Sparky wrote:David Russell23, "If you look at any plot of redshift vs. distance derived from redshift independent distance indicators you will see a trend of redshift increasing as distance increases".
What
redshift independent distance indicators are there that do not have
redshift as an
intrinsic part of their construction?
-redshift increasing as distance increases"
"Fingers of God" falsifies
redshift equals distance.
If
redshift equals distance has been falsified, how can you say that?
I don't think you have any idea what distances are involved past the parallax measurable ones. The most accurate term for such distances is, "It's a long, long way"!
Sparky - By definition a "
redshift independent" distance indicator is a method of calculating the distance to a galaxy that does not require the assumption of
redshift = distance to determine the distance to an object.
For external galaxies numerous methods can be applied: For elliptical galaxies researchers use the Surface Brightness fluctuation method (SBF), the fundamental plane (FP), the Globular Cluster Luminosity Function (GCLF), and Type Ia and Type II Supernova (when available). For spiral galaxies researchers use primarily the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) and the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TFGB) methods but they can also use Type Ia and Type II Supernova (again when available). The absolute calibration (zero point determination) for these scales is based upon Cepheids - which itself is based upon the Milky Way and Large Magellanic cloud Cepheid period luminosity relation. For each of these methods the calculated distance to a galaxy is independent of the
redshift of the galaxy. In other words - the distance to the galaxy is calculated no matter what the observed
redshift may be.
Thus we can take a sample of galaxies with these
redshift independent distances and plot their observed redshifts against their
redshift independent distances. The
redshift - distance plots show that as distance increases the
redshift increases ---- with a large amount of scatter. This is an empirical fact. For samples of normal galaxies - on average - as distance increases the observed
redshift increases -- for a sample of galaxies. But there is large scatter in this overall trend such that for the most accurate
redshift independent distances there is room for
intrinsic redshifts.
My own published papers have primarily involved use of the Tully-Fisher relation to calculate distances. The TFR utilizes the relationship between the rotational velocity and absolute magnitude for spiral galaxies. As absolute magnitude increases so does the rotational velocity. Since the rotational velocity is a distant independent measurement whereas the value of the apparent magnitude is a distance dependent measurement --- the farther a galaxy is the fainter it appears --- all you need is a Cepheid calibration of the relationship, a measured rotational velocity, a measured apparent magnitude, and a measured inclination angle to calculate the distance to a galaxy. For completeness you also need to correct the apparent magnitude for galactic and internal extinction.
In my 2009 paper, the sample of 218 spiral galaxies showed an overall trend of
redshift increasing with distance. Individual galaxies showed large scatter around the average trend - but the trend is real. So there is an underlying distance
redshift relationship upon which
intrinsic redshifts would be superposed.
The Fingers of God are an example of meaningless nonsense. They don't prove
redshift = distance. They don't prove
redshift does not equal distance. The only thing they show is how
redshift values are distributed on an segment of the sky. Since the plots reveal no information about actual distances they are worthless in my opinion.
So far I've only mentioned normal galaxies. Now Quasars do not show any evidence of a relationship between
redshift and distance. And since there are no
redshift independent distance calculation methods for quasars nobody really knows how far they are. Personally, I think Arp is right and that they are not at cosmological distances. The lack of time dilation exhibited by quasars supports Arp's contention (see papers by Hawkins).
Finally, don't waste my time claiming I don't know blah blah blah. I've published papers in The Astrophysical Journal, Astrophysics&Space Science; and the Journal of Astrophysics & Astronomy. I also was asked to referee a paper for Astrophysical Journal Letters which proposed evidence for
intrinsic redshifts. If I choose to contribute something to discussions like this - I know what I'm talking about.
Here is my most recently published paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1288
And here is the paper I will be presenting at the NPA:
http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_6152.pdf