• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Discordant redshifts?

JeanTate

Illuminator
J
Joined
Nov 18, 2014
Messages
4,001
Research on candidates for non-cosmological redshifts, M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez (2005), link is to arXiv abstract:

(Abridged) 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. Other cases are analyzed: MCG 7-25-46, GC 0248+430, B2 1637+29, VV172 and Stephan's Quintet.
Click to expand...

This is not your typical "Arp was right!" paper. I'm interested in what ISF members (those who hang out in this board) think of the paper, especially the extent to which you think it's more than just "stamp collecting". My own interest is perhaps most strong on Section 7.
 
JeanTate said:
Research on candidates for non-cosmological redshifts, M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez (2005), link is to arXiv abstract:



This is not your typical "Arp was right!" paper. I'm interested in what ISF members (those who hang out in this board) think of the paper, especially the extent to which you think it's more than just "stamp collecting". My own interest is perhaps most strong on Section 7.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I've come across a number of papers by this particular author. He appears to do little independent research, and tends to have a somewhat anti-mainstream outlook, dressed up in "let's assess the models" type papers. That paper is a decade and a half old, and is likely long since debunked regarding Arp's stuff. I do remember some claims of bridges that were shown to be merely illusory, when looked at closely. It might have been on Tom Bridgman's blog. I'll have to have a look around.
I did recently see one of his papers in regard to his assessment of various models for the explanation of cosmic expansion. I wasn't impressed. He even looked at models by complete cranks such as Marmet, and another bloke whose name escapes me, and is a favourite of EUists, who never published in the relevant and/or peer-reviewed literature. As well as Lerner's erroneous stuff.
Very often, whenever cranks cite seemingly legitimate papers by people such as Lerner, and others whose names I can't recall (Brynjolffson? and some other bloke who used to post on BAUT Ashmore!), you'll often find that Lopez-Corredoira is among the very few who have bothered to cite those papers. For that reason alone, given how easily those papers are to dismiss, I have my doubts that he is someone worth taking much notice of.
 
jonesdave116 said:
Hmmm. I've come across a number of papers by this particular author. He appears to do little independent research, and tends to have a somewhat anti-mainstream outlook, dressed up in "let's assess the models" type papers. That paper is a decade and a half old, and is likely long since debunked regarding Arp's stuff. I do remember some claims of bridges that were shown to be merely illusory, when looked at closely. It might have been on Tom Bridgman's blog. I'll have to have a look around.
I did recently see one of his papers in regard to his assessment of various models for the explanation of cosmic expansion. I wasn't impressed. He even looked at models by complete cranks such as Marmet, and another bloke whose name escapes me, and is a favourite of EUists, who never published in the relevant and/or peer-reviewed literature. As well as Lerner's erroneous stuff.
Very often, whenever cranks cite seemingly legitimate papers by people such as Lerner, and others whose names I can't recall (Brynjolffson? and some other bloke who used to post on BAUT Ashmore!), you'll often find that Lopez-Corredoira is among the very few who have bothered to cite those papers. For that reason alone, given how easily those papers are to dismiss, I have my doubts that he is someone worth taking much notice of.
Click to expand...
Indeed, a lot of folk what do not like LCDM cosmology, and/or have their own crackpot ideas, have cited Lopez-Corredoira. And he does cite some of their work too.

And yes, there's an enormous amount of observational data that's been made public since 2005, so Lopez-Corredoira should write and publish an updated paper, specifically on his 'fave' objects.

But that's not what I'm interested in, at least in this thread.

What do you think of the logic? The estimates of probability? Etc.
 
JeanTate said:
Indeed, a lot of folk what do not like LCDM cosmology, and/or have their own crackpot ideas, have cited Lopez-Corredoira. And he does cite some of their work too.

And yes, there's an enormous amount of observational data that's been made public since 2005, so Lopez-Corredoira should write and publish an updated paper, specifically on his 'fave' objects.

But that's not what I'm interested in, at least in this thread.

What do you think of the logic? The estimates of probability? Etc.
Click to expand...

TBH I wouldn't take up much time assessing the estimated probabilities, unless the connections can be shown to be real. The Tom Bridgman post I was thinking of is this one;

https://dealingwithcreationisminastronomy.blogspot.com/2013/06/discordant-redshift-excuses-but.html
 
jonesdave116 said:
Hmmm. I've come across a number of papers by this particular author.....
Click to expand...
..."18 pages, to be published in the proceedings of the conference "Crisis in Cosmology I", 23 to 25 June 2005, Moncao (Portugal)". A conference presentation at a fairly dubious conference in 2005 and not peer reviewed. The conference is not dubious because of the so called "crisis" in cosmology but more that there were just a few conferences so that crisis vanished!

The paper is basically wishful thinking. They take the idea that quasars are ejected from galaxies and list "associations" that they think support this. For example NGC 7603 has a bridge of gas and stars linking it with the interacting elliptical galaxy PGC 71041. Two quasars happen to shine through the edges of the bridge. So they claim the quasars have to be in the bridge and at the same distance as NGC 7603 with different redshifts.

ETA: A report on that conference make it look more dubious: The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference (PDF) with "This writer was one of the early signatories to the letter, and holding the view that the Big Bang explanation of the Universe is scientifically untenable, patently illogical, and without any solid observational support whatsoever" which gives evidence of ignorant, and/or deluded and/or biased attendees at the conference.
  • A presentation by "Retired electrical engineer Tom Andrews".
  • Professor Mike Disney talks about free parameters and has a fantasy of "little statistical significance in the good fits claimed by Big Bang cosmologists" (where is his published paper?).
  • Dr. Tom van Flandern just about lies with “The Big Bang has never achieved a true prediction success where the theory was placed at risk of falsification before the results were known”.
    The very first prediction from theory was Hubble's law and the results have shown it to be correct. The writer even mentions Georges Lemaître who derived Hubble's law with some empirical support a few years before Hubble found it empirically.
  • Professor Yurij Baryshev displays deep ignorance about the Friedmann model and cosmology.
    A model of a homogeneous and isotropic universe cannot predict the observed large scale structures and no one expects it to!
  • Professor Jose Almeida talked about another universe - "a hyperspherical Universe of 4-D Euclidean space".
    This universe is at least Minkowski spacetime (SR) and then there is GR.
  • Dr. Franco Selleri has a delusion that the universe is "a construction in simple 3-D Euclidean space" - deluded because SR and GR exist and work.
  • Professor Huseyin Yilmaz and others presented the flawed Yilmaz theory of gravitation.
  • Professor Alley has the ignorance that no exact solution for 2 bodies in GR makes it flawed. All that does is make n-body calculations hard.
  • Dr. Starkmant apparently lies about a "smooth, Gaussian distribution predicted by Big Bang" for the CMB.
  • Eric Lerner talks about his CMB is a "radio fog produced by plasma filaments" and "The radiation is simply starlight that has been absorbed and re-radiated" fantasy.
  • A lie of a presentation of Alfven's Plasma Cosmology from Eric Lerner.
    The modern "plasma cosmology" is not the invalid Plasma Cosmology. A "most of the Universe is plasma, so the effect of electromagnetic force on a cosmic scale is at least comparable to gravitation" delusion apparently from Lerner - he is a plasma physicist so he should know plasma is quasi-neutral. At enormously smaller scales than cosmological, plasma acts as a neutral gas.
  • Anthony Peratt's really invalid galaxy formation model that even he has abandoned!
    The author lies with "has arrived at a compelling simulation of the morphogenesis of galaxies." when Peratt got spiral galaxies wrong when he published in the 1980's and double-lobed radio galaxies wrong either then or later.
  • Professor Oliver Manuel presented his actually insane idea that the Sun contains a neutron star!
    How did he not get booed out of the conference by astronomers who must know what a neutron star is?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom