Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution . . .

[ETSubmariner]

Hello,

I hope I am in the right forum. I've come across some 'net talk' about Redshift and Arp, and I'm trying to get a thunderbolts view of this paper: http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X ... 63164.html - I did a search for the names on this site, and didn't see anything. Anything you can point me to?

The thread that I'm trying to decipher: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=283049

Also, users on the physicsforums.com with their names crossed out are banned users?

[mharratsc]

Woah!! How did this get printed in the Astrophysics Journal??

If, as is assumed in the DIR model, quasars are ejected from active galaxies, and these galaxies are distributed uniformly in space, the same should be true for quasars, assuming that the ejection process is similar at all epochs.

Seriously! I thought that anything that went against Mainstreamist Mantra automatically got canned? Are these guys secretly starting to investigate Arp's findings after all these years??

Sorry I don't have an answer to your question tho, bro- I'm just a seeker of knowledge here like yourself, not an answer guy. :\

I'm gonna be watching this thread however, to see what someone wiser than I has to say to this, tho!


Mike H.

[ETSubmariner]

Woah!! How did this get printed in the Astrophysics Journal??

If, as is assumed in the DIR model, quasars are ejected from active galaxies, and these galaxies are distributed uniformly in space, the same should be true for quasars, assuming that the ejection process is similar at all epochs.

Seriously! I thought that anything that went against Mainstreamist Mantra automatically got canned? Are these guys secretly starting to investigate Arp's findings after all these years??

Sorry I don't have an answer to your question tho, bro- I'm just a seeker of knowledge here like yourself, not an answer guy. :\

I'm gonna be watching this thread however, to see what someone wiser than I has to say to this, tho!


Mike H.

I hear ya!

In a variety of threads related to such, I learned that "some of the community" (whoever they might be) don't find the reports findings consistent.

I like the ideas presented in thunderbolts, and a plasma cosmology/electric universe. I look forward to seeing what these good folks might have to say about it.

[mharratsc]

Know what? Maybe you should re-post this over in the Electric Universe section. It may have come off the 'net, but it's directly applicable to the EU section... and I think a lot more of the folks peruse that one.


Mike H.

[tayga]

Seriously! I thought that anything that went against Mainstreamist Mantra automatically got canned? Are these guys secretly starting to investigate Arp's findings after all these years??

Bell seems to have worked with Hoyle and on Steady State theory for a while. The full paper is a nice, careful analysis from 2005 and appears to contradict Bell's own earlier conclusion that there is no evidence for quantisation. Bell is careful about his conclusions too. From the paper:

"We conclude that it is real, and is due to either the preferred redshifts predicted in the DIR model, or selection effects. However, because of the way in which the intrinsic redshift relation was determined, it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both."

The paper has been largely ignored but one citation urges caution. From "Unknown selection effect simulates redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey", Hartnett, J. G. ASTROPHYSICS AND SPACE SCIENCE, 324 (1), 13-16:

"Abstract: Discrete Fourier analysis on the quasar number count, as a function of redshift, z, calculated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 release appears to indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. However the same periods are found in the mean of the zConf parameter used to flag the reliability of the spectroscopic measurements. It follows that these redshift periods must result from some selection effect, as yet undetermined. It does not signal any intrinsic (quantized) redshifts in the quasars in Sloan survey data. However this result does not rule out the possibility as found in earlier studies of other data."

[Jarvamundo]

got a feelin the crossed out posts are from user michael.suede of this forum?

[earls]

WHO IS THIS SCOTT GUY?

"In astrophysics, "experimental proof" is not possible* ... one cannot, for example, create a star in one's laboratory, much less a galaxy."

SORRY FELLAS. NOT POSSIBLE.

[mharratsc]

Isn't 'Nereid' another name personality of 'ScienceApologist', the professional 'alternative cosmology' basher?

[RayTomes]

For those interested in red shift periodicity and theory behind it, they might find these links useful. They are to discussions on redshift periodicity (both large scale and small scale) and Harmonics theory which offers predictions regarding this.
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainst ... sited.html
http://www.bautforum.com/against-mainst ... heory.html

[davesmith_au]

Isn't 'Nereid' another name personality of 'ScienceApologist', the professional 'alternative cosmology' basher?

No, they certainly are not one and the same.

ScienceApologist (aka Joshua Schroeder) is a young upstart wannabee (personal opinion) whose limited experience in university makes him think he's an expert on cosmology.

Nereid, (aka DieRenDopa on the JREF forum) is, from what I can gather, a NASA employee responsible in large part for the APODs. Read the above screenname backwards...

They both tend to defend the mainstream dogma with a zeal akin to religious extremists, and that's where the similarity lies.

Now, back to the thread topic...

Cheers, Dave.

[RayTomes]

Isn't 'Nereid' another name personality of 'ScienceApologist', the professional 'alternative cosmology' basher?

No, they certainly are not one and the same.
...

I got very confused by this post until I saw a post about Nereid before mine. It was Nereid that always argued against my posts in BAUT, by asking apparently searching questions but never able to answer any. I got roundly abused for referring to her as him. How is one supposed to know when people hide behind such names?

Normal transmission will be resumed shortly.

[mharratsc]

You can't really tell them apart from their 'web presence' if you ask me...

[Siggy_G]

What a thread...

Both parts (Suede and Nereid) shows impressive insight into each field, but I think the last two posts before the mentor steps in sums it all up. All credit to Suede for standing up against the ongoing argumentation from Nereid. Really interesting to see papers showing redshift being caused by optical correlations and experimentally proven effects, including Peratt's plasma cloud interpretation.

Quote from Nereid: "I don't know where you got this "experimental proof" criterion (for astronomy to be a science) from, it has not been part of astronomy or astrophysics ... ever, at least not in the extreme form you say."

Or perhaps not THAT surprised... However, spectral lines and red shift is actually about using lab experiments as comparison for observed spectre, then carried on with mathematical approaches. The gravity formula is based on experimental measurements between two objects, astronomical observations and then continued with mathematical approaches. Thermodynamics uses lab experiments and assumes the conditions in space, minus plasma dynamics. Etc. A slight possibility for things going pear-shaped... Observational data are interpreted within a framework that only fractionally takes the presence of plasma and its dynamics into consideration.

Suede: "I think the important thing here is that redshift due to non-doppler related causes has been proven experimentally in the lab, while redshift due to expansion of space has not."