From this photo, why the conclusion

[The Code]

Hi Folks.

Question.

How do you get, 300 solar masses and a velocity of 880,000 mph From these Photos? Taken from 50 million light years away?
I Know it states " Just as the mass of our Sun can be calculated from the orbital radii and speeds of the planets.) But how do you calculate from such distance? when you can not see all that,s required to make the conclusion?
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 2/image/a/

Thanks

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

How do you get, 300 solar masses and a velocity of 880,000 mph From these Photos? Taken from 50 million light years away?

The spectrographic camera provides data on Doppler redshift as a function of the center distance. Doppler redshift is directly converted to a velocity. In this case, the measurement is 400 km/s at a center distance of 26 light years. The equations of orbital dynamics derived from simple Newtonian mechanics allow a minimum central mass to be determined (there are only certain solutions that allow for material orbiting with a particular rotational velocity). The minimum central mass in this case is 300 solar masses. The actual central mass may be larger- and probably is.

[The Code]

Thanks Chris.

But how does this Quote change the 50 million light year figure, to something completely different?

Quote: -

Quasars may be much closer than their red shift would indicate if they have an "intrinsic" red shift due to being surrounded by a 'fuzzy' atmosphere containing free electrons and other material. This concentration of electrons produces the unusual red shift as the light travels through it and loses energy to these electrons per the Compton effect. If quasars are nearby, they may even exhibit proper motion in the sky as the Earth travels around the sun. Such a proper motion has been seen. See Quasar Absolute Proper Motion for a table that includes such proper motion observations.

Some quasars may be double stars, with one member being an ordinary star and the other exhibiting a large red shift and being labeled as a quasar. The 100,000th Hubble Image is a good candidate for such a pair. Ken Kellerman of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has also suggested that the red shift of quasars may be intrinsic and not an indication of their distance in a classic 1972 paper Radio Galaxies, Quasars and Cosmology published in the Astronomical Journal.

The red shift on the sun is obviously not Doppler since the sun is not moving away from us. This shift shows a variation in magnitude that correlates with the number of electrons along the line of sight. It is smallest at the solar center and greatest at the limb where we are looking through the thickest part of the sun's atmosphere. John Kierein and Brooks Sharp showed this correlation as a Compton effect interpretation in the journal "Solar Physics" in March of 1968. Compton himself believed this was the cause of the solar red shift (see Compton, A. H., 1923 Phil. Mag. 46, 897). The electrons on the sun are concentrated in altitude by gravity with the greatest density near the sun's surface (the photosphere) to produce the sun's intrinsic red shift. Similarly, the quasar red shift (and other bright, hot young stars' "K effect" intrinsic red shift - see Arp's book.) have an intrinsic Compton effect red shift concentrated at or very near the object's surface.

In addition to this red shift on the sun, which is there all the time and is on the order of 1 part in a million, there has been measured a gamma ray red shift that occurred only during a large solar flare. This solar flare red shift was nearly 1 percent or one part in a hundred! It was measured by the RHESSI satellite. The red shift varied by the element, the heavier element having a bigger red shift. I believe this red shift is also due to the Compton effect and is caused by the gamma rays ionizing the elements and releasing electrons from these element "targets". The heavier elements have greater numbers of electrons to release and consequently have multiple Compton collisions and greater red shifts. Other gamma ray red shifts such as this are also intrinsic Compton effect red shifts.

For the Compton effect to cause the cosmological red shift, intergalactic space must have a density of free electrons and/or positrons. The further light travels through this transparent medium, the greater the red shift - and Hubble's law follows. The existence of electrons and positrons in intergalactic space has been shown by observations of electron-positron annihilation gamma rays coming from above our galactic plane. This is the direction our galaxy is plowing into the intergalactic medium. (See "Peculiar Velocity of the Sun and its Relation to the Cosmic Microwave Background" by J.M. Stewart & D.W.Sciama, Nature vol. 216,p 748f, Nov. 25, 1967.) This is observed from the, appropriately named, Compton Gamma Ray Observatory in orbit above the Earth's atmosphere.

Indeed, while intergalactic space was once thought to be empty, now we know it is filled with clouds of high velocity gas that contain molecular hydrogen. This molecular hydrogen is thought to come from the condensation of hydrogen atoms that are just free electrons and protons. When light hits these free electrons, it produces the Compton effect red shift.

If the Compton effect causes the red shift, the universe is not expanding, but rather is "static". Max Born (and others - see below) did an analysis of the background temperature of such a universe and found that it doesn't differ greatly from the observed 3 degree kelvin background.

Grote Reber predicted that this interpretation of the red shift would result in a dispersion in the arrival times of extragalactic signals. The recent pinpointing of the extragalactic nature of gamma ray bursts and the delay in arrival times of longer wavelength radiation from these events confirms this prediction as shown in Dark Matter by John Kierein. This time lag for longer wavelengths is shown by Dr. Jay Norris to provide a method of measuring distance to the gamma ray source.

Some say that the Compton effect should cause the light to be scattered and distance sources blurred. Does scattering cause blurring? Not necessarily. Note how the Milky Way stars at the edge of the Barnard 68 dust cloud are not at all blurred even though they are dimmed to extinction as their photons are absorbed and scattered. Also note how, when this object is viewed in the Infrared, the background stars shine right through this cloud without blurring! Dark matter causes light to bend without blurring.

Do we know anything? For sure

Mark

[Chris Peterson]

Thanks Chris.

But how does this Quote change the 50 million light year figure, to something completely different?

Quote...

The material you quote is unrelated. It refers to a (largely discredited) theory that the distance to quasars may be misinterpreted due to something else producing a redshift effect. The photo and story you initially referenced has to do with using Doppler redshift (different from the cosmological redshift used to estimate distance) to measure the orbital velocity of material around a central mass. Doppler redshift is unambiguously real, since it is seen as redshift on one side of the orbit and blueshift on the other. Nobody has proposed that some other effect is in play to produce these measurements.

[bystander]

Mark:

If you are going to post such a lengthy quote, post the source.

Why the Big Bang is Wrong, John Kierein