Redshift Z In The Wild

[mharratsc]

Now the question is- does this information stop here? Or does it go on?

A layperson to the field of Astronomy makes a startling discovery regarding information from the established paradigm and shows it to be wrong... will we be the only ones who know about it?

Will it die with this forum thread? :\

I wish I knew of some way to make use of this... :\

Mike H.

[magicjava]

A layperson to the field of Astronomy makes a startling discovery regarding information from the established paradigm and shows it to be wrong... will we be the only ones who know about it?

Just a short story that I think relates well to this situation.

About 10 years ago I had this neat idea on how to get something out of a black hole. As we know, nothing can escape a black hole's event horizon unless it can travel faster than the speed of light. Well, in quantum theory a photon _can_ travel faster than the speed of light due to the uncertainty principle. So a photon on the edge of the event horizon could get an extra burst of energy and break free! Not only that, but because a photon is energy, because E=mc^2, a photon in motion has mass. Mass affects gravity which affects the size of the event horizon. So the photon breaking free of the black hole would cause the event horizon to shrink slightly.

I was very excited about this idea and wrote a letter to Stephen Hawking asking if it could be true. About two weeks later I got a reply. He explained that, no, a photon cannot escape an event horizon even with the uncertainty principle. The speed of light is just used to calculate where the event horizon is, but due to the nature of black holes, nothing can ever escape no matter how fast it goes, even if it goes faster than the speed of light.




The reason I mention this is to point out that even though an idea seems true, an expert can weigh in and show why it's not. To the best of my knowledge, there is no valid explanation for NASA's redshift z data. But that doesn't mean an expert in the field can't explain it. I've sent off a letter to the NASA group that produced that data and plan on giving them at least two weeks to respond. It may turn out they have a very good explanation for it.

Assuming it turns out they _don't_ have an explanation for it and it actually is wrong, this raises the question of _why_ is it wrong. It could be that that particular group just did a sloppy job with their redshift z data. Or it could be that many more examples of bad redshift z data are out there. The way to test that is to check more of the redshift z data provided to the public.

Only if the experts can't (or won't) explain the data _and_ examples of data this bad are reasonably common do you then have something that can be used to argue that the redshift z data as used by professional astronomers is generally unreliable.

So this this little test that I've done so far isn't the end of the story, it's the beginning.

[FS3]

Hi M!

Thx 4 responding. Please, don´t get me wrong. I didn´t want to criticise your idea - after all I find your collection plus the idea behind it, excellent - I only wanted to give you some more hints to save you miles.

But Halton Arp ("Seeing Red") was on that already.

Just this one last thing and I'll leave you guys alone.

I just want to stress that what I presented here is NASA's data _and_ NASA's interpretation of the data. This differs from Arp, who re-interprets the meaning of redshift z data..

True, Arp did come to an own conclusion, but what I meant is - that Arp started from the same data-sets for redshifts - available for anybody.

From Harp´s website:

...These cluster elongations toward the observer have been noticed in other regions of the sky and, causing some inquietude, been dubbed "Fingers of God". The reason for unease is obvious. The fingers are pointing to the conclusion that we live in some special place in the Universe. Very anti-Copernican...

Any principle of statistical "homogenity" excludes special preferences. That mentioned "elongation towards Earth" tells us that there IS a flaw in the traditional assumption of the redshift/distance-relation as it produces such "preferences", called "Fingers of God", by Arp.

His conclusions derived form that observation are interesting too - but shouldn´t bother you in your case...

Stay onto!
FS3

[magicjava]

Thx 4 responding. Please, don´t get me wrong. I didn´t want to criticise your idea - after all I find your collection plus the idea behind it, excellent - I only wanted to give you some more hints to save you miles.

I appreciate that FS3. I was just making sure it was clear I wasn't trying to over-step my bounds by re-interpreting NASA's data. After all, on the internet you never know.

I will say that Tom Bridgman, an astrophysicist at NASA has responded to my post in the comments section of my blog. I'm currently looking into his suggestions and will keep folks updated on what happens.

[davesmith_au]

I will say that Tom Bridgman, an astrophysicist at NASA

[Osmosis]

I will say that Tom Bridgman, an astrophysicist at NASA

Google Bridgman and see that S.J. Crothers has had dealings with this "scientist"

[davesmith_au]

Google Bridgman and see that S.J. Crothers has had dealings with this "scientist"

Steve's not the only one...

[magicjava]

To update the situation, Mr. Bridgman basically said that you can't get reliable data from NASA press releases. Instead, the public data available at the SDSS web site should be used.

I went to that web site and the description of the site says the data was recorded with a damaged camera that cannot correctly record redshift z and there is no known way to filter the data so that it is correct.

I've posted this and a few other comments in my blog to Mr. Bridgman and am waiting to hear his response.

References
-------------
*) Discussion between Mr. Bridgman and myself. http://magicjava.blogspot.com/2009/08/r ... ld-ii.html
*) SRSS DR7 caveat: Red leak to the u filter and very red objects http://www.sdss.org/dr7/start/aboutdr7.html#imcaveat

[FS3]

I really took the burden of reading Mr.Bridgman´s site...

Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy

...and I have to confess that I am indeed shocked and awed by his acummulation of logic fallacy.

This guy turns out to be the Darth Vader of NASA!

My sincerest condolences in advance to "magicjava" for falling into this trap.

This guy seems to be a verbally walking contradictionary...


FS3

[magicjava]

To follow up on this, NASA has corrected the redshift z data on their web pages. A new graph incorporating these changes can be seen here:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1NlR71q69vA/S ... dshift.png