From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Quantisation of REDSHIFT
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 15:38:48 GMT


baresson@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (pete.oram) writes:

> 1. Are there any other significent details that would shed any light on the
> reason for this phenomena?

     Just that the redshift quantization is in the light from the galaxies,
not in the analysis.  No periodicity of galaxy redshifts shows up in the raw
data.  Only after the raw redshifts are corrected for motion of the Earth
around the galactic center does the periodicity pop out.

> 2. What statistical methods did Guthrie & Napier use to disprove the
> quantisation?

     See their paper in MNRAS for Dec. 1, 1991, or a popularized summary in
Sky & Telescope for Aug. 1992, p. 128-129.  They choose a completely new and
independent sample of galaxies with better distribution, being careful not to
duplicate any used in the original investigations.  The effect still showed
up.

> 3. Does this have any implications for 'Big Bang'?

     Taken on its face, the quantization appears to argue that cosmological
redshift is not due mainly to velocity, because it is impossible to imagine
how the velocities of galaxies can be quantized for us unless we are in a
special place in the universe.  As such, this observational result is
evidence (not proof) against the big bang.

> 4. What other explanations are there for the redshift quantisation if it
> doesn't just correspond to the velocity of the source?

     If redshifts are quantized for us and are caused by velocity alone, they
cannot be quantized for most other observers.  So either we are in a special
place in the universe, or cosmological redshift is not due mainly to
expansion velocity.  Either way violates premises on which the big bang
theory rests.  So other explanations all involve alternative cosmologies. For
example, I have my own proposed explanation in a forthcoming book.  To
oversimplify greatly, it is easier to quantize energy than velocity.

> 5. How do you understand the significence of the phenomena, especially in
> the light of any other views/ theories of Tifft and Arp? What does Tifft
> believe? What does Arp believe?

     Each has his own favorite alternative cosmology.  Both are quite sure
the big bang is wrong.  No single alternative has yet gained significant
acceptance over others.  There are now about half-a-dozen "leading
contenders" for alternative cosmologies.

     Tifft's latest results purport to show that redshift is not only
quantized, but also time-variable on a scale of years to decades.  Arp has
developed an elaborate "variable mass" cosmology.  The latest papers of both
authors provide details.

> 6. What are the implications involved in the 'cosmic rethink'? - the
> origins/age of the universe, concepts of spacetime, the existance of God
> posited by some divine order in this ?

     Tifft's result is a single observational datum.  One can no more build a
good cosmology on this one datum than one could on the redshift = expansion
idea.  Possibly the only characteristic that all leading alternative
cosmologies share is an infinite universe.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.