Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum

Goku

Veteran Member
  • Content Count

    1,579
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    65

Goku last won the day on July 4

Goku had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

249 Excellent

1 Follower

About Goku

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Previous Fields

  • What is your Gender?
    Male
  • How old are you?
    25
  • What is your affiliation/religion?
    no affiliation
  • What is your Worldview?
    Atheist
  • Where do you live (i.e. Denver, Colorado)
    USA

Recent Profile Visitors

410 profile views
  1. Goku

    Covid ... we blew it

    It's all a big hoax and a fake news lame-stream media lie. Trump said the virus will go away like a miracle in April. It is now July; get a grip libtards. The kung flu is a Chinese bio weapon that has been in the US for months if not years; 90% or so of the American population had already been exposed to the virus and has developed an immunity. Children cannot even get the disease. All this social distancing and face masks is a liberal plot to take away our freedoms. Masks are literally killing people! Even if this is a real pandemic, I'm sure all the old people are willing to die to ensure the economic prosperity of America. It is a great day for all those that have died from corona; looking down on America and our great economic success. (All ideas taken directly from things I've heard from conservatives, concerned citizens, or the President.) My point being, the greatest plans in the world won't help you if a significant portion of your population is living in an alternate reality, or otherwise feels that corona is an acceptable consequence to keeping the economy at full speed. Then, of course, we have the "greatest jobs President God ever created" saying we need to slow down testing so the numbers don't bruise his ego. The next year or so is going to be really interesting.
  2. Well I have no idea where these concentric rings are supposed to be. I don't recall any of your sources giving us any math or numbers. So it is kind of hard to analyze it beyond that they are using the SDSS data in which the literature says the telescope has a cataloging bias at various distances (z-values). Then you have KB pointing out the filament which doesn't make a concentric ring around Earth. So, I'm just like Perhaps I jumped the gun and didn't initially ask fundamental questions like where these supposed rings are. I don't know where you got the 20 million light years from. SDSS makes redshift measurements beyond a redshift value of z=5, and z=5 corresponds to about 12 billion light years. Your black and white picture goes up to z=0.14, which corresponds to about 1.8 billion light years, and the first "tick" is z=0.02 which is about 280 million light years. I don't think that picture is going to be helpful in finding rings 20 million light years out. I'm going to assume you are just misremembering the 20 million light years. I used this calculator to find the distances for various z-values: https://home.fnal.gov/~gnedin/cc/
  3. And as I've pointed out several times, the selection bias of the SDSS filters applies to ALL redshift data. SDSS doesn't care if the source is a regular galaxy or a quasar - why would it? (emphasis mine) "It is shown here that a periodicity of ∆ z∼0.6 is imprinted on the redshift-number distribution by this selection effect. Because this effect cannot be rigorously corrected for, astronomers need to be aware of it in any investigation that uses the SDSS N( z) distribution." - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Ap%26SS.326...11B/abstract Other "z" redshift values that are affected by the SDSS selection bias have been recorded in other papers as well. Again..... "Discrete Fourier analysis on the quasar number count, as a function of redshift, z, calculated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 release appears to indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. However the same periods are found in the mean of the zConf parameter used to flag the reliability of the spectroscopic measurements. It follows that these redshift periods must result from some selection effect, as yet undetermined. It does not signal any intrinsic (quantized) redshifts in the quasars in Sloan survey data. However this result does not rule out the possibility as found in earlier studies of other data." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-009-0151-2 I know you like to say "QSO" like a mantra as if it triggers you, but actually read what they are saying. You have these redshift intervals indicating periodicies/quantization, however those same intervals are part of the known selection bias of how SDSS picks up redshift values. The instruments don't care if the signal is coming from a quasar or galaxy or whatever. One thing that I think makes this abundantly clear, is that we need to know where these concentric rings are supposed to be. I don't recall ever seeing any numbers or maths in your sources. If I missed them that's my mistake, but can you provide numbers for where these rings are? Yet the literature refutes this as clear evidence due to the way the SDSS picks up the signals. Again, to paraphrase the literature, the SDSS data cannot be used to confirm or deny redshift periodicies at various intervals. Maybe the rings are not in one of these problem areas, I have no idea because I don't know where these rings are supposed to be. What do you think all those links were the first few posts we were discussing this? All I am doing is relaying the peer reviewed literature about the topic as I understand it. As the literature says, this effect cannot be rigorously compensated for. This doesn't mean the people behind it are "lunkheads" or that the data is useless. It just means that there is an artifact in the data due to a selection bias in the equipment that makes it impossible to confirm or deny quantized redshift from the SDSS data at various z-values. If the peer reviewed literature is nothing but "baseless claims", then I don't know what else to do at this point.
  4. What you seem to be focusing on is the "Sloan Great Wall", which a filament that does NOT make a concentric ring around Earth. This particular filament is about 1 billion light years away, and is 1.38 billion light year across. If you recall the formula for the circumference of a circle, it is "2 π r". Since this structure is about 1 billion light years away, we can plug in 1 billion for the radius, and using 3.14 as pi, we get a circumference of 6.28 billion light years. That is how large the structure needs to be in order to form a ring around Earth, but the structure itself is only 1.38 billion light years across. The math doesn't work. Due to gravity you are going to get regions of space that are more dense with stuff and less dense with stuff, with filaments being the largest (known) structures in the universe comprised of clusters of galaxies. IIRC, the Sloan Great Wall is the largest filament currently known. However, the existence of such a filament is not evidence that galaxies form concentric rings around Earth.
  5. The picture provided by NASCAR is obviously closer and so it would look bigger. I don't know if it's the same noose or not, but given that such shapes are apparently not "a thing" in garage pulls at NASCAR, I don't think it is unreasonable for someone to have reported it to NASCAR based on the image NASCAR provided of the noose in question. Regardless if the employee worked for NASCAR or Wallace, my point is that he is probably familiar enough with the equipment to know a garage pull when he sees one. I assume the FBI during their investigation considered the possibility of it being a faked hate crime. I haven't heard about any such talk from the FBI. And so with the caveat that I haven't payed much attention to the news recently, I assume no such concerns panned out.
  6. The distances measured are valid. However, as I cited several times in the past few days, due to the systematic bias as described in multiple peer review articles from different people/groups the SDSS data is picking up more signals at certain distance ranges which leaves an artifact in the data resulting in an appearance of redshift quantization/periodicies or galaxies arranged in "concentric shells" around Earth as you put it. To paraphrase the literature, this doesn't mean such a property doesn't exist in our universe, only that the data presented cannot be used to confirm it. In addition, as explicitly stated in the literature, there is no way to rigorously compensate for this effect when analyzing the data. Think about it. Imagine a universe where the density of galaxies is the same throughout that universe, yet your tool for detecting galaxies has a systematic bias in picking up signals to catalog as galaxies at certain distances. What you would observe is changes in galaxy density around you in such a way as to make it appear that galaxies are arranging themselves around you in concentric rings/shells despite that galaxies are spread out evenly in this thought experiment.
  7. What I mean is, if you look out 360 degrees from any location, assuming your 'visibility' is the same in all directions (e.g. no fog or same amount of fog etc.), then you will construct a map from your location in which you will always be the center of the "known" universe. The caveat to this would be if you are closer to an edge than your maximum visibility in another given direction. Perhaps a "fun" demonstration of this would be in the game Civilization. If you start your first city wherever your settlers start on the map, and then explore the area around you the same amount in each direction (analogous to pointing a telescope in every direction to see what you get), it doesn't matter where you start on the map (unless you are near an edge), your world map will always have your starting city in the center of the world (until your civilization is smart enough to figure out your absolute position on the globe). So when KB says every observation has us in the center of the "known universe", in a certain sense that is 100% true (save the giant gaping "hole" in our universe map due to our galactic center blinding us to what is behind it).
  8. In a sense, this is 100% true. The key word here is "known".
  9. The operative phrase is, "Because this effect cannot be rigorously corrected for, astronomers need to be aware of it in any investigation that uses the SDSS N( z) distribution." This bias does not ONLY affect QSOs, but ALL redshift data from the SDSS. I'll let you have the last words tonight if you want; I'm going to bed.
  10. You misunderstand. It's not that the distances are invalid, it's that the way the SDSS "picks up the signal", so to say, has systematic bias resulting in higher density areas in the affected areas. It is these affected areas in the systematic bias that produce the quantized redshift and thus the "concentric shells" of galaxies around Earth which you say is strong evidence of a Earth-centered universe.
  11. How do you think they calculate where the galaxies are? Granted, I'll admit, I just assumed it was done via redshift based on what I know about astronomy and the distances we are talking about along with the number of galaxies. I will give your creationist article credit for actually citing their source and I found the article they are referring to. From the sdss.org webpage that the creationists got their information from (emphasis mine): "On nights with moonshine or mild cloud cover, the imaging camera is replaced with a pair of spectrographs (built by Alan Uomoto and his team at The Johns Hopkins University). They use optical fibers to obtain spectra (and thus redshifts) of 608 objects at a time. Unlike traditional telescopes in which nights are parceled out among many astronomers carrying out a range of scientific programs, the special-purpose 2.5m SDSS telescope at Apache Point Observatory in New Mexico is devoted solely to this survey, to operate every clear night for five years. The first public data release from the SDSS, called DR1, contained about 15 million galaxies, with redshift distance measurements for more than 100,000 of them. All measurements used in the findings reported here would be part of the second data release, DR2, which will be made available to the astronomical community in early 2004. Strauss said the SDSS is approaching the halfway point in its goal of measuring one million galaxy and quasar redshifts." - http://classic.sdss.org/news/releases/20031028.powerspectrum.html Also, the caption of the image you used reads (from the SDSS website, not your creationist source), in part, "then have their distance determined from their spectrum". To connect the dots, the same article says (as I quoted above), "They use optical fivers to obtain spectra (and thus redshifts).... with redshift distance measurements for more than 100,000 of them". So, IOW, they are measuring the distances via redshift. If they are measuring the distances via redshift in the SDSS data, and we know that the SDSS data has systematic issues that prevent such redshift quantized artifacts from being confirmed or denied, then you don't really have any confirmation of quantized redshifts in what you have provided. To reiterate, and I know this paper is centered around QSOs, but if there is a systematic redshift bias in the SDSS data then it doesn't really matter what the object is, as this abstract explicitly states: "It is shown here that a periodicity of ∆ z∼0.6 is imprinted on the redshift-number distribution by this selection effect. Because this effect cannot be rigorously corrected for, astronomers need to be aware of it in any investigation that uses the SDSS N( z) distribution." - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Ap%26SS.326...11B/abstract Other redshift bias at different z-values have also been cataloged in the peer review literature for the SDSS.
  12. Yes, well, I have nothing better to do with my time than constantly read and respond to posts on the forum. Mike won't admit it, but he pays me under the table to post here so he can show the world how stupid atheism is. I see it more as an invite for someone to show me that I am wrong, and an acknowledgement that I do not know everything. Plus, I think it is more intellectually honest to say something like, "as far as I am aware", or "to the best of my knowledge", rather than assert "I am right and you are wrong". Your posts are coming in fine (as far as I am aware ). I was explaining it because Dave said the articles I cited were talking about QSOs and not galaxies, and I was pointing out that QSOs are part of galaxies, and so when you observe a QSO you are observing a galaxy. I said it was "simplified language" to say that when you observe a QSO you are observing a galaxy because such a statement is a simplification. A QSO is not technically a galaxy, but for the purpose of this discussion I think it is close enough. Also, while I know Dave is smart and well-read, sometimes it is good to just get the basics down in a debate/discussion even if all parties know them. In addition, this is a public forum, and I don't assume everyone reading these discussions are familiar with the details. I bet most people, even college/university educated people, have never heard of a QSO. From a site called creation.com, a good site for many issues it would seem! https://creation.com/quasar-with-enormous-redshift-found-embedded-in-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift How can a quasar next to a host galaxy be a further 35 billion light years farther away if it interacts with the host galaxy? If so, if member-Goku's links don't take this into account their periodicy calculations may be wrong. Is this what member-IndyDave was saying? I hope so, I think it was. One of the papers I cited earlier, from The Astrophysical Journal, explicitly addresses this (emphasis mine): "We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell’s previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support the hypothesis that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies." - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/432754/pdf As far as I know, Arp's theory has been debunked for a while now (this is not my first time hearing about Arp's theory). That's not me saying I have some super secret knowledge, just me saying that in my limited knowledge this is what I know to be accurate, and if someone knows better than me they are more than welcome to show that I am wrong. If I am wrong, then I would want people to know that I am wrong. Life would be extremely boring if I was right all the time. I once told a Christian minister while we were discussing science and religion, "I don't know anything". He then laughed at me and accused me of false humility. I guess I just can't win. Damned if I do, damned if I don't lol. Anyways, welcome to the forum Pob. I hope you stick around and have some fun.
  13. QSOs are active galactic nuclei (massive black holes in the center of galaxies with accretion disks)- i.e. they are in galaxies. To use simplified language, when you observe a QSO you are observing a galaxy. Our own Milky Way galaxy likely had a QSO/AGN in the past (and may have one in the future as well). I didn't cite that paragraph from some creationist website, Mike did. As for your picture, your source says it comes from the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey). It doesn't give any numbers, so who knows, but various periodicies derived from the SDSS have been called into question. "Discrete Fourier analysis on the quasar number count, as a function of redshift, z, calculated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 release appears to indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. However the same periods are found in the mean of the zConf parameter used to flag the reliability of the spectroscopic measurements. It follows that these redshift periods must result from some selection effect, as yet undetermined. It does not signal any intrinsic (quantized) redshifts in the quasars in Sloan survey data. However this result does not rule out the possibility as found in earlier studies of other data." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-009-0151-2 "In the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS).... It is shown here that a periodicity of ∆ z∼0.6 is imprinted on the redshift-number distribution by this selection effect. Because this effect cannot be rigorously corrected for, astronomers need to be aware of it in any investigation that uses the SDSS N( z) distribution. Its presence also means that the SDSS quasar data cannot be used either to confirm or to rule out the ∆ z∼0.6 redshift period reported previously in other, unrelated quasar data." - https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010Ap%26SS.326...11B/abstract
  14. I was only responding to the comment Dave made about Hubble's law, NOT every single argument ever made about the Earth being the center. As for quantized redshift, there is very little positive evidence to support it that I am aware of. "There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1 +z), or at any other frequency." - https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/abstract/document/8148341 "First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log (1þz), or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find that the distribution of projected distance between high-redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell’s previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high-completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model." - https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/432754/pdf As far as I can tell all the proponents of quantized redshift really have at the moment is various studies that, after looking at specific proposed quantized patterns and finding nothing, make the obvious statement that just because the specific quantized pattern that they were looking at didn't pan out, that that doesn't mean other quantized patterns don't exist. Like this study: "Discrete Fourier analysis on the quasar number count, as a function of redshift, z, calculated from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey DR6 release appears to indicate that quasars have preferred periodic redshifts with redshift intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. However the same periods are found in the mean of the zConf parameter used to flag the reliability of the spectroscopic measurements. It follows that these redshift periods must result from some selection effect, as yet undetermined. It does not signal any intrinsic (quantized) redshifts in the quasars in Sloan survey data. However this result does not rule out the possibility as found in earlier studies of other data." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10509-009-0151-2 Sure, it can exist at some periodicy that has yet be observed and confirmed. But until there is good positive evidence to support it, viewing it as compelling evidence of an Earth-centered universe is wishful thinking. To my fellow Americans, I can't help but feel this is highly salient to our current political climate. Of course, I'm sure how you interpret it will depend on your political leanings.
  15. It seems to me that is generally what happens with the scientific mainstream, if some powerful evidence indicative of creation occurs, they basically make up a story to deal with it. Then anyone that doesn't get in line is an ignorant nincompoop, eh Goku? That's all it seems to mostly be, a snobbish snubbing of anyone that disagrees with some naturalistic stories, like from krauss with an explanation of nothing. Seems we even have to treat nothing as something these days in order to prop up atheism. In regards to the Earth (or solar system) being the center of the universe via Hubble's law, it's not really the "most straightforward" interpretation or utilizing Occam's razor as Dave says. You would literally see the exact same observation anywhere in the universe, not just Earth. It's not some snobbish story, it's just geometry. As I explicitly said when I posted it, I only posted the Krauss video for the 3 minute explanation and visual illustration of why Hubble's law doesn't mean we are the center of the universe (because short of spending a long time searching for a decent visual illustration, that's the best one I know of), and that's it. I guess I had too high of hopes that we could stay on target and not chase down random tangents.
×

Important Information

Our Terms