http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0305/0305112.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
http://www.sastpc.org/internal.php?pid=104
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/astr/2003/00000285/00000002/05138613
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/Tifft.pdf
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm
http://www.setterfield.org/homecopy.htm

 

Letters to Stardrive's Jack Sarfatti
http://disc.server.com/discussion.cgi?id=68326;article=1473;show_parent=1

Thomas Mandel
Does Tifft's evidence of redshift quantization falsify BB
Fri Jan 21, 2005 19:35
64.12.116.14

 

I'm just curious, because if quantization of redshift does falsify the standard Doppler interpretation, it would also remove critical evidence for the Big Bang, and that would throw a wrench into much of what you have said mathematically. Remember that the scientific method does not take into any account the intellectual personality of the person typing the paper.

It is interesting that you did not reply to this earlier post, so I will repeat it here

Thomas Mandel
a falsification of standard interpretation
Tue Jan 18, 2005 20:50
64.12.116.6

It has been reported at

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/papers.html

in the paper:

"Evidemce for Quantization amd Variable Redshifts in the Cosmic Background Rest Frame
W.G.Tifft
Steward Observatory,
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona

Abstract

Evidence is presented for redshift quantization and variability as detected in global studies done in the rest frame of the cosmic background radiations. Quantization is strong and consistent with predictions derived from concepts associated with multidimensional time. Nine different families of periods are possible but certain ones are more likely to occur...

snip

Introduction: The objective of this paper is to present current evidence for global redshift quantization and to examine some of its properties. By global redshift quantization we mean that the redshifts of homogeneous classes of galaxies from all over the sky contain specific periods when viewed from an appropriate rest frame;
the redshift
is not a continuous variable
as expected from
the standard doppler
interpretation..."

snip
-----------------------------------

It remains to be seen if this information is true or not, but if it is, this constitutes a falsification of the standard doppler interpretation, where does Tifft go wrong?

030

 

Jack Sarfatti
quantized red shift
Sat Jan 22, 2005 13:39
68.123.28.199

 

This claim is uncorroborated. Even if true, it does not obviously contradict the precision cosmology.

030

Thomas Mandel
"The claims are broadly upheld."
Sat Jan 22, 2005 20:23
205.188.116.202

 

It has been corroborated, see the below article:

A statistical evaluation of anomalous redshift claims
Author: Napier W.M.1

Source: Astrophysics and Space Science, 2003, vol. 285, no. 2, pp. 419-427(9)

Publisher: Kluwer Academic Publishers

 

Abstract:

Claims that ordinary spiral galaxies and some classes of QSO show periodicity in their redshift distributions are investigated using recent high-precision data and rigorous statistical procedures. The claims are broadly upheld. The periodicites are strong and easily seen by eye in the datasets. Observational, reduction or statistical artefacts do not seem capable of accounting for them.
----------------------------
Didn't Einstein say that when high-precision data contradicts precision theory, it is the theory that is called into question, if not discarded"

030

Thomas Mandel

Jack Sarfatti
Missing the point

You miss the point. Quantized redshift, even if real, does not automatically invalidate all the other data of modern precision cosmology. What it may mean of course would need explanation. It is premature and you have jumped to unwarranted conclusions.

 

This data is old, and what I have presented comes from years ago. So I wonder too what has happened in the intervening years since Tifft finalized his results? Where is all this today? So far, I have found something by Setterfield. (Unfortunately, he has an agenda too, which I find highly questionable, but for what he has to say about redshift quantization I think we can look at if only "to break the silence".) So, yes, I am assuming that it is for real. It seems that at this point in time we ought to be able to proceed to the next question: Are there other instances which would be explained by redshift quantization? More specifically, are Arp's findings that two physically connected bodies sometimes have different redshifts valid?

But first, does the below lead us to the above question?

030

http://www.setterfield.org/Redshift.htm#new53103

Is the Redshift Really quantized?

Setterfield: A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The further out we look, the redder the light becomes. The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum. This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.

It is at this point that Tifft’s work enters the discussion. In 1976, William Tifft, an astronomer from Arizona, started examining redshift values. The data indicated that the redshift, z, was not a smooth function but went in a series of jumps. Between successive jumps the redshift remained fixed at the value attained at the last jump. The editor of the Astrophysical Journal who published the first article by Tifft, made a comment in a footnote to the effect that they did not like the idea, but referees could find no basic flaw in the presentation, so publication was reluctantly agreed to. Further data came in supporting z quantisation, but the astronomical community could not generally accept the data because the prevailing interpretation of z was that it represented universal expansion, and it would be difficult to find a reason for that expansion to occur in “jumps”. In 1981 the extensive Fisher-Tully redshift survey was published, and the redshifts were not clustered in the way that Tifft had suggested. But an important development occurred in 1984 when Cocke pointed out that the motion of the Sun and solar system through space had a genuine Doppler shift that added to or subtracted from every redshift in the sky. Cocke pointed out that when this true Doppler effect was removed from the Fisher-Tully observations, there were redshift “jumps” or quantisations globally across the whole sky, and this from data that had not been collected by Tifft. In the early 1990’s Bruce Guthrie and William Napier of Edinburgh Observatory specifically set out to disprove redshift quantisation using the best enlarged example of accurate hydrogen line redshifts. Instead of disproving the z quantisation proposal, Guthrie and Napier ended up in confirming it. The quantisation was supported by a Fourier analysis and the results published around 1995. The published graph showed over 60 successive peaks and troughs of precise redshift quantisations. There could be no doubt about the results. Comments were made in New Scientist, Scientific American and a number of other lesser publications, but generally, the astronomical community treated the results with silence."

Even today there is little more than silence. Why? That will be the real interesting question tomorrow...

Thomas Mandel

Rhomas Mandel
replication by independant observation
Mon Jan 24, 2005 23:44
205.188.116.14

 

Here is what appears to be independant research indicating redshift quantization. Interestingly this paper does not reference Tifft's paper, is it possible they didn't know of Tifft's observations?

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf

THE DISTRIBUTION OF REDSHIFTS IN
NEW SAMPLES OF QUASI-STELLAR OBJECTS
¢ÓG. Burbidge & W.M. Napier
¢ÓCenter for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and Department of Physics, University of California, Mail
Code 0424, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093-0424
*Armagh Observatory, College Hill, Armagh, BT61 9DG, U.K.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0008/0008026.pdf
ABSTRACT
Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the
redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different
redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second
consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively
nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with
a periodic separation of ¡­ 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended
out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The
periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in
these three datasets at an overall significance level 10-5 - 10-6, and appears not to be explicable by
spectroscopic or similar selection effects. Possible interpretations are briefly discussed.

 

Jack Sarfatti
Good message
Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:25
68.123.28.199

If this data holds up it is of course important. What it means is not known as yet. I am busy on other projects now and will of course keep tabs on this. I was aware of these claims before of course.