RayTomes
-
Posts
13 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by RayTomes
-
-
On 4/13/2019 at 8:09 AM, beecee said:
Either way a coincidental finding, remains hypothetical, and probably nothing more then selection bias..
How do you figure that?
See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02709337
" The current status of a continuing programme of tests for redshift periodicity or ‘quantization’ of nearby bright galaxies is described. So far the redshifts of over 250 galaxies with high-precision HI profiles have been used in the study. In consistently selected sub-samples of the datasets of sufficient precision examined so far, the redshift distribution has been found to be strongly quantized in the galactocentric frame of reference. The phenomenon is easily seen by eye and apparently cannot be ascribed to statistical artefacts, selection procedures or flawed reduction techniques. Two galactocentric periodicities have so far been detected, ∼ 71 .5km s-1 in the Virgo cluster, and ∼37. 5km s-1 for all other spiral galaxies within ∼ 2600km s-1. The formal confidence levels associated with these results are extremely high. "
0 -
4 hours ago, beecee said:
Either way a coincidental finding, remains hypothetical, and probably nothing more then selection bias..
The redshifts reported by Tifft and by Guthrie and Napier are very significant. They are not selection bias. You should learn some statistics and read the published papers.
0 -
On 4/9/2019 at 1:41 AM, swansont said:
"Quantized" does not mean "not a random distribution"
IOW, a distribution that has some peaks in it is not quantized. Quantized would mean that values other than allowed quantum values simply do not exist.
When others use the term quantised concerning redshift, they mean having multiple peaks in the distribution at regular intervals. These periods can be found from data using FFT and other cyclic analysis methods.
I prefer the term periodic because in the case of redshifts, Tifft has found multiple periodic values such as 144, 72, 36, 24, 18 .... km/s. So that is why I don't say quantised but periodic.
0 -
On 4/9/2019 at 7:49 AM, Ghideon said:
Why are distances of galactic cluster walls connected to geological cycles? What evidence exists for that claim?
If there are standing waves in the Universe of various lengths, then they will manifest themselves in several ways.
1. There will be repetitions in time based on the oscillation period of the waves. In this case geological cycles.
2. There will be repetitions in space based on the wavelength of the waves. In this case the spacing of super galactic clusters.
I reduce the period to years and the spacing to light years, because then the two aspects of the wave will have the same value in years and light years assuming that the waves travel at the speed of light. Strictly speaking this could apply to gravity and/or electromagnetism but I tend to think that e/m is the correct interpretation.
The evidence for the claim is that Based on this idea I was able to predict a much more accurate Hubble constant in the earlier 1990s which has been subsequently verified.
Also, there is matching of other cases of object spacing and periods. These include spiral and irregular galaxy spacing, stellar spacing, planetary spacing, right down to atomic and particle spacing and oscillation periods. The latter are the Compton wavelength (which matches observed nucleon spacing) and Compton frequency. This was understood for particles by de Broglie.
On 4/8/2019 at 10:06 PM, swansont said:!Moderator Note
People can summarize GR and the evidence for it in a few paragraphs, assuming people understand basic physics. You should be able to present something similar for your conjecture.
However, if your idea is based on an untested idea, we have to investigate that idea first. Not fair to build on it, and just assuming it's true.
I will post a new thead on Harmonics theory hopefully in the right place. Even the PDFs that I linked to are summaries, so it will take multiple posts to explain things.
I want to explain in advance, that Harmonics Theory does not disagree with standard physics. Rather, it makes further deductions from standard physics which had not previously been considered. These explain a number of things which had previously been mysterious. The conclusion will be that the Universe is vastly older than 14 B years.
0 -
On 4/3/2019 at 9:45 PM, Strange said:
As you are unwilling to provide references to support your claims, there is not much I can say.
Sometimes theory comes first: it makes predictions that are then confirmed by observation.
Sometimes observations come first and a theory is devised to explain them.
Neither is better than the other.
Wow, no-one knows how to use a search engine! First link for search of "guthrie napier red shift quantisation" is
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02709337
Well said about theory and observation. Agree totally.
On 4/7/2019 at 8:07 AM, beecee said:And they are wrong, just as Arp was wrong, and Hoyle was wrong, according to the evidence. And of course the overall message of the article is that it is only an hypothesis.
At this stage it is obvious that it is you being ignorant and ignoring the evidence that supports the status quo.
If your predictions were correct and the evidence supported your hypothesis was convincing, it would be accepted and mainstream by now. It isn't and isn't likely to ever be.
You are just spouting from ignorance.
No-one has refuted redshift periodicity claims. They have repeatedly been found when the correct procedure is used for analysis.
Your last paragraph is laughable. The last sentence might be right, but it says something about current ignorance of big bang cosmology.
0 -
On 4/7/2019 at 2:56 AM, Ghideon said:
Maybe it's better to present the evidence here, how the theory makes far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory.
Please ignore the fact that NPA is against GR. I am not. I gave two links where you can read long PDFs. Do you want me to post the entire text and diagrams here?
0 -
On 4/2/2019 at 9:47 PM, beecee said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
"Redshift quantization, also referred to as redshift periodicity,[1] redshift discretization,[2]preferred redshifts[3] and redshift-magnitude bands,[4][5] is the hypothesis that the redshifts of cosmologically distant objects (in particular galaxies and quasars) tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value."
Thirdly this is mainstream science, not a vehicle for pushing alternative science. http://ray.tomes.biz/
Interesting article. It includes a number of articles that support the periodicity of redshifts. Some of these by people that tried to show it wasn't so.
I quote " Redshift quantization is a fringe topic with no support from mainstream astronomers in recent times. " This is true. It just goes to show that people will hang on to a bad theory and ignore evidence against it.
Knowing only of the reported 72 km/s periodictity I was able to predict a number of other periodicities in usenet forums in the early 1990s. A poster referred me to an Arp paper which had observational evidence of 11 of the 12 values that I predicted in the range studied. Probability of this if Tifft vales are not real and if Harmonics theory is wrong is less than 1 in 10^20.
0 -
On 4/2/2019 at 10:08 PM, Bufofrog said:
Sounds intriguing. Could you show the math that you used to accomplish this?
In 1990 it was reported that a deep study of galaxy clusters found megawalls of galaxies with 12800 Mpc spacing. The then quoted 420 M light years was based on a very old Hubble constant. The spacing is dependent on the true Hubble constant as 128 Mpc * 100 km/s/Mpc / H0 with answer in Mpc. We need to convert to M light ears to compare to the M years of the geological cycle by multiplying by 3.26 Ly/pc.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12517073-400-science-galaxies-form-megawalls-across-space/
Geologists have reported a cycle of almost 600 M years (e.g. Megacycles ed G Williams, proceedings of geological cycles conference). In Russia, Prof S Afanasiev has reported this cycle as 586.24 M years in his book "Nano Cycles Method " (actual title in Russian).
If the wavelength of these galactic cluster walls is a measure of the same wave that has period 586 .24M years, then we equate the two and
This gives h0 = 128 Mpc * 100 km/s/Mpc *3.26 LY/pc / 586.24 M y = 71.2 km/s/Mpc which agrees very well with the average of recent measures. I was able to determine this value in the early to mid 1990s when H0 estimates ranged from about 50 to over 90.
On 4/3/2019 at 8:24 PM, Sensei said:If your "theory" has to be taken seriously by scientific community start from calculating something useful in quantum physics using your "theory" equations. Like spectral lines of the all atoms, for instance?
Can you calculate spectra from GR? No. That is not what it does. It is a different domain.
Neither is it what Harmonics theory does. It calculates the distance scales and oscillation periods of standing waves in the Universe.
It isn't a "theory". It is a well tested theory that has made far more successful predictions than Big Bang theory. I can now post links, so here are some:
http://ray.tomes.biz/maths.html for an overview
On 4/3/2019 at 9:43 PM, Strange said:You haven't presented anything of substance to judge. (I know you from other forums, so I have a pretty good idea of the value of your ideas and the level of your scientific knowledge. Both approximately zero.)
Then you are refusing to comply with the rules of the forum. I will suggest this thread is closed.
I already explained that my link was refused. This was the rules of the forum. I have now posted some links. If you want me to post 30 or 40 pages of text and diagrams then I can do that.
0 -
17 hours ago, Strange said:
Can you provide a reference for this. I have never heard it before.
It may no indicate a special location for us; it could be true of any location (if it is true).
I don't think this has been proven. In fact I am fairly sure it has been falsified. Again, can't see why it would imply a special location, even if true.
Cosmological redshift is NOT caused by velocity.
Guthrie and Napier set out to prove Tifft etc wrong, and instead proved him right. All studies done correctly show that the 72 km/s quantum and others do exist. The reason it is not taught as fact is that big bang cosmology cannot explain it.
Observation comes first. Theories must explain facts not the other way around.
0 -
16 hours ago, beecee said:
Not sure how all that stands up to the overall expansion of the universe according to the evidence available...sounds something akin to astrology to me, But I aint no expert. Others can judge, as well as other then mainstream.
I independently arrived at what is known as Narlikar 's variable mass hypothesis, in which nucleon masses vary over time. In this view there is no expansion. It solved many problems previously swept under the carpet such as redshift quantization.
It is not astrology, but pure science. When it is understood that the fundamental laws of the universe are non linear, then many previously problem areas are solved. And I can explain why we have the hierarchy of scales, hubble, galaxy, stats planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleons.
14 hours ago, Strange said:No.
If you want to present your crackpot "theory" do it here.
Opinions are not of much value. You need to present the evidence for this. And something better than numerological coincidences and handwaving, please.
What an ignorant person you are. You prejudge what you have not read while refusing to look at it. I cannot present decades of work in one page here. It will not allow me to put a link. So I suggest a search.
Don't read it, I don't care. But don't throw mud when you know nothing.
-4 -
Hasn't it been shown that the amount of matter in a sphere centred on us is not proportional to the cube of the radius, but to a much lower power? This indicates a preferred location for us. We'll obviously we must be where a planet is.
Secondly, the proven existence of periodicity in redshift (e.g. 72 km/s and related as found by Tifft, Arp, Guthrie and Napier and others) means that either
A. We are in a special location, or
B. The velocity interpretation of redshift is seriously flawed.
I favor B and Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis.
0 -
I study cycles in many things. There are a number of cycles periods found in various phenomena that match with periodicities in space supporting the idea that they are evidence for electromagnetic standing waves. Some of the periods matching are 160 minutes (or light minutes), 4.44 years (or light years) and more or to a maximum of 586 million years (or light years). This last one is found as megawalls of galaxies and geological cycles period. As early as early 1990s I was able to predict the presently accepted value of the Hubble constant based on this connection. IMO everything that exists in the universe is standing waves of e/m which explains the spacings of galaxies, stars, planets, moons,... Cells, atoms, nucleus...
Search Harmonics theory
0
Interpretation of redshift (split from Cosmological Principle)
in Speculations
Posted
I agree that it has no support from "mainstream" astronomers. Mainstream means sheep. It has support from people that have inquiring minds.
All the analysis that is done in the correct way shows quantization. They are rejected for one reason only - it cannot re reconciled with big bang theory.
Theories are supposed to fit facts, not the other way around. Big bang cosmology is a joke. Every time it is wrong they invent a new type of thing that you can't see to "explain" it.
Like Sheldon Cooper, you haven't mastered irony yet.
I said that if big bang is right then we must be in a very special place in the Universe. I don't believe that for a moment.
So clearly my other explanation, the big bang being wrong, is what I believe.
In that case we need to look at Narlikar's variable mass hypothesis. Forget what you know about big bang and expansion of space etc. Instead consider the idea that the mass of particles changes with time as proposed by Narlikar. He didn't give a reason for that but I can tell you why (wait for Harmonics Theory thread). In that case as particle masses increase over time (at the usual Hubble rate of about 1 part in 1.4x1010 per year) all spectral lines will automatically become more blue over time. The further a galaxy is away, the more we are looking back in time, so the redder are the spectral lines. This is an equally valid approach to expanding space.
It has the advantage that it can accommodate quantization of redshifts because it represents steps in the mass of particles changing over time. No need for special places in the Universe.