Mod Note No talking points raised. Nothing at all really. If you wish to restart the thread and actually type some words that would give people an indication of what points you wish to discuss, you are free to do so. But starting threads with just a link and nothing else at all, not even a brief summary of what is being linked is a no-no and discouraged here.
http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html what william is saying is that redshifts from galaxies are not various . in otherwords the the redshifts of galaxies change in time . but do so like an onion , the closer to the center of the galaxy , the more energy the center has. the further away the less energy there is . the have a constant speed , meters per second . 72 and multiples of . 144 , 216 , 288 , 360 etc. there is nothing inbetween
Redshift differences for double galaxies. Instead of following the expected distribution (dotted line), they tend to fall into bins separated by 72-km/sec. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
1) This article is not by William Tifft. 2) The claim that “Remarkably, using the same solar-motion correction as before, the galaxies' redshifts again bunched around certain specific values. But this time the favored redshifts were separated by exactly 1/2 of the basic 72 km per second interval.” seems to disprove the original claim and methodology of binning. The hypothesis that redshift is quantized is not supported by the best data or any viable model. Analysis of random, clumpy data will always yield self-fitted patterns (selection effect), but such a pattern in a single random instance (i.e. the clumping of galaxies in our universe) is not a law of nature. Thus, like pareidolia, these patterns arising from data manipulation attract plenty of fringe interest without advancing science.
