Quantized redshift anomaly

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">In both VM and MM cosmologies, redshift for galaxies is not primarily a distance indicator, and redshift for quasars is not at all a distance indicator. For one example of a replacement interpretation, if redshift were primarily gravitational rather than Doppler in origin, then this just means that galaxies to some degree and quasars to a much greater degree come in certain preferred sizes, much the way atoms do. -|Tom|- <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Can't make any sense of this. Perhaps you could elaborate further.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />Perhaps you could elaborate further.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Anything that makes light lose energy produces a redshift. Over 20 different redshift mechanisms are known. BB assumes redshift is a Doppler effect (i.e., the universe expands). Arp's Variable Mass (VM) cosmology and the Meta Model (MM) assume that the dominant redshift mechanism is gravitational redshift, with ejection velocity as an overlay in the case of quasars. Any sufficiently massive or highly compact object is capable of producing a gravitational redshift as light loses energy climbing out of a strong gravitational potential. So if galaxies and/or quasars come in preferred sizes (as atoms do) instead of a continuum of sizes, then there will be preferred redshifts instead of a continuum of redshifts.

Does that help? -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Anything that makes light lose energy produces a redshift. Over 20 different redshift mechanisms are known. BB assumes redshift is a Doppler effect (i.e., the universe expands). Arp's Variable Mass (VM) cosmology and the Meta Model (MM) assume that the dominant redshift mechanism is gravitational redshift, with ejection velocity as an overlay in the case of quasars. Any sufficiently massive or highly compact object is capable of producing a gravitational redshift as light loses energy climbing out of a strong gravitational potential. So if galaxies and/or quasars come in preferred sizes (as atoms do) instead of a continuum of sizes, then there will be preferred redshifts instead of a continuum of redshifts.

Does that help? -|Tom|-<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I understood this. What I couldn't make sense of was how that fits in with this quantized observation. Are you saying that what we observe as a local group of galaxies with a redshift basically the same, is really not a group at all and that each galaxy is the same size, but at different distances?

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Skarp</i>
<br />Are you saying that what we observe as a local group of galaxies with a redshift basically the same, is really not a group at all and that each galaxy is the same size, but at different distances?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">Here's the preferred MM view of this. The amount of energy light loses on its journey to us depends on how much elysium if passes through on the journey. Elysium may be distributed in giant, parallel wave sheets, with galaxies forming preferentially in the denser elysium regions. (We have direct observational evidence for that because, in "pencil beam" surveys deep into space in any one isolated direction, galaxies tend to occur in evenly spaced groupings by redshift.) Then the redshifts we observe will not be uniformly distributed because galaxies near the minimum distance to each wave will be over-represented as compared with galaxies at some oblique distance.

Note that the quantization effect is not exclusionary. Galaxies do appear at all redshifts. But certain redshifts are statistically over-represented compared to others because certain distances are over-represented. Implicit in all such pictures is the view that galaxy velocities are always small and contribute very little to redshift at any distance. -|Tom|-

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Note that the quantization effect is not exclusionary. Galaxies do appear at all redshifts.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
Here is the bone to pick.

From the presented evidence I've recently been reading, thedistribution of "quantized" redshifts seems to be all but "overwhelming" ... which would require concentric shells and the abandonment of isotropy.

However, if the data is "not exclusionary" and the data more mildly indicates quantization ... then the bubble voids might account for it and ... isotropy is retained (which is, for me, impossible to give up in any model).

Thank you for that observation. I will sleep better tonight ;o)

---

The Tifft paper predates Vera Rubin and dark matter and the bubble voids so it probably got the brunt of the rejection backlash (which should now have subsided to an extent). There should be less objection to this quantization now ... provided ... that it is indicative of a quantization consistent with the distribution of void spaces.
I think that scientists, initially presented with this quantization data, may have tended to extrapolate in the opposite direction and assume that it indicted concentric rings rather than something more isotropic ... hence, the total rejection.

tvf

Could you present a list of the 20 or so mechanisms which can cause a red shift.

I can only come up with a few.
Doppler
Gravity
Compton scattering
Relativistic time contraction

johnduff