🚀 go-pugleaf

Stupendous Man (richmond@spiff.Princeton.EDU) wrote:
>  baresson@cbnewsi.cb.att.com (pete.oram) writes:
>  
> po> 4. What other explanations are there for the redshift quantisation if it
> po> doesn't just correspond to the velocity of the source?
> 
>   Tom Van Flandern replies: 
> 
> TVF> If redshifts are quantized for us and are caused by velocity alone, 
> TVF> they cannot be quantized for most other observers.  
> TVF> So either we are in a special place in the universe, 
> TVF> or cosmological redshift is not due mainly to expansion velocity.  
> 
>   I just hate getting pulled into these cosmological discussions, but
> I can't resist.  If it is true that galaxy redshifts are "quantized",
> and I don't believe it yet, here's a simple explanation for the fact
> that retains the "redshift due to velocity alone" idea:  galaxies 
> occur in clumps, with gaps in between the clumps containing few galaxies.
> If the clumps occur at regular intervals, then any observer, anywhere,
> will see "quantized redshifts" due to the expansion of the universe.
> N'est-ce pas?
>
If the clumps are regularly spaced everywhere that's just as amazing as
quantizing redshifts in the first place....

There have been reports of absorption lines in quasar spectra showing 
a few distinct redshift values rather than a continuum, indicating that 
matter between here and the quasar follows the void-matter-void pattern.
However, a sample of redshifts over enough of the sky will average out this
effect unless the spacing of matter and voids is the same in all directions.
As I noted before, this would be as amazing as redshift quantization.
 

--
||------------------------------------------------------------------------
||Dave Jones (dj@ekcolor.ssd.kodak.com)|Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY  |