Redshift Jumps: New Evidence of Quantization?

[wolram]

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

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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
this paper has me thinking, is it true? how can redshift
progress in a series of "jumps".?

 

[cragwolf]

I think "silence" is too strong a word, since for example, I found 16 citations to Guthrie and Napier's 1996 paper, "Redshift periodicity in the Local Supercluster":

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/bib_query?1996A&A...310..353G

The newest work I could find on this is:

"The Distribution of Redshifts in New Samples of Quasi-stellar Object"

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0008026

I don't know what to make of it.

 

[wolram]

thanks CRAGWOLF, i am in the same possition as you are
i found this article by accident, if it has any creedence
why is it not more prominent, i wonder if ARP had any
input to the origination of this, i have found a few
more papers on the net but they mostly refer back to
the one i posted.

 

[wolram]

http://home1.gte.net/res00bfl/redshift_physics.htm

This paper was inspired by ideas found in Halton Arp’s book Seeing Red [1]. The Hubble diagram of galactic redshifts increasing in quantum jumps with distance can be explained by a sequence of infrequent but synchronized universal episodic quantized contractions (blueshifts) of all atomic length scales. Quantization is a “phenomenon that could not occur if redshifts were caused by velocities.”[2] When an atom contracts its size, its mass density will increase. The lookback time corresponding to the most recent universal mass density increase times the speed of light defines the radius of a sphere that divides a higher density inside from a lower density outside. The lookback time to the next density increase defines the radius of a larger sphere, and matter outside this shell will have an even lower density. As you look farther back in time, you see lower densities and therefore greater redshifts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
i had a feeling that this was ARPs work.

 

[meteor]

Hi cragwolf, how the life down under?
I remember I asked about redshift quantization in another forum a year ago because I had read about the Karlsson formula:
http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part5/4.html
and a very trustable person answered that according to the results of the 2df survey such quantization was unexistent