Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
The bohr style model was in reference to the a mass style function of steps to produce the quantization.
I don't see how the data presented below can ever hope to express quantization, when the quantization is with regard to the ejecting galaxy. A giant pan looking for quasar shells is of no use with this interpretation no?
an analogy here might be... looking at a crowd of people, you see a random scatter.... but if you look with reference to the parent, you will see generational banding of ages.
The data presented here does not seem to have this incorporated?
|
No, the Bohr style model was in response to a perceived notion of quantised values for z, meaning that the physical distance to the quasars themselves as expressed by their z values was somehow "set" at particular values....that being you had groups of quasars in consecutive bands of distance.
The reason why the data presented can't ever hope to express the quantisation is because it doesn't exist, except as a selection effect.
A survey of quasars is the only way you're going to observe any quantisation of redshift, if it ever existed in the first place.
As for quasars being ejected form their "parent" galaxies, despite the protestations of a few of the likes of Arp, Burbidge and such, there has been nothing more than rather bad circumstantial evidence for any of these so called "intrinsic redshifts" and quatisations. It's been proven, time and time again that their observations are nothing more than chance alignments and other effects of perception. And as for this quasar/parent galaxy association, let's just have look at the actual observational evidence. If quasars are this ejected material from galaxies, then we should be able to see this occurring randomly across the entire sky, if it's a true effect of observation. What do we actually find....quasars distributed randomly across the sky with no association with any galaxies for the most part except as chance alignments, or when we can see the galaxy surrounding the quasar and/or when they're in clusters. There is no correlation whatsoever between the positions of galaxies and of quasars because if there were, you would see it in the observations. There would be obvious signs of ejection occurring randomly across the sky in all directions. There isn't. It may have been a possible explanation for what they saw back in the 60's when Arp first came up with the idea, but astronomy has passed him by a long time ago.
So, the reason why the data doesn't have it incorporated is because there is no need to. It is an invalid premise which has been shown to be so by the vast and overwhelming majority of observations and present standard cosmological theory.
It is quite obvious from your response (in your analogy) that you do not have the knowledge to be able to discuss this with any real ability. You can't talk around the point Alex. Sooner or later you're going to have to address the science in a proper manner and with the background knowledge to be able to support your claims. Looking to your EU friends and their speculations and cheery picking the science won't help.