these procedures are so ingrained that it happens without people realizing.
__________________
Ray Tomes
http://ray.tomes.biz/ Home page
http://ray.tomes.biz/b2/index.php/a Wobbly Universe blog
  #15 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 01:15 PM
Amber Robot's Avatar
Amber Robot Amber Robot is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 606
Default

If quasars are not cosmological how does one explain damped lyman alpha systems and their accompanying metal systems? Has Arp ever addressed this? You can't just study one aspect of quasars and ignore the other aspects, especially when there is prodigious amounts of data available.
  #16 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 03:08 PM
parejkoj's Avatar
parejkoj parejkoj is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: spacing out
Posts: 582
Default

Also (I just posted a suggestion on accessing the SDSS data on the other thread), if you want to actually show that this ejection scenario is real, you need to perform a cross-correlation analysis on a very large sample of uniformly selected galaxies and quasars, like that in SDSS or 2dF. I'm not aware that anyone has actually done this, with proper controls for the quasar selection function.

Looking at individual galaxies is nice and all, but there are hojillions of galaxies out there, and you would expect plenty of chance alignments if you are not careful in how you select sources. The sampling should be uniform and random. You can't just find one (or even "many," as you claim Arp has) "aligned" system and claim it represents some new physics.
__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report
  #17 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 04:21 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,508
Default

[Mod Note]

Two ATM threads started by rtomes merged; the second one was titled "Need advice on research related to quasars".

A belated welcome (back), rtomes!

Things have changed quite a bit, here in the ATM section, since you were last here. It might be a good idea to read the current Rules For Posting To This Board (esp #13), and, if you are interested, the various thread in the About BAUT section on the ATM section, here, here, here, and here (samples only).

[/Mod Note]
  #18 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 04:31 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,508
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
[snip]

Matt.o, I am interested in doing some analysis of these surveys (or small parts of them), and have asked some questions elsewhere on getting such data (with some success).

My main interest in this thread is to discuss some of the issues. I think the most important one is that I suspect that the latest methods of analysis might not be sensitive to the methods used by Tifft, Arp and the USA-Australian project shown in the above graph. I would like someone who understands the methods used to discuss that with me if possible.

[snip]
First, which methods do you think are insensitive (per my bold, in your post)? Specifically, which of the papers reporting quasar redshift analyses have you based your suspicions on?

Second, if you want to understand the methods used in a particular, published quasar redshift paper, I think BAUT's Q&A section would be a more appropriate place to start ... just as long as you don't phrase questions aimed at better understanding in a way that leaves readers with the strong impression that you're merely promoting an ATM idea.

Third, if you don't have access to, or don't even know of, the relevant published papers, then again the Q&A section is a much better place than this ATM section.
  #19 (permalink)  
Old 09-August-2007, 04:38 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 9,508
Default