Originally posted by chickenlover98
he isnt restating it. he has new evidence, and i supremely doubt ur reading it
After reading a few posts in-depth during his debate with in, I stopped. So you're right.
But you don't have to keep taking an offensive tone with me. I understand that you're defending your friend. I was explaining how it could be considered spam, since regardless of the arguments, he's just pasting a stream of arguments that pretty much no one (myself included) is reading.
Personally, I couldn't care less. He can do what he wants, since like you said it's basically "his" thread.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex NihiloFrom now on, I'm hitting the report button at the slightest offense. Anything that doesn't actually bother me but could, theoretically, bother me, will be reported. That includes the sexual innuendo exchanged between Backfire and, you know, pretty much everyone.
You have already joined the dark side *****....
Originally posted by Transfinitum*snip*
THE QUASAR SHELLS/QUANTIZATION OF RED SHIFTS
*snip*
"Redshift quantization-cosmologically distant objects like quasars tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value."
>>Yes, isn't that interesting? The phrase "objects like quasars tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value", means, EXACTLY, that the "isotropic, homogeneous" universe of "acentric" Standard Theory is CONTRARY TO OBSERVATION. Instead, we see a Universe populated with objects arranged in a series of concentric shells, at the center of which lies.....you guessed it...Earth!
All such evidence is supportive of a geocentric universe, since the "multiples of some particular value" are always calculated with reference to....you guessed it....Earth!
"The first claimed observations of redshift quantization came from studies of galaxies."
>>Yes, this is very important. I was going to post this, but decided to hold it in reserve should anyone actually have come up with an argument requiring it. Since nobody did, I am grateful to Sleepy for mentioning from his own source that GALAXIES, just like GAMMA RAY BURSTS and QUASARS, along with Bl Lac objects and X-Ray sources, ALL "tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value"--or, in other words, from CONCENTRIC SHELLS AROUND EARTH.
For those of you having problems understanding this, suffice it to say this is not good news for the anti-geocentric position :-)
"There have also been claimed observations of redshift quantization in quasar populations (1970's)"
>>Precisely, as I quoted. Now, this is probably going to be the last refutation required here, patient reader, because the opposition seems to have been gentled down quite considerably over the course of this debate, so notice, one last time, the hysterical incompetence of the anti-geocentric arguments lifted from, of all places, Wikipedia (!)
" Since these claimed observations were made, galaxy surveys have increased the quantity and quality of the redshift data enormously."
>>But notice, Wiki here doesn't even attempt to claim that these surveys have refuted in any way whatever the observational evidence that galaxies, gamma ray bursts, quasars, Bl Lac and X-Ray objects, are ALL arranged in "concentric shells centered on Earth" distributions.
"Taken on the whole, it appears that the surveys do not show any quantization of redshifts ,"
>>If this were a scientific source, I would call the author a liar. Since it is nothing but a Wiki entry, I point out that the author is expressing a personal opinion here, while citing no evidence, no studies, no support of any kind. It is therefore not necessary to refute him, but I will anyway :-)
The only attempts to refute Varshni on the quasar distribution problem were those undertaken by
1. C.B. Stephenson, writing in Astrophysics and Space Science #51, 1977, who advanced the SAME ARGUMENT SLEEPY just tried to palm off for the gamma ray bursts- that the redshifted quasars "popped into existence" at precisely-timed intervals during the universal "expansion".
I think Varshni's response, from the same publication, says it all:
"Instead of having earth at the center, now we have to assume that the universe evolved in fits and starts of quasar production. The concept of preferred epochs for quasar production is hardly any more aesthetic than that of a preferred position for the earth".
2. R. Weyman, T. Boronson, and J. Scargle, writing again in Astrophysics and Space Science #53, 1978, claimed that Varshni had overestimated the significance of the quasar clustering (I assume this would be the source for the Wiki claim above). Their claim was crushed by Varshni, responding again in Astrophysics and Space Science #74, 1981:
"It is shown that the number of redshift systems based on C IV doublets, proposed by Boronson, et al, (1978) in the absorption spectrum of quasar PKS 0237-23, is significantly different from that which would be expected from chance coincidences. Consequently, these systems and their z-values appear to be devoid of any physical significance",
There was no further response from either Stephenson, Boronson et al, or anybody else, and Varshni's data stands unrefuted in the scientific literature to this day.
"though many supporters of the idea have made the claim that the models are not applicable to the entire quasar sample."
>>As Varshni has shown above, that is because they are not in fact applicable. The proposed "mechanism" for explaining the concentric shells distribution- based on the absorption spectrum of ONE quasar-- is shown to be "devoid of physical significance".
"One study with a new database was specifically designed to test the most popular model of quasars associated with galaxies and that the redshifts of the galaxy pairings appear in regular intervals and are not homogeneous. The statistical methods were approved in advance by supporters of this model, but despite the prior approval, those supporting quantization still reject the result showing a lack of galaxy-quasar pairing."
>>This is an entirely different question, related to Halton Arp's remarkably interesting studies showing that redshift may very well NOT be an indicator of recession at all. But that, as I say, has nothing to do with refuting Varshni.
FYI, Halton Arp demolishes the Wikipedia claim above on his website www.haltonarp.com
I am reasonably certain that the time approaches for a final summary of the debate.
I will wait a day to be sure we have arrived at the end of our expedition, and then I will conclude with the most SHOCKING, NEWEST, and most IRREFUTABLE evidence of all, thus far, for a geocentric cosmos.
It has been a real pleasure, thank you for the opportunity to debate this issue.
I just want to say i despise the 10000 character limit in these textboxes.
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>No one has "dealt with it". NOAA ansd GOES use a non-rotating, earth centered reference frame. Simple as that.
So does NASA for the GPS system.
This constitutes no news at all to those who have grasped the basic principle of relativity.
There are a number of folks who haven't.
I suppose its too much to ask for a "knowledgeable poser" who is getting his "physics" from an unreliable, religiously slanted book like Galileo Was Wrong to grasp the concept of Einstein's relativity. Let me explain this to you again for the Nth time: Einstein's Relativity states that no preferred reference frame exists anywhere in the Universe. The laws of Physics could be applied on any frame and every frame of reference is VALID but NOT better than the others. We use the frame of reference that is convenient for us. Earth artificial satellites and GPS use the Earth as its preferred reference frame because its more convenient, not mention its work is focused here on Earth. This IS not proof that the Universe revolves around the Earth. When launching interplanetary probes or designing a s Solar System-wide GPS like NASA is doing, we use the sun as our point of reference. This is NOT proof that the Universe revolves around the Sun. Apollo astronauts used a lunacentric frame of reference while they are in the Moon. When some advance civilization from an unknown planet in the Andromeda galaxy launches its artificial satellites, it will use its planet and NOT Earth as its reference frame. Like human egocentrism that makes them want to believe in a geocentric universe, the inhabitants of that planet would probably assume that its planet is the ONE TRUE center of the Universe.
Einstein's relativity is NOT PROOF that the Earth or any other object is the ONE TRUE center in the Universe.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
*snip*Einstein and Mach and Thirring showed that the Einstein equations work EQUALLY for an EARTH FIXED/UNIVERSE ROTATING FRAME, and a EARTH ROTATING/UNIVERSE FIXED FRAME----with one gigantic difference:
In the Earth fixed (geocentric) frame, we have an actual, physical source of the Coriolis, Euler, and centrifugal forces, which we DO NOT have in the Newtonian, heliocentric or Einsteinian, acentric frame.
In this precise sense, it is true to say that the Einstein equations tend to favor a geocentric universe.
>>The Coriolis and centrifugal forces DO NOT appear as a consequence of the distant rotating masses in a rotating-Earth model. If the Earth is rotating, then the rotating distant masses WILL NOT give rise to the Coriolis and centrifugal and Euler forces we actually do observe on Earth.
*snip*
Bwahahaha. Your narrrow, limited grasp of physics is in full display here. Quick grab a real physics book, not GWW, or try researching on the Net. You will find there that the Coriolis effect, the centrifugal force etc. are ALL explainable by the Earth's ROTATION. In fact, its the best and the most widely accepted explanation. Having the Universe or those distant masses to rotate around the earth to explain the Coriolis and the centrifuagl forces is an unnecessary OVERCOMPLICATION. The Coriolis effect and other forces also exists in Venus, Jupiter etc. becuase their rotation so why claim that the Coriolis effect on Earth to be caused differently?. Which is more complicated: assume the existence of a distance mass revolving around the Earth to account for the Coriolis effect here on Earth or do away with this revolving mass and have the Earth rotate instead?
Originally posted by Transfinitum
*snip*>>But where in the world have I ever said it only applies on Earth? Nowhere. It was you, remember, who asserted it would only work where "air" could provide the "centrifugal force" against the water, which would kinda sorta seem to rule out Mars and Pluto, wouldn't it?
*snip*
You dont have to tell us that youre too dense to do background checks on the science youre using to explain geocentrism. We know youre not capable of that.
The bucket in a rope and the ball in a rope illustration that i gave are correct demonstration of the centrifugal force, albeit in a simplified environment. Unlike the bucket in Newton's bucket experiment where it is in an upright position spinning, the swinging bucket i envisioned is tilted sideways and lateral to the ground with air caught inside the bucket exerting an added pressure to tilt the surface of the water in an uneven shape. Without any air pressure, the and that i illustrated before Anyway, Newton's bucket experiment was conceived as a thought experiment to explain Newton's stance on absolute space. Using it is a demonstration for the centrifugal force would be a misleading and poor choice.
If you dont want my bucket example, i also gave my ball in a string example which is the classical demonstration of centrifugal force. Im gonna copy it again for you. Suppose i have a ball with a string atttached to it. If i twirl it around with my hand, the ball will revolve to it in a circular path because the force of the string (centripetal) pulls the ball towards my hand. The mass(or inertia) of the ball (centrifugal) pushes out in the opposite direction away from my hand. Applying this to your geocentric, rotating universe; the hand at the center of the motion, twirling the string would be the Earth , the ball at the end of the string would be the massive Andromeda Galaxy and the string would be, you guessed it, gravity. Needless to say, how could the Earth's pitiful gravitation counter the mass of the Andromeda galaxy and put in orbit around it and not wander around out of place in the Universe? And the distance, 2 million light years(?), is huge. Earth's gravity is negligible that far. And to move around in 24 hours at that distance is just breaking all sorts of physical laws.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Which is precisely why I do not do it. I first establish that, under Relativity, all earlier-era arguments against geocentrism (Foucault's pendulum, stellar-parallax, retrograde motions, etc) are falsified.THEN and only then, do we examine the question of whether the "acentric" ASSUMPTIONS of the Standard Theory interpretation of GR stand up to observation.
As we have seen, they don't.
The "acentrists", as we shall see, are driven to ever more outlandish and complicated explanations, involving ever more unseen "entities" (cold dark matter, homogeneous galaxy clusters, etc) in order to extricate themselves from the simplest, most straightforward explanation of the observation--- the Earth is, indeed, in a preferred reference point in our Universe, contrary to the predictions of Standard Theory.
And precisely in accord with the predictions of geocentrism.
Oh please humour us. If youre previous proofs are any indication, it would be very funny.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Quite to the contrary. Having established, as you admit above, that Mach's Principle (which you not quite correctly refer to as the Lens Thirring effect) provides us with complete physical proof for the derivation of all necessary gravitational forces in a geocentric Universe, we now see that the "acentric" interpretation of General Relativity is inadequate to explain the actual EVIDENCE we SEE in our telescopes and sensors.
Now youre the one confusing definitions. I suggest looking up the definitions of Mach's principle and frame dragging other than that stupid book, Galileo Was Wrong. Let me post again the correct meanings. The Mach's principle is an ambiguous philosophical conjecture and not some scientific law, it explains nothing. In fact, Einstein and Ernest Mach did NOT even have the same interpretation of what constitutes the Mach principle. There is no exact, definite meaning of Mach's principle. Einstein interpreted it as "mass there affects inertia here" and while it was a source of inspiration for his early work, he later ABANDONED it in the early 1920's when it was realized that inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion and need not depend on the existence of matter elsewhere in the universe. The explanation is farther below. Frame dragging or the Lense-Thirring effect that is the effect wherein ROTATING bodies drag spacetime around it.
Originally posted by Transfinitum*Snip*
>>So what? The "Dirac sea" of allegedly "instantaneously appearing and disappearing" electron-positron pairs is different than the ether of Einstein, or the ether of Maxwell. The simple fact remains. Einstein attempted to formulate a physics in a vacuum, and failed. He acknowledged that he had to reincorporate the functions formerly attibuted to the ether into his "spacetime" in General Relativity, Subsequent developments in quantum theory have resulted in a complete abandonment of the vacuum. There is no such thing as a "vacuum", at the quantum level. So we see that again you have it precisely backwards. It is the vacuum which has been debunked in modern physics, not the ether.>>He simply does not say what you wish he would say. His quote is quite plain, and your words are not an accurate reflection of his.
>LOL! If it is "empty", then it quite obviously cannot be "equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields", or anything else. This is why Albert Einstein has told you over and over again that the ether is reintroduced into general Relativity. The mere fact that you wish he would not have said so, is irrelevant. Although I appreciate how important it is for your argument to try and win this point, I must insist that what Einstein actually said, trumps what Sleepy wishes he would have meant :-)
>>LOL! Now let me get this straight. Einstein uses the word "ether". I quote him. You accuse me of generating confusion by misrepresenting Einstein, while at the same time saying he ought to have said something OTHER than what I accurately quote as having in fact SAID.
You then take this as evidence of my having a religious agenda in mind.
Logic, Sleepy, is not your strong suit, my friend :-)
Oh if you insist:
". . . . Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only would be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable media, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it."
--University of Leiden Address (April/May? 1920)
He is not introducing back the classical ether, the medium for light or electromagnetic fields propagation as descibed in classical physics and in the Michelson-Morley experiment, he is introducing his own version of the ether, the gravitational ether,usually referred to as the spacetime.
Im gonna post a previous quote from Max Born, to make it clearer:
"Einstein in later years proposed calling empty space equipped with gravitational and electromagnetic fields the "ether", whereby, however, this word is not to denote a substance with its traditional attributes. Thus, in the "ether" there are to be no determinable points, and it is meaningless to speak of motion relative to the "ether." Such a use of the word "ether" is of course admissible, and when once it has been sanctioned by usage in this way, probably quite convenient.
From now on ether as a substance vanishes from theory."
-Max Born, Einstein's Theory of Relativity, 1962. Page 224.
At any rate, Einstein's theories are NOT the authority in dealing with electromagnetic fields (light) and its propagation, quantum mechanics is, and according to the current version, it DOESNT need an ether or any medium for it to travel.
Dirac' ether or (sea foam) meanwhile as currently understtod refers to quantum fluctuations (matter and anti-matter annihilation) and again has nothing to do about being the medium of propagation for light like the classical ether and in the Michelson-Morley experiment.
The meaning of ether has changed a lot historically and to attach Einstein's ether or Dirac's to the classical ether in physics is simply WRONG and deliberately MISLEADING. F*ck ven the classical physicists stole the name "ether" from alchemy and changed it to its classical physics meaning.
Originally posted by Transfinitum*snip*
If one is a Newtonian, one interprets the bucket experiment to prove the existence of "absolute space". If one is a Relativist, one denies "absolute space", and cannot provide any physical cause for the centriful or Coriolis forces AT ALL. If one is a geocentrist, then one can dispense both with "absolute space", and provide a PHYSICAL CAUSE for the effects of the experiment.
I would certainly say the geocentric position is...how shall we say...not harmed by the comparison :-)
Once again YOU are laboring under the assumption that the centrifugal and Coriolis effect in Earth could ONLY be described by "the massive rotating matter shell" the quote that you misquoted and misunderstood. Double check your facts. The Coriolis effect, the centrifugal force, the frame dragging/Lense-Thirring effect etc. are ALL explainable by the Earth's ROTATION. No need for the Universe to revolve around us.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
*snip*>>Notice this little bunny-hop here: "inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion". Now, a moment's reflection will show that real physical forces are not "implicit" in mathematical representations of them. Can you show us, please, Sleepy, exactly how this "motion is implicit" in a geodetic equation?
I am sure it will be fascinating to watch you try.
It is like saying that the motion of the Earth is "implicit" in the formula F=ma.
All one is really saying in such a case is "I hope I can wave a magic wand of mathematics at you and get you to stop asking me to provide a PHYSICAL (as opposed to a mathematical) CAUSE for this ACTUAL FORCE here that is ACTUALLY (not merely mathematically) pushing WATER (not merely the geodetic in my equation) up the sides of my bucket.
It is precisely because geocentrist physics can provide a PHYSICAL REASON for that CAUSE, while heliocentrism and acentrism CANNOT, that the geocentric explanation of the experiment is superior.
*snip*
Now youre confusing geodesic (a geometric concept) with geodetic (an earth science). Oh noes! it starts with the prefix geo-, it must be proof of geocentrism! Anyway, what "inertia is implicit in the geodesic equation of motion" means, in simplified terms, is based on the relationship that spacetime guides mass how to move itself and mass guides spacetime how to curve itself and the fact that all objects, even the stationary ones, are in constant motion through spacetime, mainly because of the time part of spacetiem, and are following paths (the geodesic) of least resistance in spacetime. No need to refer to Einstein's interpretation of the Mach's principle that "mass there affects inertia here."
At any rate, regardless of what Einstein might think, the study of inertia is now part of quantum mechanics and they are not buying Mach's principle to explain inertia.
Gamma Ray Burst
Originally posted by Transfinitum>>Checkmate. Now, if the gentle reader will follow very carefully, he will see the definitive trap into which Sleepy has fallen.
First, on the strictly tactical level, I want to thank you, Sleepy, for confirming my suspicion that you would lift your "answer" from a website- in this case from Wikipedia-- and that you would do so without bothering to attribute or otherwise indicate that you were in fact QUOTING FROM A WEBSITE. Instead you merely lifted it and posted it without attribution. There is a word for this practice. That word is "plagiarism."
*snip*
He first points out what is already obvious, given the observed redshift values. OF COURSE these would, under the redshift=recession hypothesis, represent "distances corresponding to the early universe."
*Snip*
Now, Sleepy, here's the thing.
You mention how "bright" the gamma ray bursts are, and this presents a bit of a problem for your "solution" here, since, if the older bursts are farther away/further back in time, then they should be LESS BRIGHT than the ones that are nearer/closer in time.
The problem for you here, Sleepy, is that there are NO FAINT GAMMA RAY BURSTS.
Now if we accept your argument, then we have to assume that the Universe just started spitting out nice neat little shells of gamma ray sources, sort of like poop from a goldfish, at precisely determined moments in the universal "expansion". Now why should the Universe pop out GRB's only at specific, precisely-coordinated moments, and not at others?
*snip*
You see, Sleepy, under your assumption, then the furthest GRB's have to be putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies. There is no known process of physics that can explain this.
And even if we grant you a magic wand, which you can wave to cancel all the known laws of physics, to get your GRB's to put out hypergalaxies' worth of energy, the shells are STILL SPACED PERIODICALLY, which means the GRB's were popping out at PREFERRED INTERVALS, which is the SAME PROBLEM YOU HAD IN THE FIRST PLACE!
*Snip*
Let the interested party google the following LIFT from Wikipedia, if they desire to establish that Sleepy is just cutting and pasting his whole shtick from, of all places, Wikipedia.....
Redshift Quantization
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Yes, isn't that interesting? The phrase "objects like quasars tend to cluster around multiples of some particular value", means, EXACTLY, that the "isotropic, homogeneous" universe of "acentric" Standard Theory is CONTRARY TO OBSERVATION. Instead, we see a Universe populated with objects arranged in a series of concentric shells, at the center of which lies.....you guessed it...Earth!All such evidence is supportive of a geocentric universe, since the "multiples of some particular value" are always calculated with reference to....you guessed it....Earth!
*snip*
For those of you having problems understanding this, suffice it to say this is not good news for the anti-geocentric position :-)
>>Precisely, as I quoted. Now, this is probably going to be the last refutation required here, patient reader, because the opposition seems to have been gentled down quite considerably over the course of this debate, so notice, one last time, the hysterical incompetence of the anti-geocentric arguments lifted from, of all places, Wikipedia (!)
*snip*
The only attempts to refute Varshni on the quasar distribution problem were those undertaken by
1. C.B. Stephenson, writing in Astrophysics and Space Science #51, 1977, who advanced the SAME ARGUMENT SLEEPY just tried to palm off for the gamma ray bursts- that the redshifted quasars "popped into existence" at precisely-timed intervals during the universal "expansion".
I think Varshni's response, from the same publication, says it all:
2. R. Weyman, T. Boronson, and J. Scargle, writing again in Astrophysics and Space Science #53, 1978, claimed that Varshni had overestimated the significance of the quasar clustering (I assume this would be the source for the Wiki claim above). Their claim was crushed by Varshni, responding again in Astrophysics and Space Science #74, 1981:
There was no further response from either Stephenson, Boronson et al, or anybody else, and Varshni's data stands unrefuted in the scientific literature to this day.
>>As Varshni has shown above, that is because they are not in fact applicable. The proposed "mechanism" for explaining the concentric shells distribution- based on the absorption spectrum of ONE quasar-- is shown to be "devoid of physical significance".
*snip*
FYI, Halton Arp demolishes the Wikipedia claim above on his website www.haltonarp.com
I am reasonably certain that the time approaches for a final summary of the debate.
I will wait a day to be sure we have arrived at the end of our expedition, and then I will conclude with the most SHOCKING, NEWEST, and most IRREFUTABLE evidence of all, thus far, for a geocentric cosmos.
It has been a real pleasure, thank you for the opportunity to debate this issue.
Im too lazy to make my own research thats why i use Wikipedia (and its footnotes), especially on things like this so-called proofs for geocentrism that are NOT proofs at all. Its a f*cking waste of time.
Since you've been to Wikipedia, maybe you shouldve gone to their redshift quantization (aka redshift periodicity, preferred redshifts). If you've read the article, you'll see that redshift quantization is a thing of the past brought about by poor data samplings and inferior equipment. The articles you quote were circa 1970-80's. Newer observations disprove your so called geocentric proof.
In 2002, Hawkins et al. found no evidence for a redshift quantization in the 2dF survey and found using Napier's own guidelines for testing redshift periodicity that none, in fact, could be detected in the sample:
"Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."
- E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield, No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 336 (2002) L13
In 2005, Tang and Zhang:
".. used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [..] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency. "
- Tang, Su Min; Zhang, Shuang Nan, "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data", in The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. 41-51 (2005)
A 2006 historical review of study of the redshift periodicity of galaxies by Bajan, et al, concludes that "in our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established."
- Bajan, K.; Flin, P.; Godlowski, W.; Pervushin, V. P., "On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity
In 2006, Martin Bell and D. McDiarmid, reported: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model".[26] The pair acknowledged that selection effects were already reported to cause the most prominent of the peaks[6]. Nevertheless, these peaks were included in their analysis anyway with Bell and McDiarmid questioning whether selection effects could account for the periodicity, but not including any analysis of this beyond cursory cross-survey comparisons in the discussion section of their paper. There is a brief response to this paper in a comment in section 5 of Schneider et al. (2007) where they note that all "periodic" structure disappears after the previously known selection effects are accounted for.
- M.B. Bell, D. McDiarmid, "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model" (2006) The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 648, Issue 1, pp. 140-147
- Schneider et al. "The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog. IV. Fifth Data Release" (2007), The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 134, Issue 1, pp 102-117
How many times have i said that geocentrist dredge up old theories and old scientific problems, conveniently forgetting the latest advancements, just to prop up their retarded theory?
Now to deal with those gamma ray poops . . . . oh what the heck, ill just post the Wikipedia link to see for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_burst
Now a couple of things:
- There is no such thing "as little shells of gamma ray sources" because, as noted above, there is no such thing as redshift quantization.
- I dont know what Trans mean when he say "specific, precisely coordinated moments" but gamma rays emanate from seemingly random places in deep space and at random times.
- Gamma ray Burst are caused only by supernova-level or hypernova events. They are NOT "putting out energies far in excess of thousands of Milky Way Galaxies." Youre confusing quasars with GRB's. Just search Wikipedia and you'll get a gist.
I suggest again that you double check your proofs or whatever you are writing outside GWW and other geocentric books, oh esteemed "Knowledgeable Poser". You just might learn something.
It has been a real pleasure in a slapstick comedy kind of way to debate this issue with you. 😆
Hmm... I'm curious, how does the geocentrist theory explain our sun's slightly shaky motion? It has been shown that our sun, and also any other star with orbiting bodies around it, does oscillate slightly in its postition due to the gravity feilds of the planets around it. Now seeing as how this is one of the methods of figuring out whether far away stars have orbiting bodies around them (by observing them and seeing if they wiggle slighty in their position over a period of time), what makes you think that we are the center of the universe when it is apparent that these other planets are orbiting around their parent stars and causing these slight oscillations, just like with our sun?