Quantized Redshift vs Big Bang Creation Theory and Theology

Every now and then the “Creationists” do us all a favor by relentlessly drawing attention to empirical measurements that they think will support their interpretation of scripture despite those measurements being dismissed with a wave of the hand by the Orthodoxy. One case is the Big Bang model that wasn’t always as Orthodox as it has now become but seemed, to many Creationists, as providing The Moment of Creation. This contribution by Creationists becomes counterproductive when, like any School of Theory, they get too enthusiastic about their theology when, what discourse requires is answering their rhetorical opponents not with theology but rather with refinement of the measurements.

Now, however, the Big Bang is Orthodoxy and empirical measurements that run counter to it are prone to being dismissed with a wave of the Patriarch’s hand as Mere Error if not Heresy.

More recently one such empirical measurement is of something frequently referred to as “Quantized Redshift”. Nature carried a 1997 paper titled “A 120-Mpc periodicity in the three-dimensional distribution of galaxy superclusters” featuring a periodic structure of concentric spheres radiating out from Earth at the center, to the far reaches of the cosmos that has been in controversy ever since the 1970s. The Creationists like this picture for obvious reasons. However, ironically, the attempts to explain it theoretically rather then theologically, seem to end up opposing the Big Bang model. This may explain why, even as evidence for this structure has increased with time, Orthodoxy is increasingly silent about it.

The most recent paper I found is just this September 21 that appeared in the Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (attn: Longitude Prize fans): “Search for a possible quasi-periodic structure based on data of the SDSS DR12 LOWZ”.

In it, they find (4−5)σ support for a “quasi-periodic structure with characteristic scale (116±10) h^−1 Mpc.”*

The maddening thing about all this has been the amount of noise interjected into the debate by people feeling obligated, in this era of GINORMOUS Data and Data Processing Power, to set forth their theories to explain these structures. I’m hoping that the Royal Astronomical Society’s “notice” may signal an end to the studied ignorance by those obligated to, at the very least, dismiss these empirical measurements with a wave of the Patriarch’s hand.

* One might, rightly, wonder what “120-Mpc” has to do with “(116±10) h^−1 Mpc” since they are not the same dimensions let alone the same units. Worse, in reading over the history of these controversial measurements, I ran across a variety of other units including “km/sec” and “Δz”. Although the Wikipedia article on Redshift Quantization tells us that “72 km/s or Δz = 2.4×10^−4”, whatever that’s supposed to mean in this context, it does not tell us how to convert to either Mpc or Mpc/h.

So I did a bit of messing around in Mathematica and found going back to the 1970s figure of “71 km/s” yielded commensurable quantities in the following manner:

PS: I was rather forced into looking seriously at the data for Quantized Redshift after discovering that a length (distance) quantity I’ve christened “light-age of the universe” (distance covered by travelling at the speed of light for the entire age of the universe) has absolutely no relevance to the Big Bang Theory, but does have relevance to alternate cosmologies – some of which referred to Quantized Redshift.


Cosmology is amazing! It is also, to a large extent, a pyramid standing precariously on its apex. A lot rides on the premise that observed redshifts are solely due to the Doppler effect. That is a useful premise, perhaps even a correct premise – but it is only a premise.

Because it is so central to cosmology, it is the kind of premise that should continuously be under scrutiny – and under a real scientific regime, it would be. But we have careers & grants & Nobel prizes built on the assumption that the premise is correct. Shades of the incontestability of Anthropogenic Global Warming in Big Science circles!


I find it precarious to spend a lot of energy in the distant realms (in terms of scale) when our immediate proximity is at the same time both threatening the survival of technological civilization (not that it wouldn’t re-grow in a millennium or so) and being relatively easy to fix (recognize human nature craves a theocracy, not a democracy).


On the other hand, many of the discoveries upon which our technological civilisation is founded and which may be its salvation did not come from somebody looking for them, but at the end of a process which began with trying to solve a puzzle with no obvious practical significance or application. As Isaac Asimov said, “The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not ‘Eureka!’ (I found it!) but ‘That’s funny …’ ”.

If, say, in the 23rd century the Human Diaspora and their relativistic C-ships are powered by liberating energy from dark matter ubiquitous in the universe, it all will have started because in the 1930s Fritz Zwicky was measuring the velocities of galaxies in the Coma cluster and remarked, “That’s odd…”.


That’s the point of Sortocracy: Sorting proponents of social theories into governments that test them.

I suppose I could have said: Sorting proponents of theologies into theocracies that let adults go to Hell in their own way so we can avoid a rhyme with The Thirty Years War that will bring about the collapse of technological civilization before it can get the Hell out of the biosphere and into its natural habitat which is not on the surface of any planet as Gerard K. O’Neill tried to route all that Boomer energy. Instead we got routed into being bit pushers while our turf was infiltrated by mass immigration.

Why don’t I spend all my energy on Sortocracy rather than arcane “coincidences” that elicit “That’s odd…”? Quite honestly, because I’ve exhausted my ability to influence people.


What I’m personally finding odd is the resemblance between the polarized rhetoric in early 20th century that led to WW1 and WW2 – and the polarized rhetoric today. And we know what this caused, and yet most are oblivious to how we’re sliding towards it - which makes it inevitable (having seen the lack of a coherent response to C19).

Let me summarize my thesis and make a prediction:
There will be no space-faring civilization deriving from the present civilization unless a theocracy is established.

How about adding the Sortocratian human gene pool sustainability elements into something like Extropianism - Wikipedia?


"There’s one for vegetarian lesbians, for example.”

Timothy Leary “Collected Works”

Look, do you think I would have bothered to try to come up with a terrestrial fallback to space habitats if it hadn’t been for the fact that The American Pioneer’s individualism was bottled up by the betrayal of the very elites we had fought for in the World Wars?

I’ll tell you what:

You get Elon Musk to do himself a favor and start advocating that the 16th Amendment be replaced by a single, revenue neutral tax on net assets, and replace the welfare state with a citizen’s dividend, and I’ll consider changing my priorities. That, or get Netanyahu to wake the Hell up to the fact that his “Jewish” supporters in the US were the primary obstacle that I found to my advocacy of that reform in 1992 which I came up with in response to my having testified before Congress on the passage of the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, and that they destroyed my ability to influence people when I not only noticed a conflict of interest in the rent-seeking Jewish community but dared speak its name.

Speaking of “theocracy”…


There are two perspectives on the survival of technological civilization.

One is that the failure of Western technological civilization is essentially irrelevant from the viewpoint of the human race. Computer chips are manufactured in Mongolia, for Goodness sake! Technological civilization and progress will continue, skipping merely a beat, when/if Europe & North America slide into barbarism.

The other view is more pessimistic. If technological civilization ends itself worldwide, a restart would be impossible until geological ages have passed. When technological civilization got going, resources like coal, iron ore, copper were literally lying on the ground, ready to be picked up once someone realized how to use them. No more!


MSNBC’s “coverage” of Elon Musk’s “remorse”.

Despite this, it is apparent something has him by the balls because he can’t bring himself to point out to Elizabeth Warren that if the 16 Amendment were replaced by a single tax on net assets, he’d be far wealthier and there would be a lot more Elon Musks.


There is a lot more that rides on the premise that observed redshifts are not due the Doppler effect as is apparent from the fact that Wikipedia’s “Redshift” article doesn’t even address the Doppler effect. It has a page titled “Doppler shift” that it links to so as to reserve the “redshift” keyword for what is known as “cosmological redshift” – a general relativistic model-dependent redshift that purports to explain cosmological optical observations without using the Doppler effect.

This, by the way, has given rise to a “crisis in cosmology” that seems to be getting worse with better data and better analysis – not unlike what has been happening with Quantized Redshift but, unlike Quantized Redshift, there is at least some admission that there is what is called a “tension” between theory and observation in the case of cosmological redshift: