tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post3879175159742450956..comments2023-11-19T19:19:12.773-05:00Comments on Dealing with Creationism in Astronomy: Geocentrism's "Quantized Planetary Orbits"W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-5364607444358509342012-12-02T16:17:44.415-05:002012-12-02T16:17:44.415-05:00Jean Paul,
Sorry for my delay. I been taking som...Jean Paul,<br /><br />Sorry for my delay. I been taking some time off and wanted time to actually read your paper and check some other sources before responding.<br /><br />'Quantization' would be a good term if your delta-n was zero within your numerical precision. These are enhancements or resonances more that quantization, but you do often put 'quantization' in quotes so you're not taking it too literally. Beyond that, it looks like an interesting work and you even include a number of details about the 'sanity checks' you ran on your results. My only concern would be is this effect really dominated by the usual orbital resonance type processes, or is the stellar rotation really an important component? You do note that the effect seems to be less pronounced with distance from the star.<br /><br />I suspect you found my site with a search engine and got links to a bunch of crank sites as well. Halton Arp tries to claim (in the Apieron paper linked above) that the solar system quantization is a power law, something like 1.22^n. <br /><br />If you actually what to get more play with this, you should probably stop calling it quantization since that term has been so heavily promoted and abused by the cranks. In the future, you might want to remove comparisons to the Bohr model which you make in the paper. Do you really want all that crackpot junk to show up when someone searches for your paper? ;^)W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-55485099424326151282012-11-28T09:40:00.729-05:002012-11-28T09:40:00.729-05:00Please check my research paper that shows all plan...Please check my research paper that shows all planetary systems (solar and extrasolar) to be quantized and correlated to the parent star rotaiton period.<br /><br />http://arxiv.org/abs/1103.1199<br />regards,<br />Jean PaulJean Paul Zoghbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17707702934513909351noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-21858053612011493262011-09-22T08:31:53.939-04:002011-09-22T08:31:53.939-04:00So, the 'preferred redshift of quasars' (o...So, the '<i>preferred redshift of quasars</i>' (or '<i>quasar quantization</i>', which is a completely different thing!) is simply a modified version of the Karlsson relationship?!?<br /><br />John Martin: you do realise, don't you, that there are now <b>hundreds of thousands</b> of quasar redshifts in the literature, cf the ~hundreds Arp based his claim on (in turn based on work done many years before 1995)?<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-74347500845797739842011-09-18T19:52:43.376-04:002011-09-18T19:52:43.376-04:00This is apparently an article by Halton Arp from A...This is apparently an article by Halton Arp from <i>Apeiron</i>, volume 2, number 2 (April 1995) available at the <a href="http://redshift.vif.com/journal_archives.htm" rel="nofollow">Apeiron web site</a><br /><br />Thanks Mr. Martin. I had been looking the origin of some EU claims that appear to be in this paper.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-27206174087679665622011-09-17T15:34:24.470-04:002011-09-17T15:34:24.470-04:00Tom
A clarification of my statement can be found ...Tom<br /><br />A clarification of my statement can be found in the following articles - <br /><br />http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-92139647/new-light-redshift-periodicities.html<br /><br />and the following <br /><br />http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-92139648/ii-astronomical-quantization-and.html<br /><br />The papers mention the number 1.23 in relation to quasar quantization and the Titus Bode law of planetary distances.<br /><br /><br /><br />JMjohn martinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06660610295915450085noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-41203180714062269172011-09-05T23:01:30.388-04:002011-09-05T23:01:30.388-04:00Thanks Tom.
I guess the answer to my question is:...Thanks Tom.<br /><br />I guess the answer to my question is:<br /><br />No, there was nothing in Mr Martin's statements to indicate what he meant by, or was referring to, "<i>the preferred redshift of quasars</i>".<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-37033412800248790682011-09-05T19:46:51.666-04:002011-09-05T19:46:51.666-04:00I could have spent months digging through all the ...I could have spent months digging through all the different redshift 'quantization' claims, unless someone has written a good summary.<br /><br />Planetary 'quantization' was simple enough for even grade-school children to graph themselves. It just invited some attention.W.T."Tom" Bridgmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10889134728080314165noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2361412992308994774.post-19693943452575291512011-09-04T05:47:18.356-04:002011-09-04T05:47:18.356-04:00What about the "preferred redshift of quasars...What about the "<i>preferred redshift of quasars</i>" relationship? Did you find anything which says what this is (or is supposed to be)?<br /><br />To be sure, there are quite a few such, proposed by various people over the years; however, as far as I know, there is no consensus - among the various 'alternative' communities - on one over any other.<br /><br />NereidAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com