The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Our Solar System Is Bent. Anyone Have A Big Hammer?
- Thread starter The Central Scrutinizer
- Start date
MG1962
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,252
Count down for the "Blame it on the Jews" thread has begun
10,9,8.....................
becomingagodo
Banned
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2007
- Messages
- 695
I would blame it on the gays, we allow gays some rights and then the whole solar system becomes bent.
Note: The above was a joke, I am not homophobic, even though it might appear that way because I don't like Turing.
bokonon
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2007
- Messages
- 4,438
Just curious, what causes an "interstellar magnetic field," and why would it be "pitched at an angle to the plane of the Milky Way"? And does that imply that the solar system is co-planar with the plane of the Milky Way? If so, why would that be?
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
That is the way God made it. Who are you to question his design?
Last edited:
The Solar System is not coplanar with the Milky Way---the Galactic Plane and the ecliplic plane are tilted at 60 degrees to one another.
Interstellar magnetic fields are either (a) the fringe fields of magnetic stars or (b) fields due to small currents in the interstellar plasma, carried by, e.g., the powerful solar winds of very young stars, "shocks" and ejecta from ancient supernovae, etc.. They're very weak fields, and pointing in random-ish directions---the fields that happen to be hitting the Solar System today don't have any particular cosmic importance. (All of which has nothing to do with that "thunderbolts of the gods" electric universe stuff, which is nonsense.)
BenBurch
Gatekeeper of The Left
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/RebeccaRudberg.shtml "There is strong evidence that the Milky Way galaxy contains an ordered, large-scale magnetic field of the value 10-10 tesla (0.1*nT)."
G. Novak's 2005 "Magnetic Fields in the Galactic Center" (http://lennon.astro.northwestern.edu/Publications/MagFldsUni.pdf) " An analysis of the very limited Faraday rotation data currently available suggests that a poloidal field does exist and that it points toward Galactic North."
"The Galactic Center Magnetosphere" by Mark Morris, Department of Physics & Astronomy, UCLA, 2006, "The magnetic field within a few hundred parsecs of the center of the Galaxy is an essential component of any description of that region. The field has several pronounced observational manifestations: 1) morphological structures such as nonthermal radio filaments (NTFs) – magnetic flux tubes illuminated by synchrotron emission from relativistic electrons – and a remarkable, large-scale, helically wound structure, ... snip ... Because most of the NTFs are roughly perpendicular to the Galactic plane, the implied large-scale geometry of the magnetic field is dipolar. Estimates of the mean field strength vary from tens of microgauss to ? a milligauss. ... snip ... The primary probe of the large-scale field has been radio observations of polarized, filamentary structures which, while typically < 0.5 pc in width, are tens of parsecs in length. The strong radio polarization, and the occasional filamentary counterpart at X-ray wavelengths [7] indicate that the emission is synchrotron radiation, and the position angle of the polarization, once corrected for Faraday rotation, confirms that the magnetic field lies along the filaments ... snip ... the implied rigidity of the filaments requires a field strength on the order of a milligauss, which is surprisingly large, given the scale of these structures. ... snip ... Because the individual filaments define the local field direction, the ensemble of filaments has been interpreted in terms of a predominantly dipolar field, extending at least 200 pc along the Galactic plane ... snip ... Some case can be made that Faraday rotation measurements are consistent with the geometry of a twisted, large-scale field ... snip ... It is premature to conclude that they are inconsistent with a predominantly ordered, large-scale dipole field."
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/CIV.html "IMMENSE FLOWS OF CHARGED PARTICLES DISCOVERED BETWEEN THE STARS"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020604073033.htm "June 4, 2002 ... snip ... Researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory believe that magnetic field lines extending a few million light years from galaxies into space may be the result of incredibly efficient energy-producing dynamos within black holes that are somewhat analogous to an electric motor. ... snip ... The energy in these huge magnetic fields is comparable to that released into space as light, X-rays and gamma rays."
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/...sti_id=6904521 "Magnetic fields in spiral galaxies ... snip ... Radio polarization observations have revealed large-scale magnetic fields in spiral galaxies. ... snip ... Long magnetic-field filaments are seen, sometimes up to a 30 kpc length."
http://focus.aps.org/story/v12/st24 "The fields of about 1 microgauss (one millionth of the earth's magnetic field strength) seem to exist in all galaxies observed so far, but their origins remain one of the great mysteries of the Universe's evolution."
Maybe the electric universe folks you deride can offer a clue:
According to Anthony Peralt, a plasma physicist at LANL (http://www.springerlink.com/content/h4w5l7l06280863r/), "One of the earliest predictions about the morphology of the universe is that it be filamentary (Alfvén, 1950). This prediction followed from the fact that volumewise, the universe is 99.999% matter in the plasma state. When the plasma is energetic, it is generally inhomogeneous with constituent parts in motion. Plasmas in relative motion are coupled by the currents they drive in each other and nonequilibrium plasma often consists of current-conducting filaments. In the laboratory and in the Solar System, filamentary and cellular morphology is a well-known property of plasma. As the properties of the plasma state of matter is believed not to change beyond the range of our space probes, plasma at astrophysical dimensions must also be filamentary. During the 1980s a series of unexpected observations showed filamentary structure on the Galactic, intergalactic, and supergalactic scale. By this time, the analytical intractibility of complex filamentary geometries, intense self-fields, nonlinearities, and explicit time dependence had fostered the development of fully three-dimensional, fully electromagnetic, particle-in-cell simulations of plasmas having the dimensions of galaxies or systems of galaxies. It had been realized that the importance of applying electromagnetism and plasma physics to the problem of radiogalaxy and galaxy formation derived from the fact that the universe is largely a plasma universe. In plasma, electromagnetic forces exceed gravitational forces by a factor of 10^^36, and electromagnetism is 10^^7 times stronger than gravity even in neutral hydrogen regions, where the degree of ionization is a miniscule 10^^–4. The observational evidence for galactic-dimensioned Birkeland currents is given based on the direct comparison of the synchrotron radiation properties of simulated currents to those of extra-galactic sources including quasars and double radio galaxies."
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/AdvancesII.annotated.pdf See Section 3.3 which focuses on galactic rotational velocities and the results from that modeling. Also check out Section 4. Peralt shows that electrodynamic forces can account for the observed galactic rotation curves.
http://www.cosmology.info/2005conference/wps/gallo_1.pdf ""When Plasma Physicists add known ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects into the Gravitational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies, they obtain the observed rotational dynamics of Spiral Galaxies. ... snip ... Notice the similarity of the measured velocity profiles with the computer simulation including ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects for these Spiral Galaxies. The plasma core rotates very nearly as a solid body, while the spiral arms grow in length as they trail out along the magnetic isobars. ... snip ... The measured behavior is all very different than that obtained from gravitational effects alone, but the inclusion of ElectroMagnetic Plasma effects mimic the observed behavior. That is, the rotational speed is very low at the galactic center and rises very quickly to an approximately constant rotational speed at distances away from the center."
http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/darkmatter.htm "The Dark Matter Myth, Magnetic Fields and Galactic Rotation Curves
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.htm
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/TheUniverse.html
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/mag_fields.html "The most basic difference between ionized and nonionized matter is the ability to carry electric current. This ability is also the reason why virtually all the matter in the universe is—and presumably has always been—magnetized. The presence of the magnetic field has important dynamical consequences since the magnetic force can locally be much greater than the gravitational force."
Aack! Watch out for BeAChooser's later links, which are pushing a fringe-y crackpot theory in which electromagnetic forces are imagined to be a large factor in stellar evolution and Galactic dynamics. Caveat lector!
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Anthony Peralt is not a fringe crackpot. He's an authority at Los Alamos National Labs on the behavior of plasmas under the effects of electromagnetism. Can you offer ANY source to challenge the articles I linked by him ... articles that were published in peer reviewed scientific journals ... articles that showed dark matter isn't needed to explain the rotation curves of galaxies? Remember, the rotation curves of galaxies are the primary evidence for dark matter. So if we don't need anything other than physics we can demonstrate in laboratories here on earth to explain those rotation curves, why do we need dark matter? And isn't dark matter a very important part of Big Bang cosmology? In fact, without dark matter, mainstream astrophysics now admits it can't even explain the formation of galaxies. And by the way, have mainstream astrophysicists figured out what causes magnetic fields in galaxies? No? Well Peralt can explain it using known physics and validated computer codes.
Also, while you are at it, explain to bokonon why you are not alarmed that a quasar has been discovered on this side of a NGC 7319? That should be impossible under the assumption that redshift equates to distance assumed true by Big Bang proponents. Again, that's the conclusion in several papers by mainstream astronomers published in peer reviewed scientific journals. And I challenge you to link a peer reviewed paper that says otherwise. What? You can't do it? Are Big Bang proponents just ignoring this observation because it's ... inconvenient?
And I could go on, but I'm still awaiting a verdict from the Admin (Darat) whether I can post a summary of Big Bang's faults and Electric Universe's solutions as long as the posts contains no hotlinks and quote only a fraction of any given source. Why don't you join me in asking for permission to do that so that we can debate this in a fair and complete manner?
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
True. He's well beyond the fringe.
You mean, like every paper published in an entire field of science?
Because we can't demonstrate that.
That's like saying, I don't know, the discovery of pure helium inside a child's balloon is evidence against the atmosphere being composed mostly of nitrogen. Or something equally senseless.
Last edited:
No, they are one piece of observational evidence for dark matter. Others include:
- orbital motions of galaxies withing galactic clusters and superclusters.
- galactic collision simulations
- cosmic large scale structure simulations
- weak gravitational lensing of background galaxies by dark matter in foreground galaxy clusters
Cheers.
It would help if you spelt his name correctly, it is Peratt by the way.BeAChooser;3235586According to Anthony Peralt said:
A quick search of ADS ABS (astro-ph) on his name is interesting.
35 articles in total.
23 of which he is the sole author.
15 have citations from other articles.
None of the plasma cosmology articles have co-authors and only 2 have citations.
2 articles published since 1997, the latest in 2003 (Hardly suggests an expert anything recent to do with DM).
This is a quick scan, so I may have missed a few. But if those numbers don't suggest fringe, then I don't know what does.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Attacking mainstream rather than defending the actual theory, I'm convinced he is fringe by this alone.
In general redshift would equate to distance, but assuming this is true for every single cosmic entity is assuming a galaxy in which there are no collisions and no interactions between cosmic bodies. I'm not 100% sure if your logical error is a strawman error or a reductio ad absurdum error, but take your pick.
To be fair it is one paper published in one peer reviewed journal, unless you can point me to others?http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215v1.
I think most astronomers have ignored it because the simplest explanation is that it is shining through from behind the galaxy. There is simply no compelling evidence presented in the paper. The spectra shows absorption from the galaxy, which they attribute to it shining through interstellar gas, exactly what you would expect if the quasar was shining through from behind the galaxy.
This paragraph sums up the argument "There are no signs of background objects showing through the disk in this HST picture of the inner regions of NGC 7319 (Fig.1). This accords with our expectation that the absorption in the disk near the center of this Seyfert galaxy would block out any objects behind it. Nevertheless, if the QSO were in the disk, or on the near side of the disk as we observe it, it could still show some signs of absorption from interstellar gas in the disk."
Basically because there are no other bacground objects behind the disk, this one can't be either. Then it goes on to say that it "could" show absorption if it is in the disk, rather than behind the galaxy. This isn't the only evidence they present, but is indicative of the quality of it.
The most telling thing for me was this:
"Further X-ray radio and optical observations following this evidence for a powerful discrete source – the QSO, exciting the interstellar gas – are needed. For example high resolution direct imaging with narrow band filters could tell us a great deal. Data with higher S/N shortward of Ly emission would be useful, since this is where Ly forest absorption is seen in many QSOs. Our spectrum, very noisy here, does not show such features.
This is the only system found so far in which there is the possibility of demonstrating even more clearly that the QSO and galaxy are interacting"
There have been no published follow up observations of this object. So this is the only system they have found where they can demonstrate interaction between the quasar and the galaxy. They then propose a method to follow up and strengthen their case. So why haven't they?
Cheers.
Last edited:
Wudang
BOFH
TIME IS MASS. ABIAN MASS-TIME EQUIVALENCE FORMULA T=-(10^18)Log(1-m/Mo) SECONDS
ALTERING EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOPPING GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS.
ALTERING THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBITING VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH.
ALTERING EARTH'S ORBIT AND TILT - STOPPING GLOBAL DISASTERS AND EPIDEMICS.
ALTERING THE SOLAR SYSTEM. REORBITING VENUS INTO A NEAR EARTH-LIKE ORBIT
TO CREATE A BORN AGAIN EARTH.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
What evidence is there that the O emission lines in NGC 7319 have to be from an embedded quasar?
What about the absorbtion lines in the quasars spectrum?
Why did the paper recomend further study with a narrower field instrument?
You ignored my questions in the other thread and now you start up again over here.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
Don't forget the bullet cluster observation, which was pretty much a direct detection of dark matter.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Is it that the solar system is bent or that the termination shock, or whatever they are calling it is bent by the magnetic field. The solar system has an elepitical plane but the comets and stuff do not always belong to it.
The fact that the termination shock and the heliopause would be effected should come as no suprise.
The fact that the termination shock and the heliopause would be effected should come as no suprise.
Last edited:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Here's Peratt's (not Peralt ... my mistake ... somewhere along the line I mispelled it and have ever since) bio. It doesn't look like a "crackpot"'s.
http://www.ieee.org/organizations/pubs/newsletters/npss/0306/peratt.html
Nor is Hannes Alfven's bio that of a crackpot.
http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/alfven.html
I mean any peer reviewed article on a study by mainstream astrophysicists that included electromagnetic effects on plasma in it's analysis of galactic motions and found they don't account for the rotation curves. I know there are plenty of papers that just ignored electromagnetic effects. That's the problem.
You are wrong. All the physics that Peratt used to model the rotation curves of galaxies has been demonstrated in the laboratory and incorporated into state of the art particle in cell models at LANL. These codes are used for many real world applications here on earth.
So you are going just ignore the observations that a quasar violates Big Bang's redshift equates to distance assumption. Figured as much.
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
An electrical engineer and laser physicist working on astro and denying the theory every single professional in the field has checked and worked on for years. Crackpot loon.
Nobel laureates have a long and distnguished history of turning away from the fields they did their good work in and becoming cranks in some other field. I can give you many examples; this guy is among the best.
There are no such papers, because the idea EM effects could matter to rotation curves is utterly ridiculous. But there are tens of thousands of papers discussing real plasma effects in astrophysics, magnetic fields, etc. And FYI there are many plasma physicists working in astrophysics.
What utter nonsense.
One observation, which (as others have pointed out) is probably a quasar behind a galaxy which was wrongly interpreted by some loons as a quasar IN a galaxy, is not much of a threat to the big bang. Sorry to break that to you.
Just out of curiosity - since you don't believe in the big bang, I assume you think the universe is in a steady state. So tell me - is it infinitely big and full of stars? Or is it all empty except for a little clump of galaxies around ours?
And do you also deny that general relativity is correct, along with every other branch of physics, logic, and common sense?
Last edited:
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Which might also be explained by electromagnetic effects.
They put a gnome in a computer simulation to get a desired result. They picked whatever amount of gnome that gave the desired result and also located it wherever necessary to give the desired result. That is not proof that dark matter exists. Especially when had they included KNOWN electromagnetic effects on plasma in their simulations (which they didn't) they would have gotten the correct rotation curves anyway (as Peratt proved).
Let's talk about large scale structures and how well the mainstream's simulations have worked.
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm "Galaxies are organized into filaments and walls that surround large voids that are apparently nearly devoid of all matter. ... snip ... Detailed computer simulations, which also include the hypothesized "cosmological constant" (Lambda) run into the same contradictions in that they produce voids that are far too small. Simulations with a variety of assumptions can produce voids as large typically as about 35 Mpc, a factor of 5 smaller than those actually observed on the largest scales. In addition, such simulated voids have bulk flow velocities that are typically 10% of the Hubble flow velocities which mean that voids larger than 60 Mpc, even if they could be produced in Big Bang simulations, would generate final velocities in excess of those observed, and voids as large as 170 Mpc would generate velocities of over 600 km/s, nearly 3 times the observed velocities. Thus even with dark mater AND a cosmological constant, it is impossible for the Big Bang theory to produce voids as large as those observed today with galactic velocities as small as those today."
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411126 "Formation of voids in the Universe within the Lemaitre-Tolman model ... snip ... 2004, Abstract: We develop models of void formation starting from a small initial fluctuation at recombination and growing to a realistic present day density profile in agreement with observations of voids. ... snip ... we find that it is very difficult to make both the initial density and velocity fluctuation amplitudes small enough, and still obtain a realistic void by today."
And how big can voids get? Far larger than in the calculations above assumed.
http://space.newscientist.com/artic...in-space-is-1-billion-light-years-across.html "Radio astronomers have found the biggest hole ever seen in the universe. The void, which is nearly a billion light years across, is empty of both normal matter and dark matter. The finding challenges theories of large-scale structure formation in the universe."
That size void (about 300 Mpc) would really take a REALLY long time to form. Perhaps that's why in August 2007 the astronomers who discovered it derived such a low probability (3 X 10^^-5) for the existance of it under Big Bang assumptions (see "Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold spot" by Rudnick, Brown and Williams).
Second, the big bang, cold dark matter universe is founded on the assumption that the distribution of matter (both normal and dark) becomes evenly spread at sufficiently large scales. Mainstream physicists David Hogg and Daniel Eisenstein reportedly claim that the pattern should start to smooth out at about 200 million light years (about 60 Mpc). Obviously, it didn't. Perhaps that's why the astronomers who announced the void's discovery said “Not only has no one ever found a void this big, but we never even expected to find one this size.”
And there's yet another problem with this billion light year void. The astronomers say it contains no dark matter. But if the cold dark matter model is correct, there should be dark matter in the void. Perhaps that's why mainstream astronomers are scrambling for yet another magic gnome to explain the observations (see http://www.trustedlog.com/2007/11/26/parallel-universe-exists-we-have-evidence/ ). And now, some Big Bang proponents are hypothesizing that the reason the void lacks CDM must be the action of dark energy (http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=1427 ). I'm sorry but in my mind that's a case of stacking gnomes on top of gnomes that are on top of gnomes to explain observations they can't explain with REAL physics.
And not only is dark matter missing in this void, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0411797 and http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410421 says dark matter appears to be minimal or missing in certain types of galaxies. Why would that be? Does this magic gnome turn its nose up at residing in certain neighborhoods? Shall we invent another magic gnome to explain that?
And what about the opposite of voids?
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/text/text_gal_2.html "The so-called Great Wall, a lengthy arc of several thousand galaxies extending ~500 million light-years across the sky nearly 300 million light-years away, is the nearest and most prominent of these giant features. An even bigger “wall,” sporting nearly a 100,000 galaxies ~1.5 billion light-years long and about a billion light-years away, is currently the largest known structure in the Universe." Seems to me that if astrophysicists admit there hasn't been time to create a billion light year void, there surely hasn't been time to create a 1.5 billion light year long wall of galaxies.
And there are walls of galaxies as far as we can see ...
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0107filament.html "2004, GIANT GALAXY STRING DEFIES MODELS OF HOW UNIVERSE EVOLVED, Wide-field telescope observations of the remote and therefore early Universe, looking back to a time when it was a fifth of its present age (redshift = 2.38), have revealed an enormous string of galaxies about 300 million light-years long. This new structure defies current models of how the Universe evolved, which can't explain how a string this big could have formed so early. The string is comparable in size to the "Great Wall" of galaxies found in the nearby Universe ... snip ... The astronomers have detected 37 galaxies and one quasar in the string, but "there are almost certainly far more than this," said Palunas. "The string probably contains many thousands of galaxies." ... snip ... The team compared their observations to supercomputer simulations of the early Universe, which could not reproduce strings this large. "The simulations tell us that you cannot take the matter in the early Universe and line it up in strings this large," said Francis. "There simply hasn't been enough time since the Big Bang for it to form structures this colossal". ... snip ... "To explain our results," said Francis, "the dark matter clouds that lie in strings must have formed galaxies, while the dark matter clouds elsewhere have not done so. We've no idea why this happened - it's not what the models predict."
Now mind you, plasma cosmologists have no problem with these observations. They don't have an origin time and galaxies were predicted to form along the length of giant filaments. But mainstream astronomers are having trouble explaining how these large collections of galaxies formed in the time available.
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/cosmology-05h.html Earliest Massive Cluster Of Known Galaxies Discovered, Mar 03, 2005, ... snip ... astronomers have discovered the most distant, very massive structure in the Universe known so far. ... snip ... The discovery of such a complex and mature structure so early in the history of the Universe is highly surprising. Indeed, until recently it would even have been deemed impossible.
http://www.universetoday.com/2005/03/02/young-universe-was-surprisingly-structured/?232005 "2005, Young Universe Was Surprisingly Structured ... snip ... "We are quite surprised to see that a fully-fledged structure like this could exist at such an early epoch," says Christopher Mullis.
So what was that you were saying about simulations proving the existence of dark matter? Note that all these interpretations depend on the assumption that redshift equates to distance ... but there are now serious challenges to that assumption, including but not limited to the quasar some mainstream astronomers say is this side of NGC 7319.
Sorry, but those lensing calculations depend on the now questionable redshift equates to distance assumption. By the way, after 30 years of expensive investigation, don't you think mainstream science should be able to tell us what dark matter is? Maybe the fact they can't should tell you something. Perhaps you could just tell us which of the dark matter types is the one you mean: hot dark matter, cold dark matter, cold collisionless dark matter, strongly self-interacting dark matter, warm dark matter, repulsive dark matter, self annihilating dark matter, fuzzy dark matter? It's just a non-intuitive mess and I'm probably forgetting a type or two.
And if anyone thinks Dark Matter is hard to explain, try Dark Energy.
On the subject of gravitational lensing, some might find this interesting ...
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
This is EXACTLY what Big Bang cosmologists assume when it come to quasars. They calculate the distance to the quasar in front of NGC 7319 (z = 2.11) and to NGC 7319 (z = 0.022) using just the redshift and their linear distance/redshift relationship. And according to that relationship, they claim this quasar is about 93 times farther away from us than NGC 7319. But as anyone can see,
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2004/spiralgalaxy.new.gif
the quasar in question is located in front of the nucleus of a dense spiral galaxy and there is a plasma filament connecting the central core to the quasar. Further, mainstream astronomers in peer reviewed articles have now concluded the quasar in question is almost certainly on this side of NGC 7319, not just because of the likely density of the core of the galaxy but because of the light characteristics of the quasar. In fact, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215 , states that "from the optical spectra of the QSO and interstellar gas of NGC 7319 at z = .022 we show that it is very likely that the QSO is interacting with the interstellar gas." That's hardly possible if the quasar is 93 times farther away than NGC 7319.
Now you can ignore this data but then you are also ignoring a falsification of Big Bang's redshift/distance relationship. And that just proves my point about Big Bang proponents.
I'm sorry to derail this thread even further, but please back this up. Can you point to more than one paper which has no follow up observations or publications?
Publishing in a peer reviewed journal is only the first step in establishing something within the scientific community. There needs to be follow up observations and publications, demonstration that other variables and explanations have been eliminated etc. i.e. the back and forth testing of ideas, one of the central requirements of the scientific method. At the moment you have presented nothing more than an interesting data point which has a much simpler explanation. There are reasons why the conclusions of this paper have not been accepted by the wider astrophysical community and it has nothing to do with a mass conspiracy.
It is hardly surprising that Burbidge is one of the authors of the paper. He along with Halton Arp and the late Fred Hoyle were the last hold-outs among astrophysists in the "quasar" debate. Why he continues to grasp at straws rather than concede the argument is beyond me. Given all the evidence we have accumulated for the distant nature of quasars, it will take more than a handful of dubious anomalies to convince anyone. Come back and talk after they have done the hard followup work required to actually establish that the quasar is interacting with the galaxy.
Cheers.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Qso's could have anomalous redshifts, however, I will ask you again.
What led the researchers to conclude that the QSO was embedded in the galaxy?
What other possible explanations are there that have been eliminated?
What about the absorbtion spectra of the QSO.
And while you are about that,
What about the alphal-lyman forest that applies to most QSOs?
Visual filiments, does the filiment show an abberant redshift as it approaches the QSO?
Does a visual alingnment always indicate proximity?
Again there are some valid aspects to plasma comsmology, in that the effects of plasma are part of the formation of the universe.
However, please answer the questions above and remeber the main questions.
Does the theory better predict the behaviors of the observed phenomena?
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
It sounds like BeAChooser is also bent.
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm
And that is it?
Two computer simulations showed that the vopids would not be large enough or that the velocities were too high.
That's it?
That is an indication but not any sort of definitive proof?
What has been done since then, have there been new simulations?
[/quote]
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411126
and here are some citations of it:
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/0411126
Three computer simulations and still being investigated?
Hardly a death blow. Interesting but not a death blow.
This is not the death knell of the BBET.
And that is it?
Two computer simulations showed that the vopids would not be large enough or that the velocities were too high.
That's it?
That is an indication but not any sort of definitive proof?
What has been done since then, have there been new simulations?
[/quote]
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0411126
and here are some citations of it:
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai:arXiv.org:gr-qc/0411126
Three computer simulations and still being investigated?
Hardly a death blow. Interesting but not a death blow.
This is not the death knell of the BBET.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Now this one
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410421
is interesting, I looked at the PDF and it has some interesting conclusions about the distribution of the Milky Way halo of small galaxies in comparison to the CDM model.
That one is more interesting than some of the other ones.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0410421
is interesting, I looked at the PDF and it has some interesting conclusions about the distribution of the Milky Way halo of small galaxies in comparison to the CDM model.
That one is more interesting than some of the other ones.
Unsupported evidence from three simulations leading to an unsupported assertion.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0107filament.html
is a continuation of an ongoing issue with the BBET, the lumps in the early universe.
is a continuation of an ongoing issue with the BBET, the lumps in the early universe.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Let's look more closely at this reference. As already noted, it states that "from the optical spectra of the QSO and the interstellar gas of NGC 7319 together, we show that it is very likely that the QSO is interacting with the interstellar gas". It also states "there are many discrete, powerful X-ray emitting sources (argued to be quasars) that lie close to the nuclei of spiral galaxies, often apparently inside the main body of the galaxy". It notes the typical separation in these studies between these objects and galaxy is 1 to 5 arc seconds, less than the separation of 8 arc seconds in this case. It goes on to say that "the fact that they are all very close to the centers of the galaxies strongly suggests that these sources are physically associated with these galaxies".
It then cites earlier studies by Radecke and Arp which showed "a strong tendency for QSOs to cluster about active spiral galaxies", noting a typical separation of the quasars and galaxies in those studies of 15-20 arc seconds. It states that "if the separations are smaller than this, there will be an even greater likelihood that the QSOs and galaxies are physically associated."
The paper specifically asks "Is the QSO behind NGC 7319?" It notes the presence of interstellar Na D1 and D2 absorption lines in the spectrum of the QSO, but says this is not unexpected since "we would still expect about half the possible optical depth of gas between the QSO and the observer. It then asks "does the color of the QSO indicate that it is inordinately reddened and therefore obscured as if it were a background object?" And they find that it isn't. They also state that the QSO doesn't appear to be shrouded in any way by interstellar gas (as one might expect if one where looking through the core of a spiral galaxy to see it. Finally, they ask the question whether it's an accidental superposition and conclude "In our view, the very low probability of a chance superposition is yet more evidence in favor of the view that this QSO is at the distance of NGC 7319."
Now you asked whether others have looked at this issue. Do you honestly believe that Big Bang believing astronomers wouldn't challenge this observation and conclusion in print if they could?
Astronomers who have invented countless gnomes (black holes, magnetic reconnection, tangled field lines, neutron stars, quark stars, dark matter in a dozen flavors or more, dark energy ... whatever that is, inflation, changing fundamental constants, etc, etc, etc) just to make Big Bang *sort of* explain the observations are hardly in a position to claim they've ignored data because there is a "simpler" explanation. Not when all the while they've simply ignored electromagnetic explanations for a multitude of observations.
Just look at the picture. The core of this galaxy is relatively dense. And as the article above pointed out, the light characteristics of the quasar do not show any clear indication that the light is passing through that core. There is also no sign of a gap in the core that would allow light to pass through it.
As the paper actually states and as you quoted it stating, one would also expect absorption if the object were ejected from the core on this side of the galaxy but has not completely left the confines of the galaxy. And why do you ignore the observed plasma filament coming from the core towards the QSO? Just another coincidental alignment in your opinion?
The fact that there are no other observed background objects (quasars, galaxies, etc) shining through the core region does add support to the argument that this one object alone from potentially many is not shining through the core. For that matter, can you provide examples of other spiral galaxy cores where background objects are found to be shining through? If not, that would make this an exceedingly rare event.
If you are trying to suggest this is the only case showing an interaction between a galaxy and a quasar, you are apparently unaware of study after study to the contrary.
Perhaps because they don't control the telescopes (like Chandra) that would make such observations and those who do control those telescopes have become increasingly reluctant to give time to astronomers like Arp and Burbidge.
Let me repeat ... this is not the only observation suggesting a problem with Big Bang's interpretation of redshift.
Ever hear of the Einstein Cross? It's another case of quasars aligned with the heart of a galaxy. Here are some links to images of it:
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/0010/qso2237_wiyn.jpg
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Einstein Cross.jpg
There appear to be four quasars, with redshifts about z = 1.7, buried deep in the heart of a low redshift (z=0.04) galaxy. Sound familiar? To explain this away, mainstream astrophysicists invoke gravitational lensing, despite a calculation by Fred Hoyle showing that the probability of such a lensing event was less than two chances in a million (and by the way, for the record, there are now several other cases like this which is all the more unlikely).
The Hubble Space Telescope has imaged the cross and using those observations Halton Arp was able to show that there is connecting material between one of the quasars (D) and the central galaxy. A high redshift connection has also been discovered between quasars A and B. It passes in front of the connection between the nucleus and quasar D. Plus, the brightness of the four quasars was observed to increase over a period of several years. Arp's explanation is that the galaxy has ejected four quasars, which are growing brighter with age as they move farther from the nucleus. The mainstream's lensing explanation is that individual stars pass in front of the quasar are producing additional gravitational lensing. So now they are not only assuming lensing by a supposed perfectly aligned black hole at the heart of the galaxy but lensing by specific stars in the galaxy too.
Also the luminosity of the quasars seems to vary independent of one another. Explain that with gravitational lensing. And here's a paper, http://vela.astro.ulg.ac.be/themes/dataproc/deconv/articles/q2237/q2237.html#len , that concludes one quasar image's light is being absorbed and reradiated by dust ... which might be the case if the quasars are actually separate objects embedded in the host galaxy but unlikely in a lensing case. Chandra observations also indicate that object A has a broad emission line in the Fe/K alpha while objects B,C,D do not. How can this be with a single lensing galaxy or star? Afterall, according to NASA (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1995/43/text/ ), "it is impossible to identify the true gravitational lenses without observations which show the two objects have exactly the same spectral fingerprint and so are "multiple" images of a single object." These don't so what should that tell NASA?
Even ignoring the above observations (which Big Bang proponents seem almost desperate to do), there is still plenty of evidence against the validity of the redshift/distance relationship. Halton Arp (who you recall worked for Hubble) has identified hundreds of instances where low redshift galaxies seem to be connected to high redshift galaxies and quasars by plasma filaments. He's got a catalog them. The sheer number defies the probability that all are just chance occurences.
Are you familiar with the case of 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 have now written 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 conclude, based on better 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.
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.
A probability of alignment of 3 x 10^^-9 is very, very small. It's highly unlikely that Arp just happened to discover this "coincidental" alignment after examining a few thousand or even tens of thousands of cases. And if that's not enough reason to be suspicious of the redshift/distance relationship, there are also dozens of instances where Halton Arp and others have identified low redshift galaxies that have quasars (or at least what astronomers still identify as quasars) anomalously clustered around them. The paper discussed at the beginning of this post names some of them.
Here is a paper by Arp, Burbidge and others titled "An anomalous concentration of QSOs around NGC 3079" (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0510815 ). The paper's abstract states "it is shown that there are at least 21 QSOs within 1 degree of the nearby active spiral galaxy NGC3079. ... snip ... The probability that this is an accidental configuration is shown to be less or equal to one in a million. Discovery selection effects and microlensing fail by a large factor to explain the phenomenon, suggesting that the QSOs may lie in the same physical space as NGC3079."
Here is a more general article by Arp and David Russell on quasar clustering near galaxies: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v549n2/51780/51780.html . Among their conclusions is that "for the typical association we are dealing with a probability of around 10^^-5. ... snip ... Of course some of these associations have probabilities which put them in the class of experimentum crucis, such as NGC 6217 and NGC 470/474. Here these have P < 10^^-6 and P 2 × 10^^-9."
The above paper also notes the fact that groups of quasars are often noticeably aligned with specific features of low redshift galaxies, such as the minor axis, the major axis, plumes and jets. Just like the one in NGC 7319. This too is highly improbable if it's just a "chance" alignment. In fact, the paper states that "alignments of quasars along the minor axes of the Seyfert galaxies NGC 3516 and NGC 5985 could also be cited as having P < 10^^-6 and P < 10^^-8".
Arp published a paper, http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v525n2/39505/39505.html "The Distribution of High-Redshift (z >= 2) Quasars near Active Galaxies" in the peer reviewed Astrophysical Journal in 1999 where he concluded there is "evidence for ejection of material in opposite directions from nuclei of active galaxies." Also, "there is a clear tendency for these ejections to be along the least obstructed direction, the minor axis of rotating galaxies." He calculated the probability that the quasar triplets found in two fields surveyed by the Westerbork radio telescope would be close to the central object, have an alignment across the central galaxy and have similar redshifts to each other is 10^^-8 to 10^^-9. Highly unlikely. He further noted that "medium-redshift quasars are brighter and fall farther from the active galaxies. The higher, z >= 2 quasars are fainter and fall closer to the active galaxies. When the active galaxy is severely disturbed, the quasars fall closer, are more numerous, and are fainter and more similar in redshift."
The paper at http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache....gz+NGC+3628+quasars&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us 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."
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 astronomically small. Yet, Big Bang proponents continue to 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 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.
But what are the odds they are all just chance alignments? Even common sense should tell you that the correct answer is very close to ZERO. Clearly, Big Bang cosmologists and proponents are in denial ... and the reason they are in denial is that quasars have become a central part of their model of the early universe. If they aren't distant objects, that model will fall apart. And the reason has to do with what Big Bang proponents say quasars are ... black holes, yet another gnome.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Last holdouts?
http://www.cosmologystatement.org/
By the way, let's add fuel to the fire ...
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach....html+burbidge+7319&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=49&gl=us "New optical spectra and general discussion on*the*nature*of*ULXs, H. Arp, C. M. Gutiérrez and M. López-Corredoira, ... snip ... 2004 ... snip ... Arp (1987, 1998) suggested that quasars emerge from the nuclei of galaxies. In that model the quasars or proto quasars must pass out from the nucleus and out through the body and immediate environments of the galaxy before arriving at the distances where they have been shown to be physically associated. In this case they must pass through the region in which the present ULXs have been identified. It was therefore predicted that we should observe quasar-like objects in just the region in which observers are reporting ULXs (see Burbidge et*al. 2003). ... snip ... This model also gives a possible evolutionary connection between recent observations of HII*and other narrow line galaxies and the ejection of quasars. "
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0509630 " Research on candidates for non-cosmological redshifts M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez ... snip ... 2005 ... snip ... The paradox of apparent optical associations of galaxies with very different redshifts, the so-called anomalous redshift problem, is around 35 years old, but is still without a clear solution and is surprisingly ignored by most of the astronomical community. Statistical correlations among the positions of these galaxies have been pointed out by several authors. Gravitational lensing by dark matter has been proposed as the cause of these correlations, although this seems to be insufficient to explain them and does not work at all for correlations with the brightest and nearest galaxies. Some of these cases may be just fortuitous associations in which background objects are close in the sky to a foreground galaxy, although the statistical mean correlations remain to be explained and some lone objects have very small probabilities of being a projection of background objects. The sample of discordant redshift associations given in Arp's atlas is indeed quite large, and most of the objects remain to be analysed thoroughly. For about 5 years, we have been running a project to observe some of these cases in detail, and some new anomalies have been added to those already known; For instance, in some exotic configurations such as NGC 7603 or NEQ3, which can even show bridges connecting four object with very different redshifts. Not only QSOs but also emission-line galaxies in general are found to take part in this kind of event."
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origins_of_quasars_and_galaxy_clusters "A recently announced observational result on the ultra luminous infrared galaxy Arp 220 serves to illustrate the formation origin of groups and clusters of galaxies. This ULIRG is reputed to be one of the most luminous galaxies known and extremely active both optically and in X- rays. Investigation of the brighter X-ray sources immediately around the galaxy have identi. ed quasars and quasar candidates (Arp et al. 2001). Most striking are a pair of quasars shown here in Fig. 7 which are exactly aligned across the central active galaxy. By now many such pairs have been identified across active galaxies and they tend to have similar redshifts. But the striking result in Fig. 7 is that this pair have almost identical redshifts of z = 1.26 and 1.25.
Figure 7 discussed above: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origins_of_quasars_and_galaxy_clusters/illustrations/figure_7.jpg
But they are all just coincidences ... right?
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
No, David, as I told you then, I am awaiting a response from JREF Admin (specifically Darat) as to whether I can post a summary of the Big Bang problems and Electric Universe solutions to those problems as long as I post no hotlinks and limit quotes to a fraction of any given source (all according to JREF's rules). I tried to do that and they deleted what I posted ... which, by the way, is what started the debate on that subject. So it didn't make much sense to continue that debate if you were going to be allowed to post whatever you wanted (much of it a mischaracterization of data and theories, I might add) and any material I offered was going to be deleted by the moderators. After I posted Darat, Chillzero told Darat he would withdraw his objections to my posts under those conditions and undelete my posts. But he hasn't done that. Apparently we are both awaiting a formal decision from Darat. I pinged Darat a second time and still have gotten no response. He may be busy. But in any case, I will not post on that thread until this matter is officially settled. If they choose to delete the posts I've been offering on this thread, then I guess I'll have my answer.
Now even though I've grown a little weary of the way you debate, let's consider the questions you asked on the subject of quasars on the two previous threads where we've discussed this subject.
Dancing David wrote
This question demonstrates that you may have read about Arp's ejected quasar theory, but you certainly didn't understand it. There are no blue shifts because according to Arp's theory, which is underpinned by alternative solutions to the equations for GR where the mass of the universe has not been assumed constant since the Big Bang (i.e., matter can still be created under the right conditions), quasars are PRODUCING highly redshifted light as they gain mass. The redshift is not because of receding velocity.
Dancing David wrote
What evidence is there that they cannot be? The filament plasma with those emission lines is clearly pointing at the QSO and only 3-4 arc seconds from the QSO. The paper states "The enormous strength and extent of the [O ii] -3727 emission near the projected position of the QSO is particularly interesting ... snip ... to excite this large population of excited [O ii] atoms in a low-density environment requires a powerful source of ionizing radiation." And then it states "Thus, to attribute this extended emission to a secondary source, namely, the embedded ULX/QSO, may appear to many to be a highly unlikely possibility. However, it cannot be denied that, while the ULX/QSO has a much smaller X-ray count than the central nucleus, it is possible that the very strong [O ii] emission near the projected position of the QSO is due to the close proximity of that source." And perhaps the reason mainstream supporters haven't published their own paper on this observation is that they can't find any evidence to counter the paper's statements.
Dancing David wrote
The answer lies in the paper also. As I noted above, the paper notes the presence of interstellar Na D1 and D2 absorption lines in the spectrum of the QSO, but says this is not unexpected since "we would still expect about half the possible optical depth of gas between the QSO and the observer." It then asks "does the color of the QSO indicate that it is inordinately reddened and therefore obscured as if it were a background object?" And they find that it isn't. It's there in black and white, David.
Dancing David wrote
To get a better look at the QSO and filament? Isn't that obvious? And wise given the potential importance of this issue? Or should all research into galaxies be conducted with the resolution in that image? Perhaps you should be asking why NASA hasn't made more detailed observations of this quasar and the connecting filament?
And by the way, you directed those questions at robinson, not me, in that other thread. So get off your high hobby horse, David.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Well they better not if you think Big Bang is right.
Asked and answered.
That's your job.
Asked and answered.
What about it.
A question that demonstrates you haven't actually looked at the data or understand Arp's theory about quasars.
Of course not but when you have hundreds of highly improbable visual alignments (as I pointed out in the post above and in the previous threads ... before that material was deleted by moderators), you'd be wise to consider it rather than just dismiss it as mainstream proponents are clearly doing.
ABSOLUTELY and I'll be happy to demonstrate that if moderators will allow me to post my series summarizing Big Bang and the alternatives. So why don't you ping Darat and ask him to give me the go ahead. In the interests of a good AND FAIR debate.
BeAChooser
Banned
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,716
Where'd you get the idea there were only two, David?
Here's a challenge. Try to find ONE mainstream simulation that explains that billion light year void. Just one. Find an article that says mainstream models can predict the size of even lesser voids. Because all I find are articles where the astronomers are saying the size of voids is a complete surprise to them and hard to explain given current gnome-filled models.
The cumulative weight of the evidence against mainstream astrophysics and cosmology is staggering, David. That's why I had to post a 14 part series ... each on a separate subject ... which moderators deleted. And I still didn't cover every complaint that exists.
Oh ... do they have a new crop of gnomes on the drawing board to bail them out of the current round of problems? ROTFLOL!
sol invictus
Philosopher
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,613
BeAC, do you realize how many observations there are that are consistent with the big bang? There must be tens of thousands, probably more. The cosmic microwave background, large scale structure surveys, quasars, supernova surveys, galactic spectra, the list goes on and on and on. The reason it's possible to find some anomalies (none of which are particularly hard to explain, actually) is simply that there are so many observations.
Furthermore we have a theory, called general relativity, which DOES NOT ALLOW static universes. If GR is correct there MUST be a big bang, or the universe must be contracting (good luck reconciling that with data). Therefore you are claiming GR is wrong, which means you are going against tons more data, from lensing to GPS satellite to the orbits of planets to frame dragging.
Finally, the "alternative" you propose is so laughably ridiculous it can't even be dignified with the name "theory". We know very well that the universe is almost exactly neutral (we know that from thousands of observations). Furthermore we know how big the magnetic fields are in space (non-zero, but insanely smaller than what you need for your "theory"). And we understand just about all aspects of solar physics to about 1%, including neutrino emission, temperature, the fact that other stars follow expected patterns, Chandresekhar limit, supernovae, red giants, dwarfs, black holes, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention light element abundances, heavy elements from supernovae, metallicity as a function of redshift, the existence of hydrogen bombs, particle physics, gravity, etc. All that stuff fits together very tightly and very well. Even very small modifications can usually be ruled out easily.
Anyway, that was more than enough time wasted debunking such utter nonsense.
Furthermore we have a theory, called general relativity, which DOES NOT ALLOW static universes. If GR is correct there MUST be a big bang, or the universe must be contracting (good luck reconciling that with data). Therefore you are claiming GR is wrong, which means you are going against tons more data, from lensing to GPS satellite to the orbits of planets to frame dragging.
Finally, the "alternative" you propose is so laughably ridiculous it can't even be dignified with the name "theory". We know very well that the universe is almost exactly neutral (we know that from thousands of observations). Furthermore we know how big the magnetic fields are in space (non-zero, but insanely smaller than what you need for your "theory"). And we understand just about all aspects of solar physics to about 1%, including neutrino emission, temperature, the fact that other stars follow expected patterns, Chandresekhar limit, supernovae, red giants, dwarfs, black holes, etc. etc. etc. Not to mention light element abundances, heavy elements from supernovae, metallicity as a function of redshift, the existence of hydrogen bombs, particle physics, gravity, etc. All that stuff fits together very tightly and very well. Even very small modifications can usually be ruled out easily.
Anyway, that was more than enough time wasted debunking such utter nonsense.
Last edited:
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
Is that because you are you, there were many things I asked you that you never answered, you post a long post of things strung together and then don't like it when someone actualy takes the time to read them?
Figures, eh?
So you like to just post large amounts of material and assume that people will disagree with it and then get huffy when they actualy do read it?
Sp you chopse one question from the first thread to answer, that is good!
I just asked about ejected quasar, thanks for the high handed treatment?
I just asked.
And now you have answered. Thank you.
Would you want to discuss Arp's contributions to GR here?
See that is the question now isn't it?
Assuming that they have to be created by the QSO is one path to take. But if there are multiple ossibilites then perhaps the wisest course would be trying to decide which way to test the difference, now wouldn't it?
But please continue to just assert that there is an embedded QSO.
Clearly alingned is not the same as actual proximity, how many light years is that angle at that distance? It could be that there is a QSO stimulating emission, it could be something else. The filiment might be associated with the QSO , it might not.
See what they say is different than what you say:
"it is possible", that is different than say what you do 'there is an embedded quasar'.
So again it could be either possibility , right? So it is not conclusive that the QSO is embeedded.
And how did they measure it versus other object behind the galaxy?
I can write "The moon looks like a dirty ashtray", there it is in black and white.
Gosh you sure appear cranky.
Also to determine if it really is embedded, right? Because they might have some doubt?
Maybe you should ask astronomer who worked on the recent 'building block galaxies' project , how long did it take get to get your time? Did you feel that you might not get your time.
Your just whining again.
Get off your holy hobby elephant Mr. Smartypants.