Quantized redshift anomaly

I never heard about quantized red shift observations so I'm the dummy here. But, I have just read some stuff that indicates obeservation of this type is not reproduced by anyone and the topic is bogus. Maybe some more data is needed but they say more data indicates the topic is not real and there is no quantified redshift. How can you get the data needed to prove this one way or the other?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />How can you get the data needed to prove this one way or the other?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That was already done. Guthrie and Napier took an independent sample of galaxies having no overlap with the Tifft sample, and verified the redshift periodicity.

Statements that the result is not reproduced are false, and claims that the result is non-credible are statements of bias in favor of the Big Bang, a theory in which redshift periodicity or quantization is essentially impossible. -|Tom|-

The other side says the data is massaged to get the result needed by the people doing this work and that is why it is not published. If (they say) the data is handled properly there is nothing there. So, it seems to me it is something that needs more evidence to prove it is not massaged to suit the need as is done way too much.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />The other side says the data is massaged to get the result needed by the people doing this work and that is why it is not published. If (they say) the data is handled properly there is nothing there. So, it seems to me it is something that needs more evidence to prove it is not massaged to suit the need as is done way too much.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">That is also untrue. The data and conclusions are published and unchallenged by any peer-reviewed source. A claim that "if the data is handled properly there is nothing there" is a touching expression of faith in the Big Bang, not a statement about the data. If the claim were true, they would get such a paper published immediately and everyone would cite it. The paper would be famous. But the statement is not about some actual analysis, but about the widespread belief about what they think must be true because they "know" the BB is right and therefore the quantized redshift <i>must</i> be wrong.

However, you can easily check your source and get them to prove otherwise if their claim is true. Show us all the analysis that shows the effect goes away.

As I said, they'd be lauded by colleagues and famous if there were such an analysis. But there isn't. -|Tom|-

I got the info from a search engine by entering quantized redshift. There are several links pro and con about this topic listed. The con side says there has been nothing since about 1986 or so about this. And that alone shows there is no serious interest in this matter even by the author who did the frist story. This info is from a chat room and the only way of contacting the posters is by joining the group. There must be more about this than the old:"Is too/Is not!" sitcom or is that really all there is?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Jim</i>
<br />There must be more about this than the old:"Is too/Is not!" sitcom or is that really all there is?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">As with most ideas that challenge mainstream paradigms, few serious researchers touch them because it is a career killer to do so. But the status of the two sides is not at all equal. The quantized redshift data is peer-reviewed and published. An independent replication by independent authors is also peer-reviewed and published. The "it can't be so" side has no data, no analysis, and no publication to support its position. They have only their faith in the mainstream paradigm that the effect is somehow spurious, and their fear that an actual analysis might again support the "impossible" position. For example, both Guthries and Napier were BB supporters when they did their analysis and published the results. Now they are considered BB dissenters and incompetent cranks just because their analysis found quantization.

So the two sides of this issue don't divide on merit, but along pragmatic lines: Either you are authority oriented and support the mainstream position because it must be so; or you are data oriented and support what the only two analyses of data showed. I am a bit surprised to see you seeming to lean toward the former camp on this issue because you usually seem to side with data over theory. -|Tom|-