Halton Arp

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Nap, interrupted.
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
19,141
What do people think about Halton Arp? He has some pretty interesting things to say about red shift, the Big Bang, and cosmology in general. He's also not a big fan of the scientific establishment. Here's his site:

http://www.haltonarp.com/

Here's a paper he write titled "What Has Science Come to?"

http://www.megasociety.net/Genius/Science.html

He makes some interesting points in the paper, but he also says things like:
Many scientists are outraged that the Kansas Board of Education has banned the big bang theory, but they overlook the point that it was brought on by their own efforts to ban religious creationism; as in most religious wars, they tried to ban the heretic beliefs. As for Darwinian evolution, they did not see that it was not a valid theory until it confronted openly the opposing claims.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure I can parse the last sentence, but is he saying that Darwinian evolution is not valid? He doesn't say anything else about it in the paper.

But consider the most fundamental precept that underlies modern science: gravity. Let us ask a few simple-minded questions about this force: It is supposed to be a force that attracts one body to another, but how does the sun pull on the earth and vice versa? Are there invisible elastic bands pulling them together?

Does the exchange of electromagnetic particles cause a force pulling them together rather than giving them an impulse apart, as one might expect? Obviously, gravity acts much faster than the speed of light; otherwise, the earth would be orbiting around a point where the sun was 8 minutes ago.
Click to expand...
What does electromagnetic energy have to do with gravity?

~~ Paul
 
Whatever he may say about cosmology would seem to be rendered moot by his utter lack of understanding about how gravity works. It was my understanding that physicists have pretty well decided that gravity is a result of large masses warping space-time? I seem to recall a very slick presentation I saw by Brain Greene (author of The Elegant Universe) that explained gravity well using rubber sheets and bowling balls. Gravity faster than the speed of light? I thought this too was explained by modern physics, although I can't rember how or what it said.

That this guy claims to know stuff about cosmology and yet has no understanding of or exposure to some fairly basic concepts in physics is odd. But I'm no physicist. Which should only go to show.
 
Nobody knows for 100% sure how fast gravity propogates. The experiments done earlier this year have received intense critcism.

Anyway, "where the sun was 8 minutes ago" is an incredibly stupid thing to say. What exactly is it supposed to mean? The sun moves a little bit (mostly because of jupiter) on the local scale, and our orbit reflects that, but the differences are too tiny to really comment on. It's doubtful we could even MEASURE the distances generated by 8 minutes of real time on the sun.

Also, a good scientist must, almost by definition, seek to expunge things like creationism from our schools. Things which have no basis in fact are anti-science, anti-information, anti-progress. Therefore, they ought not to even be recognized in a setting that would allow for people to believe them true.
 
I think Arp probably understands gravity just fine, but he doesn't like the notion that it operates by warping spacetime. I think he likes something called Le Sage gravity.

The sun may not move much in 8 minutes on the local scale, but it moves relative to the galaxy. Read the introduction to this article:

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

Is that article reasonable? No idea.

~~ Paul
 
but it moves relative to the galaxy.
Click to expand...

Which means absolutely nothing relative to our own orbit, being that we are under identical forces.
 
Paul I read a bit of Arp's stuff on quasar redshifts.

Some of his stuff is nutty, some less so. Basically he knows enough physics to be dangerous to himself! Most of his stuff has been weighed and found wanting. However its always useful to have people who know physics giving contrary ideas (as opposed to the countable infinity of whackos who know virtually no physics but think theyre budding Einsteins)...
 
Saying gravity is caused by "warping space-time" doesn't address the underlying cause, what causes this warp. Perhaps something that causes the attraction also bends light and, therfore, warps space-time.

Nobody really knows what causes gravity right now, with very serious proposals about some type of force leakage from the multiverse. This is not nutty stuff, but is considered serious. Since ANY explanation will have to be fit with quantum mechanics there's a lot up for grabs right now.
 
Paul

I don't agree with most of what Arp is saying but I'm not an expert by any definition. However, his work has been extensively debunked at BadAstonomy ("Against the mainstream" forum) by people who are.

You could try having a look there.

Dog.
 
Fade said:
Which means absolutely nothing relative to our own orbit, being that we are under identical forces.
Click to expand...
Yes, I would think so, too. But that article I linked seems to suggest otherwise, although I don't know how reasonable it is.

~~ Paul
 
Yes, I would think so, too. But that article I linked seems to suggest otherwise, although I don't know how reasonable it is.
Click to expand...

Accelerate in your car to 80 mph.

Drop a marble.

There you go.
 
So this description of what would happen is bogus?
Yet, anyone with a computer and orbit computation or numerical integration software can verify the consequences of introducing a delay into gravitational interactions. The effect on computed orbits is usually disastrous because conservation of angular momentum is destroyed. Expressed less technically by Sir Arthur Eddington, this means: "If the Sun attracts Jupiter towards its present position S, and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its present position J, the two forces are in the same line and balance. But if the Sun attracts Jupiter toward its previous position S', and Jupiter attracts the Sun towards its previous position J', when the force of attraction started out to cross the gulf, then the two forces give a couple. This couple will tend to increase the angular momentum of the system, and, acting cumulatively, will soon cause an appreciable change of period, disagreeing with observations if the speed is at all comparable with that of light." (Eddington, 1920, p.94)
Click to expand...

~~ Paul
 
Well, a half hour of googling about Halton Arp leads me to the conclusion that he is another poster boy for whackos and crackpots. However, it also leads me to interesting lists of anomalous redshift examples. But it doesn't lead me to any reasonable analysis of his ideas. I'm beginning to think he is an interesting fellow.

Can anyone post any reasonable analyses?

~~ Paul
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Well, a half hour of googling about Halton Arp leads me to the conclusion that he is another poster boy for whackos and crackpots. However, it also leads me to interesting lists of anomalous redshift examples. But it doesn't lead me to any reasonable analysis of his ideas. I'm beginning to think he is an interesting fellow.

Can anyone post any reasonable analyses?

~~ Paul
Click to expand...
I think that, while the speed of gravity isn't nailed down to everyone's satisfaction, it would upset an apple cart or two if it turned out to be faster than light. For one thing causality would be gone, as it would make faster than light communications possible via gravity encoding. Not easy, but possible, so we could communicate to the past (or, conversely, receive communications from the future).

But I think the real issue is that the sun is where the earth "thinks" it is, right now, because it IS there. From its reality cone the sun isn't eight minutes old, it's at its current age (the same as the earth's). If an observer on Mercury saw the sun disappear "right now" it would take a few minutes for the news to reach Earth. From what we know so far neither a sudden lack of gravity nor (of course) EM radiation would give away the news before the other, both would vanish at the same time.

I guess I just think theories that need an instantaneous speed for gravity get the whole part of "now" mixed up for distant objects.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
So this description of what would happen is bogus?
Click to expand...
It's an accurate description of what would happen if you took Newtonian gravitation and added a finite propogation speed, yes. It's not an accurate description of GR. Actually, when you do the maths it turns out that GR predicts that the Earth should be attracted to a point very near the Sun's current location, not it's location 8 minutes ago.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
Read the introduction to this article:

http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

Is that article reasonable? No idea
Click to expand...
Did you read anything else from that site? From the front page -


These are working files for your perusal, and hopefully your edification in the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

You might want to take a look at his library - in particular, the section headed 'science and the Bible' - for a better idea of the nature of this site.
 
Oops, Martin, I usually try to figure out the source of things I read on the Net. Screwed up that time!

BA, thanks for the forum link!

~~ Paul
 
If one looks in the Southern Sky at about 13h 06m -33d 04m one encounters the richest cluster of galaxies known - The Shapely Supercluster. Recently spectra of many galaxies in the cluster have been measured (Proust et al. 2006). They vary from a few thousand to at least 60,000 km/sec. (The latter velocity would be close to 1/5 the speed of light!)

...

The prevailing current assumption in astronomy today is that the amount of redshift is directly a measure of distance. So the higher redshifts in this cluster would be at at distance of the order of 20% of the radius of the Universe.

It is truly remarkable that authoritative astronomers and physicists can measure galaxies in a well defined cluster and accept without question that some of the members are 1,000 Mpc from other members (that is, over 3,000,000,000 light years distant from other members).

What do they think this cluster is? In fact they are forced to say it is a structure that I would compare to a great sausage stretching out from us toward the outer reaches of the Universe. The miraculous aspect is that this sausage is pointing directly at us, the observer.

But perhaps an even stranger aspect is that the far end would be receding from us at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. Quick, the mustard!

These cluster elongations toward the observer have been noticed in other regions of the sky and, causing some inquietude, been dubbed "Fingers of God". The reason for unease is obvious. The fingers are pointing to the conclusion that we live in some special place in the Universe. Very anti-Copernican.

Is there any way out of this embarrassing situation? Yes. As a last resort, one can look at the observations. For 40 years now evidence has been building that bright parent galaxies are surrounded by younger, companion galaxies which have higher intrinsic redshifts.
Click to expand...
References:

1. Arp, H. 1998, Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, Montreal
2. Arp, H. 2003, Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations, Apeiron, Montreal
3. Proust, D., Quintana, H., Carrasco, E., et al. 2006, The Shapley Supercluster: The Largest Matter Concentration in the Local Universe, ESO Messenger 124, p30
 
I know it is an old topic, but I was going to start one with the same name, and said, "Hey! Do we really need duplicate topics?".


So keep your comments on topic buddy. :D
 
I think that a lot of people do not understand the " warping of space-time " aspect. This does not explain what causes gravity, or what gravity *is* if you want to be so bold. What it does do is allow us to use a 4d model of gravity to make accurate predictions about the motion of objects within a gravitational field.

Many of these Astrophysics woo guys will point out that modern science says that gravity is CAUSED by, or IS the warping, as a critical point in their arguments, when really it is just a layman's misconception. I am going to go ahead and read up some more on this guy though, I love Asto-Crackpots!
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
What do people think about Halton Arp?
Click to expand...

Nutjob crank.

He makes some interesting points in the paper, but he also says things like:
I'm not sure I can parse the last sentence, but is he saying that Darwinian evolution is not valid? He doesn't say anything else about it in the paper.
Click to expand...

The big bang is supported by massive observational evidence (all you have to do is look up and measure brightness and redshift, and we've looked at literally hundreds of billions of stars etc.), and independently by our best and very well-tested theory of gravity, general relativity (in which all stable cosmological solutions crunch, bang, or both).

Comparing it to creationism is simply bizarre.
 
Paul C. Anagnostopoulos said:
The sun may not move much in 8 minutes on the local scale, but it moves relative to the galaxy.
Click to expand...

Such motion is irrelevant. You can pick a co-moving frame in which there is no such motion. And because of the effects of relativity, picking a non-comoving frame means you have to transform the field produced by the sun (it is no longer spherically symmetric in a frame where the sun isn't stationary). Additionally, you pick up what's sometimes called a gravitomagnetic field (because it's the analogue to the emergence of magnetism as a result of special relativity and electrostatics), and the resulting equations of motion will still produce identical results to what you would calculate in a co-moving frame.

Read the introduction to this article:
Click to expand...

I haven't read all of it, but I've read enough to know they don't really understand GR. They mention, for example, the supposed violation of conservation of angular momentum. But this is in fact just another example of the supposed violation of momentum which can occur in classical electrodynamics for two charged particles. The solution in the case of E&M is the realization that the field can carry momentum too. Well, guess what: so can gravity waves. And two bodies orbiting around each other, which is the scenario he tries to use, will indeed give off gravity waves. Oh, and he's still ignoring gravitomagnetic effects.
 
Fact: Gravity Has No Aberration
1. The effect of aberration on orbits is not seen

As viewed from the Earth’s frame, light from the Sun has aberration. Light requires about 8.3 minutes to arrive from the Sun, during which time the Sun seems to move through an angle of 20 arc seconds. The arriving sunlight shows us where the Sun was 8.3 minutes ago. The true, instantaneous position of the Sun is about 20 arc seconds east of its visible position, and we will see the Sun in its true present position about 8.3 minutes into the future. In the same way, star positions are displaced from their yearly average position by up to 20 arc seconds, depending on the relative direction of the Earth’s motion around the Sun. This well-known phenomenon is classical aberration, and was discovered by the astronomer Bradley in 1728.



Orbit computations must use true, instantaneous positions of all masses when computing accelerations due to gravity for the reason given by Eddington. When orbits are complete, the visible position of any mass can be computed by allowing for the delay of light traveling from that mass to Earth. This difference between true and apparent positions of bodies is not merely an optical illusion, but is a physical difference due to transit delay that can alter an observer’s momentum. For example, small bodies such as dust particles in circular orbit around the Sun experience a mostly radial force due to the radiation pressure of sunlight. But because of the finite speed of light, a portion of that radial force acts in a transverse direction, like a drag, slowing the orbital speed of the dust particles and causing them to eventually spiral into the Sun. This phenomenon is known as the Poynting-Robertson effect.



If gravity were a simple force that propagated outward from the Sun at the speed of light, as radiation pressure does, its mostly radial effect would also have a small transverse component because of the motion of the target. Analogous to the Poynting-Robertson effect, the magnitude of that tangential force acting on the Earth would be 0.0001 of the Sun’s radial force, which is the ratio of the Earth’s orbital speed (30 km/s) to the speed of this hypothetical force of gravity moving at light-speed (300,000 km/s). It would act continuously, but would tend to speed the Earth up rather than slow it down because gravity is attractive and radiation pressure is repulsive. Nonetheless, the net effect of such a force would be to double the Earth’s distance from the Sun in 1200 years. There can be no doubt from astronomical observations that no such force is acting. The computation using the instantaneous positions of Sun and Earth is the correct one. The computation using retarded positions is in conflict with observations. From the absence of such an effect, Laplace set a lower limit to the speed of propagation of classical gravity of about 108 c, where c is the speed of light. (Laplace, 1825, pp. 642-645 of translation)
http://www.ldolphin.org/vanFlandern/gravityspeed.html

I have become more confused than ever. Is any of that true?
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
I have become more confused than ever. Is any of that ture?
Click to expand...

As mentioned already by Martin, it's true if you merely try to tack on finite propagation speeds to Newtonian gravity. It is not true in a full GR treatment.
 
robinson said:
I have become more confused than ever. Is any of that true?
Click to expand...

It is true that there are corrections to Newtonian dynamics set by the ratio of the earth's speed to the speed of light as is mentioned there. Using GR we can compute those corrections precisely (along with some others which also occur).* One thing to remember is that the corrections to the earth's orbit due to the presence of other masses in the solar system are much larger than these relativistic effects. Nevertheless, our data is extremely precise and in the end these corrections are observable and were confirmed experimentally long ago.

Does that answer your question?


*This is usually called a PPN expansion (Parametrized Post-Newtonian).
 
There are other reasons to believe in the redshift distance correlation Robisnon.

The distance to other galaxies was first generated approximately through the yard stick of the apparent luminosity of variable stars, that is how the distance were approximated by Hubble's co-worker (I can' recall her name) then the alleged correlation was found.

Here is the deal Arp makes some special rules for QSOs so that they gain mass and cause and anamalous redshift (insert miracle here).

But the redshift correlation appears to hold true for galaxies in general, the farther they are and the higher the red shift the dimmer the luminosity of certain stars. So you can't really have special dispensation for QSOs that you don't have for galaxies in general. (I am sure BAC will disagrre)

And now some theorists believe that QSOs are just an Acitve Glactic Nucleus, so it would definitl have to apply to all galaxies in that case with AGN.

So where would that leave the anamalous redshifts?
 
Let m make it crystal. Do you agree with the paper?

It is a yes or no question. If it isn't that simple, then which parts do you disagree with would be most helpful.
 
Last edited:
robinson said:
Let m make it crystal. Do you agree with the paper?
Click to expand...

Of course not.

If it isn't that simple, then which parts do you disagree with would be most helpful.
Click to expand...

I'll try again: it is true that there are corrections which depend on v/c (although the author is way, way off in the estimate of how big they are).

However, the existence of such corrections obviously does not imply that the orbit will decay - you have to actually do some computations and see what happens. That's obvious, because even in Newtonian gravity there are corrections to the orbits of each planet (due to the other planets) which are in fact much larger than the ones discussed there - and yet the earth hasn't fallen into the sun yet, has it?

Furthermore, when you actually compute those corrections using GR, you can then go and measure the orbits and see if it agrees - and it does (and it does NOT agree with Newton).
 
Dancing David said:
Here is the deal Arp makes some special rules for QSOs so that they gain mass and cause and anamalous redshift (insert miracle here).
Click to expand...

No miracle needed, David. Just Narlikar's solution to the equation of General Relativity. The one where he did NOT assume mass had to be constant since the moment of creation, unlike what the standard model solution ASSUMED. You remember me posting about that, don't you? You know who he is, don't you? Or did you just make no effort whatsoever to read and understand it? Arp's theories are perfectly in line with Narlikar's solution ... which allow for matter creation, the gaining of mass by created matter and high redshifts that gradually decrease.

Here's a source expanding on Arp's theory, which David so quickly dismisses: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...J...496..661A&db_key=AST&high=3f8faa7acf02026 "The Origin of Companion Galaxies, by Halton Arp, Astrophysical Journal v.496, p.661, 1998 "Evidence that companion galaxies are located along the minor axes of large disk galaxies is reviewed. It is reported here that quasars also tend to be preferentially aligned along the minor axes of active disk galaxies. Empirically there is a continuity of physical properties which suggests that the intrinsic redshifts of quasars decay as they evolve into more normal galaxies. The coincident alignment of companion galaxies plus their systematically higher redshifts then both become confirmation of their evolution from quasars which have been previously ejected along the minor axes of active spiral galaxies. The quantization of the redshifts of companions also supports their evolutionary origin from the quantized, intrinsic, quasar redshifts."

In any case, Arp observes that high-redshift objects are aligned on either side of low-redshift active nucleus galaxies. As distance from the active galaxy increases, the objects decrease in redshift. The objects also tend to increase in brightness and to slow down with distance. He claims this implies that those objects are gaining mass as they age. He claims that at about z = .3 and about 400 kiloparsec from the parent galaxy BL Lac objects appear. They are rare, highly variable, and very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. Some show evidence of star formation, which quasars do not. He says this implies that they are a transition from the compact quasar phase to a galaxy phase. Clusters of galaxies, many of which are strong X-ray sources, tend to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lac's from the parent galaxy. According to Arp, this implies that the clusters are the result of the breaking up of a BL Lac. Clusters of galaxies in the range z = .4 to .2 contain blue, active galaxies. Arp asserts this implies that galaxies continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift. He claims Abell galaxy clusters from z = .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies like Centaurus A and that this implies that they too are the evolved products of the ejections. The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts z = .01 to .02. To Arp, this implies that they are the last stage of the ejection of quasars and their evolution into slightly higher-redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies.

Here's an graphic of his proposed evolution of galaxies:

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Galaxy evolution.jpg
(From "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, 1998)

Dancing David said:
But the redshift correlation appears to hold true for galaxies in general, the farther they are and the higher the red shift
Click to expand...

Don't you remember my posting the case of galaxy NGC 7603 where 3 much smaller, relatively high redshift objects are seen strung along a low redshift plasma filament coming from a similarly low redshift galaxy? Here is a link to an image of that curious alignment:

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred/illustrations/figure_1_b.jpg

Two astronomers wrote several peer reviewed papers (for example, López-Corredoira, Martin and Carlos M. Gutiérrez (2002), “Two Emission Line Objects with z>0.2 in the Optical Filament Apparently Connecting the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 7603 to Its Companion,” Astronomy and Astrophysics) where they concluded, based on Hubble Telescope observations that the three objects are small compact galaxies. I won't dispute that ... afterall, that just makes the Big Bang redshift problem larger than just an inconsistency in the quasar data, like you want folks to believe. Indeed, the two astronomers say the two objects along the filament are highly unusual dwarf HII galaxies whose light characteristics may themselves be suggestive of a non-cosmological explanation for redshift. In addition, they note that the HII galaxy closest to NGC 7603 is "warped towards NGC 7603" and the other has a faint tail that "could indicate that the material in the filament interacts with the galaxies." They state that the probability of the alignment of all three galaxies on the filament is about 3 x 10^^-9. The authors conclude that "everything points to the four objects being connected among themselves". So it would appear the problem is definitely more than just one involving quasars, David. Right? Or do you have an explanation you'd like to offer for this data point? :)

Furthermore, contrary to what you want folks to believe, it's not just a matter of comparing redshifts between QSOs and nearby galaxies or their just being in "proximity" to galaxies. QSO's that are in the vicinity often seem to be unusually aligned with certain features of those galaxies.

For example, the paper at http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2002/33/aah3558/aah3558.html by Arp, et. al. discusses a low redshift (Z = .0028) galaxy, NGC 3628, surrounded by numerous high redshift quasars. NGC 3628 has an active nucleus with HI plumes emerging in both directions on the minor axis sides. The following image

http://www.eitgaastra.nl/pl/f54a.gif

shows the location of some of the quasars relative to the galaxy. According to the above paper, there are three quasars (z = 1.94, 2.43 and 0.408) at the base of the east-north-east plume, coincident with the start of an optical jet. Two more quasars, with z = 2.06 and 1.46, align along what looks to be the opposite side major axis. Three more quasars lie in the southern plume along the minor axis with z = 0.995, 2.15. 1.75. There is candidate quasar called Wee 49 which is the object labeled A near the Z = 1.75 quasar. It has a redshift of Z = 1.70. Both of these lie along a thickening of the plume. According to the paper, Wee 49 lies right at the tip of the southern HI plume. The article concludes "these quasars are not only aligned with the plumes, but positioned along contour nodes. This is strongly indicative of physical association, and implies that these quasars and HI plumes have come out of NGC 3628 in the same physical process." There are also narrow x-ray filaments coming from the galaxy on the minor axis sides. The authors state that the location of the z = 2.15 quasar is at the very tip of one x-ray filament and that alone has a probability of 2 x 10^^-4. The next quasar in toward the nucleus is at z = 0.995 and it is centered on the x-ray filament as well. Notice that at a slightly greater distance on the opposite minor axis side of the galaxy from the Z = 0.995 quasar is a quasar of Z = 0.984. The authors note that "These redshifts are closely matched - a characteristic of many previous pairs of quasars across active galaxies - and demonstrate how unlikely it is that they are unassociated background objects."

Now consider the improbability of so many chance alignments in just the above case. So many quasars clustered around a particular galaxy rather than more uniformly distributed. Alignments with other quasars, with plumes, with optical jets, with x-ray filaments, with the minor axis, and with the major axis. The chance of this just happening by accident has to be very, very small. Yet, Big Bang proponents like David insist that all these alignments are just pure chance, even though Arp and others have provided dozens of similar examples where groups of quasars (and other objects) are aligned with the minor axis of low redshift galaxies or with some other prominent feature of those galaxies.

Even more interesting, it appears the redshift of quasars tends to decrease as one moves out from the core of the galaxies to which they seem to be associated. The Arp and Russel paper has numerous examples of this and I have posted images from a few other cases ... for instance, NGC 7603 and NGC 3628, mentioned above. Here's still another ... six quasars aligned along the minor axis of NGC 3516 with redshifts decreasing as one moves away from the galaxy. Here is a link to a diagram of that case:

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release/illustrations/figure_1.jpg

Yet, Big Bang proponents like David continue to insist that all these alignments are just a matter of pure chance. Time and time again, peer reviewed papers cite extremely low probabilities for these alignments, yet Big Bang cosmologists insist that each is just a chance alignment and that high redshift can only be due to recession at great distance.

And then there is the curious alignment of groups of galaxies (as well as quasars), all at various redshifts and all along an important feature of what would appear to be the major galaxy in the group. Our own Local Group is an example of that.

Here's a 1994 paper by Arp (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...J...430...74A&db_key=AST&high=40f19ad6db11758) that shows an alignment between galaxies. It states that "the two nearest, best-studied groups of galaxies, the Local Group and the M81 group, are analyzed. It is shown that 22 out of 22 major companions have redshifts that are positive with respect to the dominant galaxy. The chance that this can be an accidental configuration of velocities is only one in four million. Investigations of more distant groups, including clusters such as Virgo, show that the smaller galaxies characteristically have systematically positive redshifts with respect to the larger ones. No selection effects or contamination are capable of avoiding this result."

Here's an image of this Local Group alignment

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/051104localgroup.jpg

from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051104localgroup.htm where it is discussed thus: "The Local Group, of which our Milky Way is a member, stretches in a line along the minor axis of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, which is the dominant galaxy in the group. In the image above, the filled circles mark the locations of accepted members. Open circles and plus signs mark the locations of higher-redshift dwarf and spiral galaxies respectively. (Although in other clusters similar dwarfs and spirals are accepted as companions of the larger galaxies, these dwarfs and spirals are excluded because their systematically higher redshifts are too obvious.) Redshifts of several objects are printed beside their names. Long-exposure photographs of this area reveal a cloud of low-luminosity material extending along this line of galaxies and engulfing them. That the higher-redshift galaxies are not “background objects” is shown by their interaction with the cloud: The interacting pair of galaxies, NGC935/IC1801, have a semicircle of brighter material around them. NGC918 has a jet that ends in a bright region of the cloud. The high-redshift radio galaxy, 3C120, is most famous for its “faster-than-light” jet. Astronomers have measured the movements of knots of material in the jet. If the galaxy is located where the redshift-equals-distance theory dictates, the knots would have to be traveling six times the speed of light. But if 3C120 is a member of the Local Group, the knots would be traveling at only four percent of the speed of light. Not shown in the diagram are the line of quasars extending across M33 and the cluster of quasars close around 3C120. In addition, low surface brightness galaxies, with redshifts between .015 and .018, cluster around these two galaxies."

Here's another article, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510654, by different authors that seems to corroborate the existence of this alignment. So far, Big Bang proponents like David have mostly just ignored these observations, probably because they have no logical explanation for them either. Their standard response seems to be that all unlikely alignments in the universe must be coincidence.
 
BeAChooser said:
No miracle needed, David. Just Narlikar's solution to the equation of General Relativity. The one where he did NOT assume mass had to be constant since the moment of creation, unlike what the standard model solution ASSUMED.
Click to expand...

This phrasing is just hilarious. Would you say that plasma cosmologists ASSUME that we can see basically all the mass that exists, and that big bang theorists don't ASSUME that? No, I doubt you would. And yet, even though conservation of mass/energy is far more fundamental to our physical theories and we've never seen a process that violates it (whereas we HAVE found matter that is not visible and is incredibly weakly interacting, ie neutrinos), you think that it's preferable to assume almost all mass is visible but mass/energy are not conserved. Yeah, um... Occam's razor doesn't cut that direction.
 
Ziggurat said:
you think that it's preferable to assume almost all mass is visible but mass/energy are not conserved.
Click to expand...

What makes you think Narlikar's solution violates conservation of mass and energy? One would think that if that were the case, numerous physicists would have pointed that out during peer review of his work. Can you post even one link to such a review? Or is this discovery all yours? ;)
 
BeAChooser said:
What makes you think Narlikar's solution violates conservation of mass and energy?
Click to expand...

You just said it wasn't. Do you not even understand the meaning of your own words? But let's refer to Narlikar himself:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...478&md5=cccd8f386cc7084820503c902c574b4e#toc6
"As shown by Hoyle et al. [20], the theory [by Hoyle and Narlikar] permits broken particle world lines, i.e., creation and destruction of matter."

One would think that if that were the case, numerous physicists would have pointed that out during peer review of his work.
Click to expand...

He pointed it out himself.
 
BeAChooser said:
No miracle needed, David. Just Narlikar's solution to the equation of General Relativity. The one where he did NOT assume mass had to be constant since the moment of creation, unlike what the standard model solution ASSUMED. You remember me posting about that, don't you? You know who he is, don't you? Or did you just make no effort whatsoever to read and understand it? Arp's theories are perfectly in line with Narlikar's solution ... which allow for matter creation, the gaining of mass by created matter and high redshifts that gradually decrease.

Here's a source expanding on Arp's theory, which David so quickly dismisses: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...J...496..661A&db_key=AST&high=3f8faa7acf02026 "The Origin of Companion Galaxies, by Halton Arp, Astrophysical Journal v.496, p.661, 1998 "Evidence that companion galaxies are located along the minor axes of large disk galaxies is reviewed. It is reported here that quasars also tend to be preferentially aligned along the minor axes of active disk galaxies. Empirically there is a continuity of physical properties which suggests that the intrinsic redshifts of quasars decay as they evolve into more normal galaxies. The coincident alignment of companion galaxies plus their systematically higher redshifts then both become confirmation of their evolution from quasars which have been previously ejected along the minor axes of active spiral galaxies. The quantization of the redshifts of companions also supports their evolutionary origin from the quantized, intrinsic, quasar redshifts."

In any case, Arp observes that high-redshift objects are aligned on either side of low-redshift active nucleus galaxies. As distance from the active galaxy increases, the objects decrease in redshift. The objects also tend to increase in brightness and to slow down with distance. He claims this implies that those objects are gaining mass as they age. He claims that at about z = .3 and about 400 kiloparsec from the parent galaxy BL Lac objects appear. They are rare, highly variable, and very bright in optical and X-ray luminosity. Some show evidence of star formation, which quasars do not. He says this implies that they are a transition from the compact quasar phase to a galaxy phase. Clusters of galaxies, many of which are strong X-ray sources, tend to appear at comparable distances to the BL Lac's from the parent galaxy. According to Arp, this implies that the clusters are the result of the breaking up of a BL Lac. Clusters of galaxies in the range z = .4 to .2 contain blue, active galaxies. Arp asserts this implies that galaxies continue to evolve to higher luminosity and lower redshift. He claims Abell galaxy clusters from z = .01 to .2 lie along ejection lines from galaxies like Centaurus A and that this implies that they too are the evolved products of the ejections. The strings of galaxies which are aligned through the brightest nearby spirals have redshifts z = .01 to .02. To Arp, this implies that they are the last stage of the ejection of quasars and their evolution into slightly higher-redshift companions of the original ejecting galaxies.

Here's an graphic of his proposed evolution of galaxies:

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Galaxy evolution.jpg
(From "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp, 1998)



Don't you remember my posting the case of galaxy NGC 7603 where 3 much smaller, relatively high redshift objects are seen strung along a low redshift plasma filament coming from a similarly low redshift galaxy? Here is a link to an image of that curious alignment:

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred/illustrations/figure_1_b.jpg

Two astronomers wrote several peer reviewed papers (for example, López-Corredoira, Martin and Carlos M. Gutiérrez (2002), “Two Emission Line Objects with z>0.2 in the Optical Filament Apparently Connecting the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 7603 to Its Companion,” Astronomy and Astrophysics) where they concluded, based on Hubble Telescope observations that the three objects are small compact galaxies. I won't dispute that ... afterall, that just makes the Big Bang redshift problem larger than just an inconsistency in the quasar data, like you want folks to believe. Indeed, the two astronomers say the two objects along the filament are highly unusual dwarf HII galaxies whose light characteristics may themselves be suggestive of a non-cosmological explanation for redshift. In addition, they note that the HII galaxy closest to NGC 7603 is "warped towards NGC 7603" and the other has a faint tail that "could indicate that the material in the filament interacts with the galaxies." They state that the probability of the alignment of all three galaxies on the filament is about 3 x 10^^-9. The authors conclude that "everything points to the four objects being connected among themselves". So it would appear the problem is definitely more than just one involving quasars, David. Right? Or do you have an explanation you'd like to offer for this data point? :)

Furthermore, contrary to what you want folks to believe, it's not just a matter of comparing redshifts between QSOs and nearby galaxies or their just being in "proximity" to galaxies. QSO's that are in the vicinity often seem to be unusually aligned with certain features of those galaxies.

For example, the paper at http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...articles/aa/full/2002/33/aah3558/aah3558.html by Arp, et. al. discusses a low redshift (Z = .0028) galaxy, NGC 3628, surrounded by numerous high redshift quasars. NGC 3628 has an active nucleus with HI plumes emerging in both directions on the minor axis sides. The following image

http://www.eitgaastra.nl/pl/f54a.gif

shows the location of some of the quasars relative to the galaxy. According to the above paper, there are three quasars (z = 1.94, 2.43 and 0.408) at the base of the east-north-east plume, coincident with the start of an optical jet. Two more quasars, with z = 2.06 and 1.46, align along what looks to be the opposite side major axis. Three more quasars lie in the southern plume along the minor axis with z = 0.995, 2.15. 1.75. There is candidate quasar called Wee 49 which is the object labeled A near the Z = 1.75 quasar. It has a redshift of Z = 1.70. Both of these lie along a thickening of the plume. According to the paper, Wee 49 lies right at the tip of the southern HI plume. The article concludes "these quasars are not only aligned with the plumes, but positioned along contour nodes. This is strongly indicative of physical association, and implies that these quasars and HI plumes have come out of NGC 3628 in the same physical process." There are also narrow x-ray filaments coming from the galaxy on the minor axis sides. The authors state that the location of the z = 2.15 quasar is at the very tip of one x-ray filament and that alone has a probability of 2 x 10^^-4. The next quasar in toward the nucleus is at z = 0.995 and it is centered on the x-ray filament as well. Notice that at a slightly greater distance on the opposite minor axis side of the galaxy from the Z = 0.995 quasar is a quasar of Z = 0.984. The authors note that "These redshifts are closely matched - a characteristic of many previous pairs of quasars across active galaxies - and demonstrate how unlikely it is that they are unassociated background objects."

Now consider the improbability of so many chance alignments in just the above case. So many quasars clustered around a particular galaxy rather than more uniformly distributed. Alignments with other quasars, with plumes, with optical jets, with x-ray filaments, with the minor axis, and with the major axis. The chance of this just happening by accident has to be very, very small. Yet, Big Bang proponents like David insist that all these alignments are just pure chance, even though Arp and others have provided dozens of similar examples where groups of quasars (and other objects) are aligned with the minor axis of low redshift galaxies or with some other prominent feature of those galaxies.

Even more interesting, it appears the redshift of quasars tends to decrease as one moves out from the core of the galaxies to which they seem to be associated. The Arp and Russel paper has numerous examples of this and I have posted images from a few other cases ... for instance, NGC 7603 and NGC 3628, mentioned above. Here's still another ... six quasars aligned along the minor axis of NGC 3516 with redshifts decreasing as one moves away from the galaxy. Here is a link to a diagram of that case:

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/astronomy_by_press_release/illustrations/figure_1.jpg

Yet, Big Bang proponents like David continue to insist that all these alignments are just a matter of pure chance. Time and time again, peer reviewed papers cite extremely low probabilities for these alignments, yet Big Bang cosmologists insist that each is just a chance alignment and that high redshift can only be due to recession at great distance.

And then there is the curious alignment of groups of galaxies (as well as quasars), all at various redshifts and all along an important feature of what would appear to be the major galaxy in the group. Our own Local Group is an example of that.

Here's a 1994 paper by Arp (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/n...J...430...74A&db_key=AST&high=40f19ad6db11758) that shows an alignment between galaxies. It states that "the two nearest, best-studied groups of galaxies, the Local Group and the M81 group, are analyzed. It is shown that 22 out of 22 major companions have redshifts that are positive with respect to the dominant galaxy. The chance that this can be an accidental configuration of velocities is only one in four million. Investigations of more distant groups, including clusters such as Virgo, show that the smaller galaxies characteristically have systematically positive redshifts with respect to the larger ones. No selection effects or contamination are capable of avoiding this result."

Here's an image of this Local Group alignment

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/051104localgroup.jpg

from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051104localgroup.htm where it is discussed thus: "The Local Group, of which our Milky Way is a member, stretches in a line along the minor axis of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, which is the dominant galaxy in the group. In the image above, the filled circles mark the locations of accepted members. Open circles and plus signs mark the locations of higher-redshift dwarf and spiral galaxies respectively. (Although in other clusters similar dwarfs and spirals are accepted as companions of the larger galaxies, these dwarfs and spirals are excluded because their systematically higher redshifts are too obvious.) Redshifts of several objects are printed beside their names. Long-exposure photographs of this area reveal a cloud of low-luminosity material extending along this line of galaxies and engulfing them. That the higher-redshift galaxies are not “background objects” is shown by their interaction with the cloud: The interacting pair of galaxies, NGC935/IC1801, have a semicircle of brighter material around them. NGC918 has a jet that ends in a bright region of the cloud. The high-redshift radio galaxy, 3C120, is most famous for its “faster-than-light” jet. Astronomers have measured the movements of knots of material in the jet. If the galaxy is located where the redshift-equals-distance theory dictates, the knots would have to be traveling six times the speed of light. But if 3C120 is a member of the Local Group, the knots would be traveling at only four percent of the speed of light. Not shown in the diagram are the line of quasars extending across M33 and the cluster of quasars close around 3C120. In addition, low surface brightness galaxies, with redshifts between .015 and .018, cluster around these two galaxies."

Here's another article, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510654, by different authors that seems to corroborate the existence of this alignment. So far, Big Bang proponents like David have mostly just ignored these observations, probably because they have no logical explanation for them either. Their standard response seems to be that all unlikely alignments in the universe must be coincidence.
Click to expand...


Ah ever the distracting spinner BAC, if you would try to answer a direct question you might actually participate in a discussion. You also grossly mischaracterise me, i am trying to understand these models and that is why I ask questions. i will break down my arguement so you might understand it, or most likely ignore it.


Have you addressed the sampling error issue in the thread specifically started to discuss it?


Here is the argument i am outlining:

1. The distance to galaxies is approximated by luminosity of variable stars.

2. Hubble and coworker notice that there is an apparent correlation between distance and observed red shift of spectral lines.

3. Halton Arp makes the suggestion that redshift is not correlated to distance and that some objects may have a redshift that is not related to distance.

This suggests the following possibilities:

A. All redshifts are not correlated with distance.
B. Some redshifts are correlated with distance.
C. All redshifts are correlated with distance.

Now A. is the standard model, although there are some exceptions to this broad categorization.

Where would you say that Arp falls on the other two BAC?

Simple question.
 
Ziggurat said:
He pointed it out himself.
Click to expand...

Actually no, he didn't. You just erroneously inferred something from some *sloppy* language. But here is Narlikar being more *precise*.

In his 1992 book (http://books.google.com/books?id=9w...Zdh46-Oas_eSKm7MyG8rzuhHo&hl=en#PRA1-PA327,M1 ), "An Introduction to Cosmology he notes "In the C-field model not only is the spacetime singularity at t=0 averted but also we see the present matter is arising from a primordial explosion that conserves energy and momentum. This conservation of energy and momentum must follow quite generally, for any C-field model, since the governing equations are derived from the action principle. Hence criticism based on the unexplained origin of new matter, which could validly be applied to the explosive creation of the standard cosmology or to the continuous creation in the Bondi-Gold version of the steady-state model, does not apply to the C-field cosmology."

And here's a quote from his more recent 2006 book (http://books.google.com/books?id=VX...sig=fmF_Ts115k9X24K-PLk-ubZDJFI&hl=en#PPA2,M1 ) "Current Issues in Cosmology, by Jean Claude Pecker, Jayant Vishnu Narlikar: "Following Ambartsumian's ideas, Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and I felt that a quantitative expression can be given to them in terms of the gravitational theory developed by Hoyle and I in 1964-1966, based on Mach's principle (see Hoyle and Narlikar 1964, 1966), suitably extended to describe the creation of matter. Such a theory ultimately leads to equations like those of general relativity, together with (1) a negative cosmological constant and (2) a scalar field of negative energy and stresses to describe the creation of matter. In the usual notation these are given below: (BAC - see equation in source). Here C is a scalar field of negative energy and pressure that describes the creation of new matter. (In standard cosmology, the space-time singularity denotes the instant when the whole Universe was created: Since the event is singular, one is permitted (?) to ignore the violation of the law of conservation of energy and momentum.) The new matter in the QSSC appears at the expense of the C-field. Thus there is overall conservation of energy and momentum in the Universe."

And those statements are no different than what he was saying back in 1984 (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...servation+of+energy"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us ).

So based on these facts, I'd have to think you don't know a whole lot about Narlikar and Hoyle's theory .. and suggest that it might be the standard cosmology that actually violates conservation of energy. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom