Visible to eye? 7.5 billion LYA!

iantresman said:
.
I think it's quite a valid point in the context of the vast scale of the Universe. Was my gravity comparison unfair?
Click to expand...
Whip out those EM forces between the two stars and then you can say if it has meaning.
I said dig at 'gravity', perhaps that does not translate well from Americanese into your English (the mother tounge came from your end). So if you take pot shots at gravity and make no attempt to compare it to anything, it the sort of thing that will bring down the slurs, which you might or might not wish to have slung.
.
I quoted Alfvén as saying that a 1% ionized gas may be treated as fully ionized;
Click to expand...
As I recall Ian, that is not what Alfven said at all, there was a condition on that staement was there not?
the ionosphere is a partially ionized plasmas at a degree of ionization of around 2x10-3(Ref)

And if you find some over-generalization and overstatement on my Web site, I would be happy for you to bring them to my attention, and will take them into consideration (as I have done so already).
Click to expand...


You just made an overgenralization again, there was a conditional clause on the quote from Alfven, you are seemingly mis-stating his statement.

And again you keep ignoring certain things, like the charge and velocity of the particles in the plasma, that have a very important impact upon the meanings of the word.

So if fact you did not read about electron density and collision ratios as one of the descriptors of plasmas? have you amended any references to Alfven statement that the EM forces dominate when the charge and velocity are above certain parameters or do you still misquote him?

Sorry , I should put a bunch of these :) :) :)

I don't mean to get snarky.

And you web site it states on the front page "99.999% of the universe" is plasma, but then when you go to your citation for it, it is a reference to an estimate and not the actual citation, so that is bad form for a reference and perhaps the subtitle of Sec. 3 should read "Estimates say that the universe is 99.99% plasma."


here is Alfven, from a post of yours.
It must then be observed that due to the large effective cross-section for collisions between charged particles, such collisions can be dominant even at a relatively low degree of ionization. Thus, as far as collision processes are concerned, plasmas with degrees of ionization larger than 1 per cent are to be considered as highly ionized."
Click to expand...

This is what you said right here:

"I quoted Alfvén as saying that a 1% ionized gas may be treated as fully ionized"

No he said that you may treat it as fully ionised in terms of the collision processes. Which I take to mean the mechanical bumping of particles as opposed to the EM scattering and magnetic effects of a plasma.
 
Last edited:
I see the 'electric universe' evangelizing has continued in my absence. I am not surprised.

Really, it's not so much I mind the theory, I just wish it could be contained to one thread discussing its merits and drawbacks as opposed to being dropped into practically every thread dealing with astronomy and cosmology. Might I be able to read one astronomy/cosmology thread in here where BAC or someone else doesn't feel compelled to spread their EU beliefs?
 
Last edited:
This event could have potentially wiped out numerous life supporting planets like earth?

Or is 7.5 billion years to early in the universe for life conditions?
 
Last edited:
schlitt said:
This event could have potentially wiped out numerous life supporting planets like earth?

Or is 7.5 billion years to early in the universe for life conditions?
Click to expand...

That is a great question, and while ponderable, probably not answerable, I think the current best guess is that it took the earth 4-3.5 billion years to develop life. So maybe, maybe not?
 
Corsair 115 said:
I see the 'electric universe' evangelizing has continued in my absence. I am not surprised.

Really, it's not so much I mind the theory, I just wish it could be contained to one thread discussing its merits and drawbacks as opposed to being dropped into practically every thread dealing with astronomy and cosmology. Might I be able to read one astronomy/cosmology thread in here where BAC or someone else doesn't feel compelled to spread their EU beliefs?
Click to expand...


Sorry, Corsair, I will have to start splitting my responses, to help prevent my derailing of my own thread.
 
Dancing David said:
Whip out those EM forces between the two stars and then you can say if it has meaning.
I said dig at 'gravity', perhaps that does not translate well from Americanese into your English (the mother tounge came from your end). So if you take pot shots at gravity and make no attempt to compare it to anything, it the sort of thing that will bring down the slurs, which you might or might not wish to have slung.
Click to expand...
.
I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I made a valid analogy of scale, and of course mentioned gravity which any textbook will tell you is important, and hopefully is valid with my analogy too. I did omit any mention of dark matter. But if anyone else had suggested there same analogy, I'm sure there would have been no complaint.

Dancing David said:
As I recall Ian, that is not what Alfven said at all, there was a condition on that statement was there not?

You just made an overgenralization again, there was a conditional clause on the quote from Alfven, you are seemingly mis-stating his statement.
Click to expand...
.
Indeed, which is why I emphasized that it may, which implies certain conditions.

Dancing David said:
And you web site it states on the front page "99.999% of the universe" is plasma, but then when you go to your citation for it, it is a reference to an estimate and not the actual citation, so that is bad form for a reference and perhaps the subtitle of Sec. 3 should read "Estimates say that the universe is 99.99% plasma."
Click to expand...
.
If you mean the link in box 2 "Where is plasma?" where it says "The visible Universe is 99.999% plasma", the yes, the link goes to a page with a dozen citations with this in context. Some of these are given as "statements of fact", and some say it is an estimate. In this instance, I am happy with the generalization and subsequent page of context. But thank you for highlighting it.
 
schlitt said:
This event could have potentially wiped out numerous life supporting planets like earth?

Or is 7.5 billion years to early in the universe for life conditions?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but you seem to be asking slightly the wrong question. The event happened 7.5 billion light years away meaning it happened 7.5 billion years ago (since we're only just seeing it). Current consesus, I believe, is that the Universe is ~13.7 billion years old. Hence the appropriate question should be "Is 6.2 billion years too early in the universe for life conditions"?

Dancing David said:
That is a great question, and while ponderable, probably not answerable, I think the current best guess is that it took the earth 4-3.5 billion years to develop life. So maybe, maybe not?
Click to expand...
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but I believe there were signs of life after around a billion years. (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php)

Having said this. The big bang nucleosynthesis phase produced almost exclusively hydrogen and helium. Thus to get an environment with more useful things for life like carbon and oxygen one would have to have at least one round of stellar nucleosynthesis.
Having said this, big stars have much shorter lives than smaller mass stars, so thats not impossible in the available time frame to the best of my knowledge.
I'm sure there's lots of other important factors I haven't considered. Can anyone add anything to the debate?
 
Dancing David said:
here is Alfven, from a post of yours.
Dancing David said:
It must then be observed that due to the large effective cross-section for collisions between charged particles, such collisions can be dominant even at a relatively low degree of ionization. Thus, as far as collision processes are concerned, plasmas with degrees of ionization larger than 1 per cent are to be considered as highly ionized."
Click to expand...

This is what you said right here:

"I quoted Alfvén as saying that a 1% ionized gas may be treated as fully ionized"

No he said that you may treat it as fully ionised in terms of the collision processes. Which I take to mean the mechanical bumping of particles as opposed to the EM scattering and magnetic effects of a plasma.
Click to expand...
.
This is my understanding. There are two types of collision in a partially ionized gas/plasma; (1) Collision of charged particles with charged particles (2) Collision of charged particles with neutrals. The latter is what I think you would call "mechanical" collisions, whereas ion collisions are what you are describing as EM..., which I think are called Coulomb collisions due to Coulomb's Law.

By saying that 1% ionized gas can be treated as a fully-ionized plasma, I think Alfvén is saying that Coulomb collisions dominate. I note that:

"Collisions between charged particles in a plasma differ fundamentally from those between molecules in a neutral gas because of the long range of the Coulomb force." -- Richard Fitzpatrick1, Introduction to Plasma Physics: A graduate level course, "Collisionality"​
.
Or a better clarification:
".. Coulomb collisions will dominate over collisions with neutrals in any plasma that is even just a few percent ionized. Only if the ionization level is very low (<10-3) can neutral collisions dominate." -- Robert J. Goldston, Paul Harding Rutherford, Introduction to Plasma Physics, "Fully and Partially Ionized Plasmas" (page 164)​
 
iantresman said:
.
I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I made a valid analogy of scale, and of course mentioned gravity which any textbook will tell you is important, and hopefully is valid with my analogy too. I did omit any mention of dark matter. But if anyone else had suggested there same analogy, I'm sure there would have been no complaint.


.
Indeed, which is why I emphasized that it may, which implies certain conditions.
Click to expand...
The point I am making is that the condition is regards the collision, which is a normal gas effect, not a normal plasma effect?


So the condition is, for the ways that plasma acts like an unionised gas, a 1% ionization is highly ionised?
.
If you mean the link in box 2 "Where is plasma?" where it says "The visible Universe is 99.999% plasma", the yes, the link goes to a page with a dozen citations with this in context. Some of these are given as "statements of fact", and some say it is an estimate. In this instance, I am happy with the generalization and subsequent page of context. But thank you for highlighting it.
Click to expand...

Whatever, cool by me, cool by you. i was responding to the first section and the plasma page where you make that statement and then don't directly reference it.
 
Last edited:
iantresman said:
.
This is my understanding. There are two types of collision in a partially ionized gas/plasma; (1) Collision of charged particles with charged particles (2) Collision of charged particles with neutrals. The latter is what I think you would call "mechanical" collisions, whereas ion collisions are what you are describing as EM..., which I think are called Coulomb collisions due to Coulomb's Law.

By saying that 1% ionized gas can be treated as a fully-ionized plasma, I think Alfvén is saying that Coulomb collisions dominate. I note that:

"Collisions between charged particles in a plasma differ fundamentally from those between molecules in a neutral gas because of the long range of the Coulomb force." -- Richard Fitzpatrick1, Introduction to Plasma Physics: A graduate level course, "Collisionality"​
.
Or a better clarification:
".. Coulomb collisions will dominate over collisions with neutrals in any plasma that is even just a few percent ionized. Only if the ionization level is very low (<10-3) can neutral collisions dominate." -- Robert J. Goldston, Paul Harding Rutherford, Introduction to Plasma Physics, "Fully and Partially Ionized Plasmas" (page 164)​
Click to expand...

okay , that would make a lot more sense, i have barely gotten into it, the stuff I did read was pointing out different paparmeters for the defintions of plasma, and collision was used in a different sense.

If that is the context to which Alfven put it, that would make sense, especially due to the Coulomb effects.
 
Last edited:
Tubbythin said:
I don't know, but you seem to be asking slightly the wrong question. The event happened 7.5 billion light years away meaning it happened 7.5 billion years ago (since we're only just seeing it). Current consesus, I believe, is that the Universe is ~13.7 billion years old. Hence the appropriate question should be "Is 6.2 billion years too early in the universe for life conditions"?
Click to expand...

I was actually taking that into account, by way of star/planet formation, elements required for life etc. Was the universe in a sufficient state 7.5 billion years ago to have had the necessary time required prior to this event for all elements required for a life supporting planet such as earth?
 
schlitt said:
I was actually taking that into account, by way of star/planet formation, elements required for life etc. Was the universe in a sufficient state 7.5 billion years ago to have had the necessary time required prior to this event for all elements required for a life supporting planet such as earth?
Click to expand...

I see. The original question didn't have the "ago" in it. Hence the misunderstanding.
 
Reality Check said:
Then why bother with his theory? If it cannot give the distance of "certain types of objects" then what use is it?
Click to expand...

So now the litmus test of a cosmological theory is whether it tells one the distance to objects? Saying "I don't know" is to not allowed in mainstream thinking? Maybe that's why they find it necessary to invent gnome after gnome. Because they don't feel comfortable just saying "I don't know". :D

Reality Check said:
As I said there are various theories to explain these observations.
Click to expand...

Again, you haven't offered any theories to explain them. You haven't linked us to any peer reviewed papers explaining them. You haven't quoted any published article in scientific magazines. You are just waving your hands hoping the observations they will go away.

Reality Check said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The very notion of an expanding universe came about because redshifts seem to suggest one ... one where everything must have had an initial origin back in time. ... snip ...

Have you ever heard of Hubble and his constant? The experimental results started with his paper in 1929 after he worked for a decade when a steady state universe was accepted. He fit a straight line to the data without Big Bang cosmology.
Click to expand...

That's not a correct rendition of history, RC. Vesto Slipher started measuring the Doppler shift of galaxies about 1910, although at the time he didn't know that's what they were ... he called them nebula. Almost all of the objects showed a redshift which suggested the objects were collectively moving away from us. That is where matters stood until 1922 when Friedmann derived equations from Einstein's theory of General Relativity that suggested the universe should either be expanding or collapsing. In 1924, Hubble measured the distance to the nearest spiral "nebula" and showed that they weren't nebula at all, but other galaxies filled with stars just like the Milky Way. In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently derived Friedmann's equations and for the first time, it was concluded in a paper that the recession of the objects was due to the expansion "of the universe". His model included a redshift/distance relationship similar to that which in 1929 Hubble and Humason obtained by fitting a line through the observational data that had been collected so far. However, it wasn't until 1931 that Lemaître actually published a paper suggesting that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom" or "cosmic egg". Therefore, one might consider 1931 as the real birthdate of the *Big Bang* theory, in which case, redshifts are "one of the foundations of the Big Bang cosmology". Like I said. And if the redshift/distance formula doesn't actually hold for many objects ... :)

Reality Check said:
The paper has z intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1 so:
• Paper: z = 0.258, 0.57, 1.01, 1.64, 2.74
• You: z = 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96
To my mind that is really different.
Click to expand...

Actually, the paper does mention the sequence might start at z=0.062. So let's line them up again with that in mind.

Harnett's Paper:

z = 0.06, 0.26, 0.57, 1.01, 1.64, 2.74

Burbidge and Napier (2000) /Karlsson/Arp:

z = 0.06, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96

Sorry but that doesn't look all that different considering all the possible factors that might cause a difference. You know that there are uncertainties in any given calculation of this sort, especially as you go farther out.

How about we add some further data by another author:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411548 "Intrinsically faint quasars: evidence for meV axion dark matter in the Universe, Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, November 18, 2004 ... snip ... Growing amount of observations indicate presence of intrinsically faint quasar subgroup (a few % of known quasars) with noncosmological quantized redshift. Here we find an analytical solution of Einstein equations describing bubbles made from axions with periodic interaction potential. Such particles are currently considered as one of the leading dark matter candidate. The bubble interior possesses equal gravitational redshift which can have any value between zero and infinity. Quantum pressure supports the bubble against collapse and yields states stable on the scale more then hundreds million years. Our results explain the observed quantization of quasar redshift and suggest that intrinsically faint point-like quasars associated with nearby galaxies are axionic bubbles ... snip ... . They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space. Properties of such quasars unambiguously indicate presence of axion dark matter in the Universe and yield the axion mass m ? 1 meV, which fits in the open axion mass window constrained by astrophysical and cosmological arguments." This source lists quantization at:

z = X.XX, 0.36, 0.63, 0.96, 1.40, 2.06

That again seems to line up relatively well.

Also, are you aware (http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part5/4.html ) that "there is a difference between radio quasars redshifts in the Right Ascension = 0 hour region (peaks at .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96) relative to the Right Ascension = 12 hour region (peaks at .34, .65, 1.02, 1.48, 2.05)29." That might explain some of the variation too.

What a coincidence that the redshifts in all the examples of curious alignments I listed or quasars in front of low redshift galaxies or the bullet cluster case just happen to have redshifts near one of these peaks. Just a coincidence. Right? :rolleyes:

Reality Check said:
These five overdense regions lying in a narrow redshift range indicate the presence of a supercluster in this field
Click to expand...

That speculation is perhaps another gnome. Do you have any confirmation that all 5 objects are part of a supercluster? How many foreground and background objects are there in the field? And do all the supercluster members have a redshift within 0.01 of the others?

Reality Check said:
Overall, we show that the properties of this supercluster are similar to the well-studied Shapley and Hercules superclusters at lower redshift
Click to expand...

Well let's look at the spread of redshifts in the Shapely supercluster which has somewhat over 700 members. Here's a source (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903028 ) with histograms of redshifts for the Shapely cluster and in the direction of that supercluster. Note that three quarters of them have velocities in the range 7580 to 18300 kms (where 18300 km/s corresponds to z of about 0.061) and the rest are outside that range. So that means that three quarters of the members have z ranging from 0.025 to 0.061. So what are the odds that if you picked 5 of them at random you'd end up with all 5 being within 0.01? Pretty slim? That source also notes that there is a foreground wall of 269 galaxies with quite different redshifts (z = 0.067 to 0.02). What are the odds that one of them wouldn't be picked randomly in a sample of 5? I think you are hand waving, RC.

And you might find this interesting:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qt7454133824p423/ "On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity, K.*Bajan, P.*Flin, W.*Godlowski, and V.*N.*Pervushin, 2006, ... snip ... We conclude that galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist." That reference has a histogram of radial velocities for the Hercules cluster. Again, we see that z has a very large range ... far more than 0.01. :D

Reality Check said:
Remember that 30 Mpc is smaller than the Local Group.]
Click to expand...

Let's look at redshifts in the Local Group. It consists of about 30 galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy is one of them. And guess what? It's moving towards us at about 50 km/s. Wonder what the rest are doing? :)
 
BeAChooser said:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411548 "Intrinsically faint quasars: evidence for meV axion dark matter in the Universe, Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, November 18, 2004 ... snip ... Growing amount of observations indicate presence of intrinsically faint quasar subgroup (a few % of known quasars) with noncosmological quantized redshift. Here we find an analytical solution of Einstein equations describing bubbles made from axions with periodic interaction potential. Such particles are currently considered as one of the leading dark matter candidate. The bubble interior possesses equal gravitational redshift which can have any value between zero and infinity. Quantum pressure supports the bubble against collapse and yields states stable on the scale more then hundreds million years. Our results explain the observed quantization of quasar redshift and suggest that intrinsically faint point-like quasars associated with nearby galaxies are axionic bubbles ... snip ... . They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space. Properties of such quasars unambiguously indicate presence of axion dark matter in the Universe and yield the axion mass m ? 1 meV, which fits in the open axion mass window constrained by astrophysical and cosmological arguments."
Click to expand...

Really!

And what to my wondering eyes should appear but BAC waving around the chameleon dark matter particle, with it's cute little red hat and everything.

Evidently a gnome that supports your theory is a gnome you can trust!

'unambiguously', wow i wonder how ambiguous that data is? So if it supports a QSO ejection theory it is a gnome that BAC will have a drink with.

Amazing, is it April 1st?
 
Last edited:
Dancing David said:
And what to my wondering eyes should appear but BAC waving around the chameleon dark matter particle, with it's cute little red hat and everything.
Click to expand...

Now David, you don't really expect Big Bang supporters to give up on dark matter (you being an example).

Did you notice this though? They said "They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space." Is that matter creation post Big Bang they are talking about, David? My goodness! And if they were wrong about that being impossible (I'd be willing to bet at some point they were saying just what you Big Bang supporters on this thread have been saying ... that it's impossible), perhaps they are also wrong as to the nature of what's been created and ejected. Maybe that's just ordinary matter doing what Narlikar and Hoyle predicted ordinary matter would do when they solved the equation of GR without assuming all mass was created in the beginning. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
So now the litmus test of a cosmological theory is whether it tells one the distance to objects? Saying "I don't know" is to not allowed in mainstream thinking? Maybe that's why they find it necessary to invent gnome after gnome. Because they don't feel comfortable just saying "I don't know". :D
Click to expand...
No it is not the litmus test. We are only talking about the use of red-shifts to measure distances. Arp states that certain objects are do not obey Hubble's law, provides a theory to explain it and cannot do the calculations (according to you). This means that as far as red-shifts are concerned his theory is useless. His theory may have applications in other areas.

BeAChooser said:
Again, you haven't offered any theories to explain them. You haven't linked us to any peer reviewed papers explaining them. You haven't quoted any published article in scientific magazines. You are just waving your hands hoping the observations they will go away.
Click to expand...
Dark matter (see the paper you cite below).

BeAChooser said:
Actually, the paper does mention the sequence might start at z=0.062. So let's line them up again with that in mind.
Harnett's Paper:
z = 0.06, 0.26, 0.57, 1.01, 1.64, 2.74
Burbidge and Napier (2000) /Karlsson/Arp:
z = 0.06, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96
...
Click to expand...
From the paper:
Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20 of 0.062.​
Click to expand...
So there is no "might start at z=0.062". The first number is 4 times that. There may be some reason why the integer multiples do not include 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, etc. But until an analysis reveals that reason there is no z = 0.06 in their results.

BeAChooser said:
Also, are you aware (http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part5/4.html ) that "there is a difference between radio quasars redshifts in the Right Ascension = 0 hour region (peaks at .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96) relative to the Right Ascension = 12 hour region (peaks at .34, .65, 1.02, 1.48, 2.05)29." That might explain some of the variation too.
Click to expand...
What no peak at z = 0.06? :D

BeAChooser said:
What a coincidence that the redshifts in all the examples of curious alignments I listed or quasars in front of low redshift galaxies or the bullet cluster case just happen to have redshifts near one of these peaks. Just a coincidence. Right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Probably.

BeAChooser said:
That speculation is perhaps another gnome. Do you have any confirmation that all 5 objects are part of a supercluster? How many foreground and background objects are there in the field? And do all the supercluster members have a redshift within 0.01 of the others?
Click to expand...
I do not - that is the conclusion of the paper.

BeAChooser said:
Well let's look at the spread of redshifts in the Shapely supercluster which has somewhat over 700 members. Here's a source (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903028 ) with histograms of redshifts for the Shapely cluster and in the direction of that supercluster. Note that three quarters of them have velocities in the range 7580 to 18300 kms (where 18300 km/s corresponds to z of about 0.061) and the rest are outside that range. So that means that three quarters of the members have z ranging from 0.025 to 0.061. So what are the odds that if you picked 5 of them at random you'd end up with all 5 being within 0.01? Pretty slim? That source also notes that there is a foreground wall of 269 galaxies with quite different redshifts (z = 0.067 to 0.02). What are the odds that one of them wouldn't be picked randomly in a sample of 5? I think you are hand waving, RC.
Click to expand...
Perhaps you should send this to the other paper's authors?

BeAChooser said:
How about we add some further data by another author:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411548 "Intrinsically faint quasars: evidence for meV axion dark matter in the Universe, Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, November 18, 2004 ... snip ... Growing amount of observations indicate presence of intrinsically faint quasar subgroup (a few % of known quasars) with noncosmological quantized redshift.
Click to expand...
Now you are are quoting a paper supporting dark matter!
I take you now are either going to drop red-shift quantization or support dark matter.

Seriously - now that we know that dark matter can explain red-shift quantization then every paper that you quote supporting red-shift quantization is also a support for dark matter.


BeAChooser said:
And you might find this interesting:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qt7454133824p423/ "On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity, K.*Bajan, P.*Flin, W.*Godlowski, and V.*N.*Pervushin, 2006, ... snip ... We conclude that galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist." That reference has a histogram of radial velocities for the Hercules cluster. Again, we see that z has a very large range ... far more than 0.01. :D
Click to expand...
That is nice - more proof of dark matter!


BeAChooser said:
Let's look at redshifts in the Local Group. It consists of about 30 galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy is one of them. And guess what? It's moving towards us at about 50 km/s. Wonder what the rest are doing? :)
Click to expand...


Galaxies in clusters are affected by the other galaxies more than the expansion of the universe.
 
BeAChooser said:
Now David, you don't really expect Big Bang supporters to give up on dark matter (you being an example).

Did you notice this though? They said "They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space." Is that matter creation post Big Bang they are talking about, David? My goodness! And if they were wrong about that being impossible (I'd be willing to bet at some point they were saying just what you Big Bang supporters on this thread have been saying ... that it's impossible), perhaps they are also wrong as to the nature of what's been created and ejected. Maybe that's just ordinary matter doing what Narlikar and Hoyle predicted ordinary matter would do when they solved the equation of GR without assuming all mass was created in the beginning. :D
Click to expand...

Actually the authors reference Arp as the source for that statement.
 
BeAChooser said:
So now the litmus test of a cosmological theory is whether it tells one the distance to objects? Saying "I don't know" is to not allowed in mainstream thinking? Maybe that's why they find it necessary to invent gnome after gnome. Because they don't feel comfortable just saying "I don't know". :D
Click to expand...
I know a hell of a lot of cosmologists, and I can assure you that they are extremely good at saying "I don't know".
 
BeAChooser said:
Now David, you don't really expect Big Bang supporters to give up on dark matter (you being an example).

Did you notice this though? They said "They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space." Is that matter creation post Big Bang they are talking about, David? My goodness! And if they were wrong about that being impossible (I'd be willing to bet at some point they were saying just what you Big Bang supporters on this thread have been saying ... that it's impossible), perhaps they are also wrong as to the nature of what's been created and ejected. Maybe that's just ordinary matter doing what Narlikar and Hoyle predicted ordinary matter would do when they solved the equation of GR without assuming all mass was created in the beginning. :D
Click to expand...


Arm waving noted. Your are speculating again, so when 'dark matter' supports your hypothesis it is 'good' dark matter?
 
Reality Check said:
Arp states that certain objects are do not obey Hubble's law, provides a theory to explain it and cannot do the calculations (according to you).
Click to expand...

Arp hasn't claimed to be able to tell you the real distance to every object in the universe, RC. Only the mainstream has made that claim. Arp just maintains that some objects which you claim to know the distance to are not at those distances based on a wide range of observations and calculations of probabilities ... which you and David have specifically ignored or dismissed with nothing more than handwaving. And his theory (actually Narlikar's and Hoyle's) provides the theoretical basis for explaining why redshift of these objects might not correspond to distance ... but rather to the time since they were first created.

Reality Check said:
This means that as far as red-shifts are concerned his theory is useless.
Click to expand...

Oh please, RC ... if this is the level that your argument is going to sink to, you may get thrown in the hopper with David.

Reality Check said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Again, you haven't offered any theories to explain them. You haven't linked us to any peer reviewed papers explaining them. You haven't quoted any published article in scientific magazines. You are just waving your hands hoping the observations they will go away

Dark matter.
Click to expand...

Really? Tell us how dark matter explains that quasar that appears to be in front of a galaxy (NGC 7319). Tell us how dark matter explains the highly unlikely association of high and low redshift objects along that filament coming from NGC 7603. Tell us how dark matter explains the unlikely association of high and low redshift objects with respect to NGC 3628 and its features. Tell us how dark matter explains similar unlikely associations around GC 6217, NGC 470/474, NGC 3516, NGC 5985. Tell us how dark matter explains why in each of the cases the redshift of the high redshift objects near the low redshift object decreases as one moves away from the low redshift object. Tell us how dark matter explains the positional alignment of the various objects in the Local Group with respect to the major object in the group, M31? What's dark matter got to do with any of them?

Reality Check said:
From the paper:
Quote:
Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20 of 0.062.

So there is no "might start at z=0.062".
Click to expand...

You are just quoting the abstract. The body of the paper states "Also it has been noted that within the standard error for each peak in the Fourier power spectrum, determined from Gaussian fits, the redshift intervals, represented by the peaks, could all be harmonics of some more fundamental value z = 0.062. If this is the case, this strengthens the argument that quasar redshifts are not entirely of cosmological origin but a significant proportion in the database analyzed here have some non-cosmological contribution."

Reality Check said:
What no peak at z = 0.06?
Click to expand...

Now don't get so hung up on 0.06 you miss seeing the forest, RC.

Reality Check said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well let's look at the spread of redshifts in the Shapely supercluster which has somewhat over 700 members. Here's a source (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903028 ) with histograms of redshifts for the Shapely cluster and in the direction of that supercluster. Note that three quarters of them have velocities in the range 7580 to 18300 kms (where 18300 km/s corresponds to z of about 0.061) and the rest are outside that range. So that means that three quarters of the members have z ranging from 0.025 to 0.061. So what are the odds that if you picked 5 of them at random you'd end up with all 5 being within 0.01? Pretty slim? That source also notes that there is a foreground wall of 269 galaxies with quite different redshifts (z = 0.067 to 0.02). What are the odds that one of them wouldn't be picked randomly in a sample of 5? I think you are hand waving, RC.

Perhaps you should send this to the other paper's authors?
Click to expand...

No doubt they've already ignored it in their haste to keep the redshift/distance gnome alive so BB cosmology doesn't collapse. :D

Reality Check said:
Now you are are quoting a paper supporting dark matter!
Click to expand...

You missed the important part, RC. The authors of that paper suggest that dark matter is created in galaxies and ejected post BB? Now aren't you one of this forum's denizens who has declared matter creation post BB is impossible ... a violation of natural laws? And besides, how do the authors know that's dark matter, instead of the ordinary matter that was predicted by Narliker and Hoyle under such conditions? And also, I thought dark matter didn't interact with EM ... doesn't emit light ... can't have a redshift. What is the specific observation that tells the authors this is dark matter? :D

Reality Check said:
Seriously - now that we know that dark matter can explain red-shift quantization
Click to expand...

Really? You KNOW this? For a certainty? Tell us, RC, did that paper contain any tests whatsoever to tell if the matter being created was dark matter axions or any other form of dark matter? No? So isn't that merely SPECULATION ... another gnome being introduced to prop up a cosmology that is against faced with an observation the mainstream can't otherwise explain. Gnome after gnome after gnome ... all piled on one another.

Reality Check said:
That is nice - more proof of dark matter!
Click to expand...

RC, that's not explaining observations. That's hiding from them. And so typical of the mainstream. And I think readers of this thread will be able to see that.
 
Reality Check said:
Actually the authors reference Arp as the source for that statement.
Click to expand...

So it appears some Big Bang, Dark Matter believing mainstream researchers have opened the door a crack. They are starting to accept that what Arp has been telling them might be right?. How long can it be before they toss out the dark matter component of their argument completely and just accept the rest of Arp's thesis? Maybe there is hope for astrophysics yet. :)
 
wollery said:
I know a hell of a lot of cosmologists, and I can assure you that they are extremely good at saying "I don't know".
Click to expand...

So what do your "hell of a lot of cosmologists" have to say about the observations I noted regarding NGC 7319, NGC 7603, and NGC 3628? Any of them put any of what they said in print for us to read? Or are they just hiding behind their gnomes? :D
 
BeAChooser: Back to the Bullet Cluster.
The distance to the Bullet Cluster is not really an issue here. The distance was established using the galaxies in the cluster, i.e. non-Arp objects. No astronomer would make a distance measurement using only Arp objects. If you have evidence that they did then please present it.

Next gnome?
 
BeAChooser said:
Arp hasn't claimed to be able to tell you the real distance to every object in the universe, RC. Only the mainstream has made that claim. Arp just maintains that some objects which you claim to know the distance to are not at those distances based on a wide range of observations and calculations of probabilities ... which you and David have specifically ignored or dismissed with nothing more than handwaving.
Click to expand...
No it is not mere handwaving, it is a valid critique of Arp (and others) use of statistics.

Sampling error or sampling bias is a real thing, Arp's statistics, expecially the ones that rely upon a Poisson distribution (which at least Gutierrez did not do) are prone to a smaple bias or sampling wrror. At the time that Arp made the observations, there were a double handful and then a score handful of QSOs, so it is understandable.
However now that there is a much larger population of QSOs, this method is no longer reaspnable.

I will take this to the thread for that topic later today. So you can continue to ignore it and continue to not deal with it.
And his theory (actually Narlikar's and Hoyle's) provides the theoretical basis for explaining why redshift of these objects might not correspond to distance ... but rather to the time since they were first created.



Oh please, RC ... if this is the level that your argument is going to sink to, you may get thrown in the hopper with David.
Click to expand...
Hide away in DC's man sized safe BAC, if you don't answer questions it just makes you look bad.
Really? Tell us how dark matter explains that quasar that appears to be in front of a galaxy (NGC 7319).
Click to expand...
Uh gee, sure, after you tell us how you eliminate the possibility that it isn't. that is what that thing, science , is about as opposed to your political philosophical musings
Tell us how dark matter explains the highly unlikely association of high and low redshift objects along that filament coming from NGC 7603.
Click to expand...
Ah, no need for dark matter, just sampling bias, again. More to discuss later and for you to ignore.
Tell us how dark matter explains the unlikely association of high and low redshift objects with respect to NGC 3628 and its features.
Click to expand...
No dark matter needed, look my finger is touching the moon!
Tell us how dark matter explains similar unlikely associations around GC 6217, NGC 470/474, NGC 3516, NGC 5985.
Click to expand...
Tell us how you just make sampling bias go away, there are things called census models and comparative analysis of populatiopns within the census, to test for significance. Oh I know, when some one quotes you directly, accuse them of mischaracterization, that will make the sample bias just disappear.
Tell us how dark matter explains why in each of the cases the redshift of the high redshift objects near the low redshift object decreases as one moves away from the low redshift object.
Click to expand...
Look I have one finger in my eye and my other finger is on the moon, that means one arm is really, really long.

tell us how you made the sampling bias just go away?
Tell us how dark matter explains the positional alignment of the various objects in the Local Group with respect to the major object in the group, M31? What's dark matter got to do with any of them?



You are just quoting the abstract. The body of the paper states "Also it has been noted that within the standard error for each peak in the Fourier power spectrum, determined from Gaussian fits, the redshift intervals, represented by the peaks, could all be harmonics of some more fundamental value z = 0.062. If this is the case, this strengthens the argument that quasar redshifts are not entirely of cosmological origin but a significant proportion in the database analyzed here have some non-cosmological contribution."
Click to expand...
oh wait, you mean there is a a partial consmological component, how much?
Now don't get so hung up on 0.06 you miss seeing the forest, RC.



No doubt they've already ignored it in their haste to keep the redshift/distance gnome alive so BB cosmology doesn't collapse. :D
Click to expand...
There are always your Gnomes, which grow daily
-Arp's statistics don't have a sampling bias
-Perrat's suggests a magnetic field in effect but no one has yet to say how big it would be or measure it, except for that cute little toy plasma in the box. 10 cm, was it?
-Lerner's plasmoid which BAC said would avoid gravitational collapse and then blames Alfven for it
-BAC tell us that the flat rotation curve for the galaxies was imparted to them while they were plasma in the formative phase.
-Bac suggests that there is not a rotation curve issue, it is just a plasma effect
-BAC thinks that star clusters that orbit a galaxy are gnome clusters because thier motion can not be explained by PC models but can by dark matter models.

You said them all, you won't address any of them, that makes them sad. :(:(:(:(:(:( You said veryone of thiose things BAC, some of them more than once, it is all here.
You missed the important part, RC. The authors of that paper suggest that dark matter is created in galaxies and ejected post BB? Now aren't you one of this forum's denizens who has declared matter creation post BB is impossible ... a violation of natural laws?
Click to expand...
Aren't you the one who calls DARK MATTER a GNOME but now that Gnome has agreed to not invade you while you invade 'quasars ejected by AGN', you now have made a deal with the Gnome.
And besides, how do the authors know that's dark matter, instead of the ordinary matter that was predicted by Narliker and Hoyle under such conditions?
Click to expand...
Your quote, you tell us, and while you are at it, how is that matter creation coming?
And also, I thought dark matter didn't interact with EM ... doesn't emit light ... can't have a redshift. What is the specific observation that tells the authors this is dark matter? :D
Click to expand...
your reference, you feed your own gnome dude.
Really? You KNOW this? For a certainty? Tell us, RC, did that paper contain any tests whatsoever to tell if the matter being created was dark matter axions or any other form of dark matter? No? So isn't that merely SPECULATION ... another gnome being introduced to prop up a cosmology that is against faced with an observation the mainstream can't otherwise explain. Gnome after gnome after gnome ... all piled on one another.
Click to expand...
My goodness, your gnomes just made a pyramid!
RC, that's not explaining observations. That's hiding from them. And so typical of the mainstream. And I think readers of this thread will be able to see that.
Click to expand...

And hiding is something you know a lot about, isn't it?
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
BeAChooser: Back to the Bullet Cluster.
Click to expand...

You're hiding from the redshift observations and I think our readers can see that. :D

Reality Check said:
The distance to the Bullet Cluster is not really an issue here. The distance was established using the galaxies in the cluster, i.e. non-Arp objects.
Click to expand...

The distance to the Bullet Cluster was established with the redshift/distance relationship the mainstream claims is always right. But if Arp is right, it's not. Furthermore, the lensing calculations used to make the claim about dark matter depend not only on the distance to those galaxies but the distance to something much farther away. And if that distance is wrong ...

Furthermore, the Bullet cluster is the type of object Arp has said may produce erroneous redshifts. What we see are the sort of distorted galaxies and filaments that Arp has claimed are fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable "BL Lac" phase. The cluster redshift z = 0.3 that Arp says is typical of BL Lac objects.
 
Dancing David said:
Originally Posted by BeAChooser Arp just maintains that some objects which you claim to know the distance to are not at those distances based on a wide range of observations and calculations of probabilities ... which you and David have specifically ignored or dismissed with nothing more than handwaving.

No it is not mere handwaving, it is a valid critique of Arp (and others) use of statistics.
Click to expand...

If it's a valid critique, why can't you come up with even ONE peer reviewed article making that critique about Arp's work? It would be a sure-fire way to make that pesky Arp go away. Wouldn't you think? But you can't find one, can you. Looks like the mainstream has placed that heavy burden on your little shoulders, David. Why you'll probably get one of their awards if you manage to do in Arp and these observations all by yourself. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
You're hiding from the redshift observations and I think our readers can see that. :D
Click to expand...
I am not. I know that Arp's results are applicable to the objects that he studied - QSOs. The Bullet Cluster is not a QSO - it is a galactic cluster. If you have evidence that it is some sort of "QSO cluster" then you should present it. If you have evidence that the distance to the Bullet Cluster was determined only from QSOs in it then please present it.
Otherwise I will trust that the astronomers who measured the distance to the Bullet Cluster knew their job and did it correctly.

BeAChooser said:
The distance to the Bullet Cluster was established with the redshift/distance relationship the mainstream claims is always right. But if Arp is right, it's not. Furthermore, the lensing calculations used to make the claim about dark matter depend not only on the distance to those galaxies but the distance to something much farther away. And if that distance is wrong ...

Furthermore, the Bullet cluster is the type of object Arp has said may produce erroneous redshifts. What we see are the sort of distorted galaxies and filaments that Arp has claimed are fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable "BL Lac" phase. The cluster redshift z = 0.3 that Arp says is typical of BL Lac objects.
Click to expand...

You need to give a citation for this claim that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL Lac object. Or is it that 1 or more galaxies in the cluster are a BL Lac object?

We can of course "walk and chew gum at the same time" :) .
Next gnome please.
 
Reality Check said:
I know that Arp's results are applicable to the objects that he studied - QSOs.
Click to expand...

You just demonstrated that you haven't even read the posts I've made on this thread, much less what Arp's written. The case of NGC 7603 doesn't have a quasar in it. All 4 of the objects are now clearly galaxies. The unusual alignments with regard to the Local Group and the Virgo Group pertain not only to quasars in those groups but to their galaxy components as well. And Arp did extensive study of BL-Lac objects which are not quasars.

Reality Check said:
The Bullet Cluster is not a QSO - it is a galactic cluster.
Click to expand...

And the Bullet Cluster just happens to be at the redshift that Arp theorized (before this cluster was made an issue) was where BL-Lacs (which he says evolve from quasars according to Narlikar and Hoyle's matter creation cosmology) break up and evolve into individual galaxies.

Reality Check said:
If you have evidence that the distance to the Bullet Cluster was determined only from QSOs in it then please present it.
Click to expand...

The mainstream claims that the Bullet Cluster is 3.4 BILLION light years away based on redshift. Every source I find mentions only redshift being used in this determination. Can you offer any proof that the cluster's distance has been measured by any other means? Or is what you are proposing a *dark measurement*? :D

Reality Check said:
Otherwise I will trust that the astronomers who measured the distance to the Bullet Cluster knew their job and did it correctly.
Click to expand...

In other words, you'll assume the gnomes are right.

Reality Check said:
You need to give a citation for this claim that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL Lac object.
Click to expand...

I didn't say that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL-Lac object. I said the cluster is at the distance that Arp believes BL-Lac objects break up and evolve into individual galaxies. And that is clearly stated in his writings.

Reality Check said:
We can of course "walk and chew gum at the same time" .
Click to expand...

But perhaps you have trouble reading at the same time. :)
 
BeAChooser said:
If it's a valid critique, why can't you come up with even ONE peer reviewed article making that critique about Arp's work? It would be a sure-fire way to make that pesky Arp go away. Wouldn't you think? But you can't find one, can you. Looks like the mainstream has placed that heavy burden on your little shoulders, David. Why you'll probably get one of their awards if you manage to do in Arp and these observations all by yourself. :D
Click to expand...

I can't say why people don't take the time to talk about Arp's work BAC, it is a puzzle to me as well, however you are still enegaging in an appeal to authority. And you are not engaging in critical thought, why not look at what sampling bias is and what what sampling errors are? Why not address the issues that I present? If you try to search for 'aposteriori statistics' and Arp you might get a few more hits.

I have no desire to make Arp go away, that is another fallacy of construction on your part. Many smart people make silly mistakes in many possible ways.

I have no desire at this point to get a degree in astrophysics, I did when i was younger but not anymore. I am content with my life. so going into publishing a paper, no thanks.

Perhaps people don't critique Arp because the error is so obvious. I mean really you ought to see some of the stuff that people try to pas off as science in psychology. It is much worse than a very smart man making a simple error. There is room for all voices at the table, time will decide whose theories stand up and which don't.

So instead I choose to debate people here, and the sampling error is evry evident in Arp's (and others) use of statitistics.(The Ganfeld stuff is much much worse.) So why not address that, this is a critical thinking forum, show us what you got. I disapprove of appeals to authority from either side BAC.
 
BeAChooser said:
You're hiding from the redshift observations and I think our readers can see that. :D
.
Click to expand...

They can also see you hiding from your gnomish friends:


1. Arp's use of statistic involves sampling error that are significant. Discuss.
2. You have used a number of ways of waving Perrat's models around to explain the galaxy rotation curves, in the one that you might have started with, what force of field is moving the stars at a faster rate? What is the size of that field.
3. You have also said that Lerner’s plasmoid model will not collapse due to gravitation. Please address a 40,000 solar mass plasma, in an area of 43 AU in diameter and how it avoids gravitational collapse?

As a side bar you have also stated :

4. That Perrat's model imparted the flat rotation curve to the galaxy when it was plasma and formative , it would appear that you also stated that this explains the current flat rotation curve. Yes or no?
5. It would also appear that is one post you mentioned Alfven's mechanism of a star imparting momentum to planets as a possible means that a Lerner plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse. Discuss your later denial and explain what you think might be happening.
6. Then recently you made a claim that perhaps the motion of stars in galaxies did not need to be accounted for by dark matter because the observation related solely to plasma, and not stars. And therefore since plasma could be explained by Perrat's model to have a flat rotational curve, there was no need for dark matter. This seems to ignore the observation that the orbits of star clusters also would indicate dark matter and that galaxy rotation rate may also be measured on stars. Please explain.


hey Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!
 
Dancing David said:
I can't say why people don't take the time to talk about Arp's work BAC, it is a puzzle to me as well, however you are still enegaging in an appeal to authority.
Click to expand...

There are no peer-reviewed papers refuting the idea the earth is flat. Therefore the earth is flat.

That's BAC's argument.
 
BeAChooser said:
You just demonstrated that you haven't even read the posts I've made on this thread, much less what Arp's written. The case of NGC 7603 doesn't have a quasar in it. All 4 of the objects are now clearly galaxies. The unusual alignments with regard to the Local Group and the Virgo Group pertain not only to quasars in those groups but to their galaxy components as well. And Arp did extensive study of BL-Lac objects which are not quasars.
Click to expand...
whoops - missed out ", etc." in that post.

BeAChooser said:
And the Bullet Cluster just happens to be at the redshift that Arp theorized (before this cluster was made an issue) was where BL-Lacs (which he says evolve from quasars according to Narlikar and Hoyle's matter creation cosmology) break up and evolve into individual galaxies.

The mainstream claims that the Bullet Cluster is 3.4 BILLION light years away based on redshift. Every source I find mentions only redshift being used in this determination. Can you offer any proof that the cluster's distance has been measured by any other means? Or is what you are proposing a *dark measurement*? :D
Click to expand...
I know that only redshift is mentioned in the papers about the Bullet Cluster so I assume that only redshift was used.
The only comments that I made about measurements by any other means were in relation to local measurements (< 100 Mpc).

BeAChooser said:
I didn't say that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL-Lac object. I said the cluster is at the distance that Arp believes BL-Lac objects break up and evolve into individual galaxies. And that is clearly stated in his writings.
Click to expand...


That clears that up - it is an interesting but not pertinent point that the distance is the distance that Arp believes BL-Lac objects break up and evolve into individual galaxies.

So we can go onto the next gnome...
 
sol invictus said:
There are no peer-reviewed papers refuting the idea the earth is flat. Therefore the earth is flat.

That's BAC's argument.
Click to expand...

Not quite, sol. Of course, you wouldn't know since you claim to not be reading half this debate. You have me on ignore ... right?

But even on ignore, you still seem concerned about me. :D
 
I have to say, given my experience with Arp's work, I would worry about where his conclusions led me. He got mixed up in Redshift Quantization with Tifft.



In grad school, I investigated the work of Guthrie, B. N. G. and Napier, W. M. They did a corroborating study, and, at the time, found that there was in fact weirdness in the data used to claim RQ. However, to quote Wikipedia:
wikipedia said:
As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
So we can go onto the next gnome...
Click to expand...

You want another observation and some more peer reviewed work you can ignore? Sure ...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2g83q568k2vv5063/ " M 87 as a younger progenitor galaxy in the virgo cluster, Halton Arp, 1999 ... snip ... The structure of the Virgo cluster with the brighter, redder galaxy M 49 at its center argues that the rest of the cluster, including M 87, originated from M 49 and is younger. M 87 (Vir A), like most other bright radio galaxies, e.g. Cen A, Per A, For A, shows current ejection activity as well as conspicuous, lines of galaxies originating from its center. It is argued that M 87 is showing second generation ejection of objects which are evolving into younger galaxies. Observations show that in general quasars are ejected along the minor axes of active galaxies and then evolve into alignments of low redshift, companion galaxies. In M 87, it is argued that the knots in the jet are decelerating outward, evolving into quasars, BL Lac objects and finally lower redshift, aligned companions. If this is true the knots must consist of a low-particle mass plasma and the physics of the jet would have to be recalculated with this new assumption."

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051101virgo.htm "A Bigger View of the Virgo Cluster ... snip ... Illustrated above is a “contour map” of the x-ray intensity around the Virgo Cluster of galaxies. M49, an active elliptical galaxy (near the middle of the swirl), is the largest member of the cluster. (A line of quasars—not shown—extends through it in a northwest-southeast direction.) On opposite sides of it, only a few degrees away and engulfed in the stream of x-ray-emitting material, are M87 to the north (top) and 3C273 to the south (bottom). 3C273 is a quasar that has a jet pointing at an elongated hydrogen cloud to the southwest (lower right). In gamma-ray maps, a bridge of gamma-ray-emitting material connects the quasar with a variable quasar, 3C279, to the southeast and also back toward M49. M87 is also an active galaxy with a jet extending to the northwest (upper right). Beyond the jet are the radio- and x-ray-emitting galaxies M86 and, close by, M84. Further along the line is a quasar that has a pair of quasars aligned across it. Several elliptical galaxies lie along the M87-M86 line, and an oval of higher-redshift spiral galaxies surrounds the line."
 
Dancing David said:
Shall we stack authorities like gnomes and see whose pile is bigger?
Click to expand...

Go ahead, David. Link us to the peer reviewed papers that directly challenge the specifics of what Arp has noted about numerous observations related to the alignments and proximity of low and high redshift objects. Let's see who your authorities are.

As to the size of gnomes ... yours are definitely bigger:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/03/18-billion-suns.html "March 18, 2008, 18 Billion Suns -A Galaxy Classic: Biggest Black Hole in Universe Discovered—and it’s BIG ... snip ... , the massive black hole has a puny twin hovering nearby ... snip ... it’s 3.5 billion light years away, forming the heart of a quasar called OJ287 ... snip ... the smaller black hole, which weighs about 100 million Suns, orbits the larger one on an oval-shaped path every 12 years ... snip ... the black holes are on track to merge within 10,000 years."

And what an odd coincidence that this black hole ... which is supposedly about 6 times larger than the previous record holder ... is going to get hit by another black hole in less than 10,000 years. Why that's a blink in the eye in the life of the universe. How could we be so lucky to be alive right now and see it. Perhaps we should conclude, David, that such huge black holes and mergers are a very common occurrence and up till now we just missed seeing them? Hmmmmm? :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom