LETTERS TO THE EDITOR || JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(1) 2015 but their absolute values differ from cor rected, will have to be given clearly Absolute values subsection to subsection. Look, for ex­ and convincingly, and then, if possible, ample, at the Large­scale Structure in with the latest available data. in redshift the inner parts of the 2 DOF Galaxy 2 quantization, and Redshift Survey: Hennie Mouton Kuils River distances Cape Town South Africa I’ve always loved (and I still do) the paper of Dr Russ Humphreys re­ garding redshift quantization,1 but References apart from space expansion, which 1. Humphreys, D.R., Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show, I understand he is not in favour of J. Creation 16(2):95–104, 2002; creation.com/ anymore, I’ve got two other questions our­galaxy­is­the­centre­of­the­universe­ at this stage. quantized­redshifts­show. For example, one subsection may Humphreys wrote: 2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe. show z = 0.00000, 0.00024, 0.00048, “The appropriately named Hubble 3. creation.com/a­different­view­of­the­universe. 0.00072, 0.00096 … , but if the next Space Telescope can now photo­ subsection shows z = 0.00020, 0.00044, graph galaxies as far as 15 billion 0.00068, 0.00092 … , then the spacing » Russell Humphreys replies: light years away.” would still be 0.00024 but the result Mr Mouton’s first question is easy Although the universe is sup­ won’t be spherical groupings—it to answer: I’ve always regarded the posed to be about 15 billion years old would look like the images above. 15 billion light­years as a minimum according to the big bang model, 15 Therefore the matter of their ab so­ radius for the galaxies in the universe, billion light­years is, according to the lute values, which must be statistically because that is roughly as far as our big bangers, neither the distance of the same in all angular sections deter­ the farthest­out celestial objects when telescopes can observe them. How they started emitting the light we are mined so far, is extremely important far away the same galaxies are now receiving now (it’s about 2.5 billion as far as the theory is concerned of depends on cosmological models. If light­years) nor the distance where them demonstrating that we are in the the universe is not actually expanding, these farthest­out celestial objects are centre of the universe. So, if possible, as both John Hartnett and myself now 1,2 supposed to be now (it’s about 33 billion I suggest more and better evidence believe is likely, then those galaxies light­years). (These numbers can be of the same absolute values of the would still be at the same distance we found by using the big bang cosmo­ redshifts z in different angles, since see them now. In addition, God could logical calculators widely available on these are essential to the whole case. have created lots of galaxies beyond 15 internet, with redshift z = 11.9 for the At least the following is some con­ billion light­years. Maybe He wanted a most distant galaxy.) firmation of the evidence, but it is still radius of 100 billion light­years! So is the 15 billion light­years not sufficient to be convincing: The second question is not as easy, Humphreys’ view of the distance, and “Furthermore the redshifts of because in the last decade big bang sup­ what then is its meaning (now or then)? quasars, BL Lac objects, galaxies porters have managed to thoroughly Humphreys also wrote: within a cluster and ‘distant’ clus­ confuse themselves on the topic of “That means the values of z tend ters are all quantized with peaks redshift quantization, the bunching of to cluster around preferred values at z = 0.06, 0.30, 0.60, 0.96 (and redshifts, which is good evidence that 3 with equal spacings between them, beyond).” (a) the cosmos has a geometric centre, such as: 0.00000, 0.00024, 0.00048, Fortunately, 0.06 = 0.00024 x and (b) our galaxy, the Milky Way, 0.00072, 0.00096, … . ” 250, because if it was not a multiple is near it. The Wikipedia review Mr Lots of examples are then given of 0.00024, the concept of galaxies in Mouton cites is a good summary of as evidence of the spacings, but only spherical clusters around us would have how big bang supporters are thinking.3 very little reference is made to the been refuted. Their confusion seems to come from absolute values of z, apart from the Of course, if the effect of the lo cal several factors: series above. movement of the measurement base 1. Failure to distinguish between near­ If one looks at the most published was not taken out and is the big rea­ by and distant galaxies. The last pa­ representations (by big bangers) of son for the images above not to show per showing clear redshift quan­ measured redshifts, they show them concentric circles, it would be great. tization was by Napier and Guthrie quantized per angle section around us, But this sort of evidence, when in 1997,4 on which I based my 2002 55 JOURNAL OF CREATION 29(1) 2015 || LETTERS TO THE EDITOR paper. 5 They studied normal galaxies I’m convinced their study is still valid: 9. Humphreys, ref. 5, p. 103; see ref. 28. 10. Bajan, K. et al., On the investigations of galaxy that are relatively close to us, within redshifts from nearby normal galaxies redshift periodicity, Physics of Particle and roughly 100 million light­years. I’ve are clearly quantized. Nuclei Letters 4(1):5–10; arxiv.org/pdf/astro­ always had the impression that the Because of the above confusions, ph/0606294.pdf. 11. Hartnett, J.G., Our galaxy near the centre of very clear fine structure they re­ the later studies have not refuted the concentric spherical shells of galaxies, 26 May 2014, johnhartnett.org/2014/05/26/our­galaxy­ ported is likely to wash out at greater possibility for redshift quantization near­the­centre­of­concentric­spherical­shells­ distances, say, several billion light­ (with larger intervals) at greater dis­ of­galaxies/. years, so that only larger redshift tances either. The Wikipedia article, intervals could be observed at the in quoting a negative statement from a greater distances. 2008 review, failed (because of bias?) 2. Failure to distinguish between nor­ to include this statement from the mal galaxies and quasars. Whatever abstract of the same review:10 Fossil snakes quasars (quasi­stellar objects, QSO’s) “We conclude that galaxy redshift are, it seems fairly clear that they periodisation is an effect which can and the Flood have large ‘intrinsic’ redshifts that really exist.” add to whatever distance­caused red­ John Hartnett has a good online boundary in shifts they probably have.6 The in­ study of the larger­distance redshift 11 trinsic redshifts could, and probably data. He gives compelling evidence North America do, wash out any quantization in the for large­scale redshift quantization. distance­caused portion of QSO red­ The confusion of big bang supporters— The placement of the Flood/post­ shifts. All four of the redshift surveys most of whom who have a strong desire Flood boundary in sedimentary rocks, the Wikipedia review cites after 1997 not to find evidence for a cosmic centre, assuming the geological column for and especially not for us to be near it— are either exclusively for QSO’s or sake of discussion, is important for is no reason for us to back away from mix them in with normal galaxies creationists. If we misplace this boun­ this powerful argument for a Creator. indiscriminately. The reason is that dary, our view of the Flood and the QSO’s comprise a lot of the larger post­Flood world will be skewed. We Russ Humphreys redshifts (conventionally as sumed to need to spend much time analyzing the Chattanooga, TN mean larger distances) they wanted placement of this boundary, if we are UNITED STATES of AMERICA to include in the studies. But because to develop an accurate and sophis­ of that confusing factor, the four stud­ ticated Flood model. With that in ies do not refute Napier and Guthrie. References mind, I have a few comments on the 3. Failure to compensate for observer 1 1. Hartnett, J.G., Does the Bible really describe perspective article by Chad Arment. motion. Napier and Guthrie com­ expansion of the universe? J. Creation 25(2): Arment believes that if one finds 125–127, 2011; creation.com/bible­cosmological­ pensated each redshift datum for the expansion. two extant genera from the same Doppler shift due to the sun’s rapid 2. Humphreys, D.R., New view of gravity explains kind at a fossil site, then that layer motion around the centre of our gal­ cosmic microwave background radiation, J. Creation 28(3):106–114, 2014. containing the fossil must be post­ axy, converting ‘heliocentric’ red­ 3. Wikipedia, Redshift quantization, January 2015, Flood. He applied this analysis to fossil shifts to ‘galactocentric’ redshifts. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization. snakes, but I imagine the argument can This procedure brought out the 4. Napier, W.M. and Guthrie, B.N.G., Quantized redshifts: a status report, J. Astrophys. Astr. be made for other organisms as well. quantizations very clearly. One year 18:455–463, 1997; www.ias.ac.in/jarch/ Moreover, the other extinct genera earlier, WilliamTifft, the discoverer jaa/18/455­463.pdf. found with that particular extant genus 5.