Bang or No Bang

[Nereid]

Hello All

Halton Arp
Redshifts
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

What is redshift?
If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'. The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us. This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us. The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume? It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

Inherent Redshift
Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.

In addition, these inherent redshift z values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those calculated values occur centered around values of
z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60].
The very existence of this quantization alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything!

Recently mainstream astronomers have joyfully announced that they can find no quantization effects in the observed redshift values of quasars. Of course not! The raw measured total redshift values of the universal set of all known quasars are not quantized. It is the inherent redshift z values that are!

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

Evidence Says Arp is Right - A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy
The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.

You may need to read the link for images and info. At the bottom of the link you will find more links.

harry, I think I pointed out, some time ago, that links to sites such as electric cosmos are not acceptable here; if not, then I shall do so: please do not post links to non-mainstream material in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

However, since you have so posted, let's take NGC 7319 and its associated quasar.

Please present the "irrefutable" evidence that the quasar is between the galaxy and us.

Please present an order of magnitude (OOM) estimate of the number of quasars that would be expected to lie on lines of sight to parts of galaxies that are brighter than the night sky*, assuming random, and independent, distributions of both quasars and galaxies (on the sky).

*You may assume 25 (B) mag per square arcsecond

[Nereid]

[snip]

Just sit around and only read without discussion. Most cosmologists are in conflict.

[snip]

The floor's yours harry ... please present a strong case, backed by irrefutable numbers, that "[m]ost cosmologists are in conflict".

The only thing I ask is that you start with an objective definition of 'cosmologist' (and that you stick to contemporary, living, cosmologists).

[harry]

Hello All

What is main stream?

Just because some person created a flow and had others follow does not make them right and to control information does not make it right.

and Neried please do not assume that we ride low horses.

Lets look at first the super structures, super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies ( I was not repeating the cluster of cluster) of the universe and try to explain to the public how on earth they were formed in just 500,000,000 years.

I will try to bring up the other points later. One at a time.

[Nereid]

Hello All

What is main stream?

Just because some person created a flow and had others follow does not make them right and to control information does not make it right.

and Neried please do not assume that we ride low horses.

Lets look at first the super structures, super clusters of clusters of clusters of galaxies ( I was not repeating the cluster of cluster) of the universe and try to explain to the public how on earth they were formed in just 500,000,000 years.

I will try to bring up the other points later. One at a time.

harry,

We've been over this, at least once before.

On this particular website, you are not free to choose whichever definition of (contemporary) science (astronomy, cosmology, etc) you wish*. If you cannot stay within the clearly stated scope of this one, why keep posting here? For avoidance of doubt, this is a serious question.

*There are dozens, if not hundreds, of other internet discussion fora with different standards, including many pseudo-science ones, and (no doubt) many non-science, and nonsense, ones.

[harry]

Hello Neried

What do you want me to do?

Think with a closed mind.

Your a smart cookie: What is holding you back?

Do you want me to say that the Big Bang is correct?

We are in the Modern Era. What you are asking is gone with the dark ages.

Like I said before.

You only have to ask me never to post again.

===================================

I asked a question in the previous post?

Are you trying to avoid answering

[Doum]

Harry you are still babbling false information like that supposed GOD is too and some alias probably Why dont you go on a babbling forum and leave this place forever. Sincerely (Get Lost!) (Children might read this and they will think that you are telling the truth.) So to all children on earth watching this forum always remember: Harry dont understand a thing and he dont want to. Those who support him might be alias. So dont beleive what ever he or they (The alias) said.

Big Bang is the best answer found yet and nothing came even close to replace it. When someday something better came i will enjoy reading about it.
But it isnt enjoyable reading a denied about the BIgBang just because it want to do a denied without knowing why it denied but just to do the denied.

Harry it twas so good to have you out of the forum for a few days so please do so again for a few years. Or start learning and then we might enjoy discussion. Nahhh forget it.

[harry]

Hello Doum

A child has a better understanding than you.

Tell me What have you given to this forum.

Just because I question and try to understand. I have people like you thinking in the dark ages.


Mate you must live in La La land.

[Nereid]

Hello Neried

What do you want me to do?

Think with a closed mind.

Your a smart cookie: What is holding you back?

Do you want me to say that the Big Bang is correct?

We are in the Modern Era. What you are asking is gone with the dark ages.

Like I said before.

You only have to ask me never to post again.

===================================

I asked a question in the previous post?

Are you trying to avoid answering

I think this will be the last time, harry.

"Mainstream", as in mainstream astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics, is relatively easy to describe, in an operational sense: the sum total of the papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals. For our purposes, the materials* which ADS keeps track of, or the preprints found at astro-ph. As a first test, if the ideas you want to have discussed cannot be traced back to one or more references in ADS or on astro-ph, then they're likely not within our scope.

Of course, many papers by Arp can be found in ADS, yet the ideas in them are not, today, mainstream (and some never were). In these cases it is entirely legitimate to ask why such ideas are (no longer) mainstream; the ensuing discussion should be very educational, and illustrate well the great strengths of astronomy (etc) as one branch of (modern) science.

That there are other ways - than scientific - to study the universe is surely true; however, as The Asterisk is avowedly science-based, such other ways are beyond our scope.

So, the only 'mind' you need to actively participate in discussions here is one that does not stray beyond the scope of astronomy (etc) as branches of modern science.

Re 'the Big Bang': Doum said it well: "Big Bang is the best answer found yet and nothing came even close to replace it." That's how it is in modern science - the best there is until something that's better comes along.

So, back to your bald assertion ("Most cosmologists are in conflict"). Are you going to support this, within the scope of this forum, or not?

If you are not, then please do not repeat it; if you are, then please do so.

*They're not all papers

[harry]

Hello All

Neried said

So, the only 'mind' you need to actively participate in discussions here is one that does not stray beyond the scope of astronomy (etc) as branches of modern science.

Re 'the Big Bang': Doum said it well: "Big Bang is the best answer found yet and nothing came even close to replace it." That's how it is in modern science - the best there is until something that's better comes along.

Time will tell. I give it 2 years.

So, back to your bald assertion ("Most cosmologists are in conflict"). Are you going to support this, within the scope of this forum, or not?

I will support this.

=====================================

You have still not explained how super clusters of galaxies can form in a few hundred million years.

Soon images will be from 14 Gyrs.

It was only a few years ago that I posted a statement to NASA stating that deep field images will show existing galaxies as we see them close.
They responded after their deep field images and said that it should not have been the case and cannot explain.

Again I say when they see upto 14 Gyrs again they will see existing galaxies as we see them close.


Sorry for being such a pain.

[makc]

Harry; why not start a poll?
Big bang;
No bang;
undecided

Good idea if I knew how to add to it.

Try reading FAQ (it's linked up there on every page for a reason).

[harry]

Hello MakC

I did that.

Must have done something wrong.

[Nereid]

Hello All

Neried said

So, the only 'mind' you need to actively participate in discussions here is one that does not stray beyond the scope of astronomy (etc) as branches of modern science.

Re 'the Big Bang': Doum said it well: "Big Bang is the best answer found yet and nothing came even close to replace it." That's how it is in modern science - the best there is until something that's better comes along.

Time will tell. I give it 2 years.

So, is "2 years" just your totally biased opinion, unsupported by anything other than your emotions?

Or, perchance, do you have something with at least a rational basis that you'd be prepared to share with us?

Think of it like this harry: of course, to you, your opinion carries more weight than anyone else's. However, if one applies that logic to everyone who posts to The Asterisk, or even just to this thread, then we each should ignore your opinions and force our own down your throat.

Now if your opinion can be backed up by a well-presented, soundly-reasoned case ....

So, back to your bald assertion ("Most cosmologists are in conflict"). Are you going to support this, within the scope of this forum, or not?

I will support this.

OK, good.

Please do so.

Please be as quantitative as possible.

=====================================

You have still not explained how super clusters of galaxies can form in a few hundred million years.

Soon images will be from 14 Gyrs.

It was only a few years ago that I posted a statement to NASA stating that deep field images will show existing galaxies as we see them close.
They responded after their deep field images and said that it should not have been the case and cannot explain.

Again I say when they see upto 14 Gyrs again they will see existing galaxies as we see them close.


Sorry for being such a pain.

Now we're getting somewhere!

If you ask questions, instead of making bald assertions, what you post will get more respect (and even answers).

I'd be happy to try to answer any questions you may have, regarding the formation of large-scale structure in the universe.

However, I am unclear just what your question is; would you mind clarifying for me please?

For example, are you asking how, within LCDM models, super-clusters form? What their histories are (likely to be)?

Or are you asking about the formation of the individual clusters/IGM/galaxies/stars/etc within those super-clusters?

Or something else entirely?

Or some combination of the above?

[craterchains]

This is better than reading the sunday funnies OOOOO0000OO0O0O0OO000

[geckzilla]

I think the rank of Sunday funnies is higher than you've ever achieved, crater. I think so far you've attained the rank of cheap doctored tabloid photo.

[harry]

Hello All

Hello Neried

Lets pick one of the biggest super clusters and explain how it was formed and that means all within.

Lets say you have 500,000,000 Yrs to complete the project.

Pick your own model.

[craterchains]

I think the rank of Sunday funnies is higher than you've ever achieved, crater. I think so far you've attained the rank of cheap doctored tabloid photo.

Such is your "thought".
Facts on the other hand demonstrate otherwise.

While many such as geckzilla use lies and slander as a tool for discrediting posters, one must ask why? Just what is their reason for doing so? We have never "doctored: any of the photos we have used in our research work and presented on any site.

[Nereid]

Hello All

Hello Neried

Lets pick one of the biggest super clusters and explain how it was formed and that means all within.

Lets say you have 500,000,000 Yrs to complete the project.

Pick your own model.

Well, I do hope you have lots of time! What you ask will very likely involve nothing less than a detailed summary of much of what's in LCDM models AND an overview of one of the fastest moving areas in astronomy today - the evolution of galaxies!

But before I start, let me say a few words about what I will not be saying.

Science is not religious dogma; there are no 'eternally complete, correct answers' written in some sacred text which awaits a reader to decipher.

So, the best I - or any other user who posts here - could possibly do is sketch the current, consensus understanding, and point out the current limits of that understanding, including the open questions and any anomalies.

May I ask if you accept this limitation of scope? May I ask if you have any (general) questions about what any such scientific framework can, and cannot, deliver (or even promise)?

I ask you this, in all seriousness, and in the expectation of an honest, direct answer, because I have formed the impression - perhaps wrongly - that you dislike science as an intellectual endeavour, that you would likely rail just as vehermently against large parts of modern biology or geology or physics, in terms of well-established theories being bunk or busted and of marginal or discredited 'observations' 'proving' such theories wrong.

[Nereid]

I think the rank of Sunday funnies is higher than you've ever achieved, crater. I think so far you've attained the rank of cheap doctored tabloid photo.

Such is your "thought".
Facts on the other hand demonstrate otherwise.

Several folk have made similar claims (not necessarily to do with craters).

Some have been offered the floor, to make a scientific case, for their claims.

As far as I know, none have seriously availed themselves of the offer; certainly no serious case for any non-mainstream astronomy/cosmology/astrophysics idea has been presented.

Would you like such an opportunity, craterchains?

[harry]

Hello Neried

Just like my wife, you read into things out of context.

I ask you this, in all seriousness, and in the expectation of an honest, direct answer, because I have formed the impression - perhaps wrongly - that you dislike science as an intellectual endeavour, that you would likely rail just as vehermently against large parts of modern biology or geology or physics, in terms of well-established theories being bunk or busted and of marginal or discredited 'observations' 'proving' such theories wrong.

Yep you are wrong, so!!!!!!!! wrong.

Love science

Science is not religious dogma; there are no 'eternally complete, correct answers' written in some sacred text which awaits a reader to decipher.

Thats true, but I know your limitations.

May I ask if you accept this limitation of scope? May I ask if you have any (general) questions about what any such scientific framework can, and cannot, deliver (or even promise)?

Ok. Sounds logical.

[Nereid]

Hello All

Hello Neried

Lets pick one of the biggest super clusters and explain how it was formed and that means all within.

Lets say you have 500,000,000 Yrs to complete the project.

Pick your own model.

Back on 17 October, in this thread, I wrote:

How about we do this, harry: you read through Evidence for the Big Bang and ask any questions you wish concerning what's there. I, and other users, will answer your questions, and post links to other, more detailed, material, as necessary. At the point at which it starts to get too technical for you, please say so, and I (and others) will suggest some textbooks of physics and astrophysics for you to go through.

So harry, wrt your questions, let's start with that material. In particular, Large-scale structure of the universe.

And in particular squared, "In 2005, two teams of cosmologists reported independent measurements of the expected baryon feature. As with the CMBR power spectrum, this confirmed that the model cosmologists have developed for the initial growth of large scale structure was a good match to what we see in the sky." and "In 2005, the Virgo Consortium released the "Millennium Simulation"; details can be found on both the Virgo homepage and this page at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics. Using the concordance model (drawn from matching the results of the supernovae studies, the WMAP observations, etc.), these simulations are able to reproduce the observed large scale galaxy distributions quite well. On small scales, there is still some disagreement, however (see below for a more detailed discussion)."

In a nutshell, this explains the formation of a structure the size of a supercluster; in particular, it covers how one of the hot spots in the CMB becomes something the size of a supercluster within ~500 million years, and with the estimated average matter density of such a supercluster at that early date.

For sure you will have questions on just this part (at least, I hope you have questions!), so let's have them first. Then I will look at the formation of stars in the early universe, before turning to the fascinating, and currently wide open, questions of the formation and early evolution of galaxies.

Note that the formation of clusters, within superclusters, is also covered in this post - it's just a finer detail of the formation of superclusters ...

[harry]

Hello Neired

Thank you for the above links.

I have read them before, but! I will read them again.

I will come back to you.

===================================

The last few days, I have been reading papers on MECO and Jet formation. Amazing info.

[GOD]

To me it is more plausible that as a result of a BB energy was dispersed through pre-existing matter along with inflation of space.

You seem to be suggesting that the Universe existed before the BB, that the BB then spread material through it, and caused space to expand. But if the BB caused the expansion how did the material get mixed so thoroughly? In your picture either:

----The BB throws the material out into the prexisting material which remains at rest, which would mean we should see structures that are moving apart and others (from the prexisting material) that are stationary relative to the explosion, with the new material flying off between the old stuff. This of course is not what is seen.

---- The BB starts everything expanding, including the prexisting material, in which case nothing really gets mixed, so you would see a shell of new material expanding with the old material expanding just in front of it, and never the twain shall meet.

Of course in any case this idea is obviously much more complicated than the original BB, as now you have to have two formation events. I'll stick to the simpler version which fits the facts.

The universe did exist before the BB. The Big Bang we theorize was merely only a local affair in our part of the universe. There was (and will be) more than one Big Bang. Although some do not want to believe this, the Hubble is starting to show evidence of this fact now and over the next ten years will prove it.

[harry]

Hello GOD

You said

The universe did exist before the BB. The Big Bang we theorize was merely only a local affair in our part of the universe. There was (and will be) more than one Big Bang. Although some do not want to believe this, the Hubble is starting to show evidence of this fact now and over the next ten years will prove it.

In a way you are right. I would add many mini big bangs and not at the same time and as part of a reycling process.

Hubble did question the constant and its use.

As for the evidence, I would have said 2 years. Maybe wishful thinking.

As I see it. The Big Bang will remain the standard model for sometime.
There is too much support from churches, schools, politics and cash flow associated with the theory. At the end of the day, there is going to be alot of people upset IF the BBT is proved to be the biggest crank pot theory.

======================================

Smile,,,,,,,,,I saw a movie today. It was an old classic.

Enemy of the town.

[Nereid]

To me it is more plausible that as a result of a BB energy was dispersed through pre-existing matter along with inflation of space.

You seem to be suggesting that the Universe existed before the BB, that the BB then spread material through it, and caused space to expand. But if the BB caused the expansion how did the material get mixed so thoroughly? In your picture either:

----The BB throws the material out into the prexisting material which remains at rest, which would mean we should see structures that are moving apart and others (from the prexisting material) that are stationary relative to the explosion, with the new material flying off between the old stuff. This of course is not what is seen.

---- The BB starts everything expanding, including the prexisting material, in which case nothing really gets mixed, so you would see a shell of new material expanding with the old material expanding just in front of it, and never the twain shall meet.

Of course in any case this idea is obviously much more complicated than the original BB, as now you have to have two formation events. I'll stick to the simpler version which fits the facts.

The universe did exist before the BB. The Big Bang we theorize was merely only a local affair in our part of the universe. There was (and will be) more than one Big Bang. Although some do not want to believe this, the Hubble is starting to show evidence of this fact now and over the next ten years will prove it.

But surely it's not a matter of belief, disconnected from strong observational or experimental evidence?

What are the observations, from the HST, that you think are starting to show evidence for more than one bang? What extension, or replacement, of the theory of General Relativity is used to underpin the interpretation of such observations?

[makc]

who needs observations? we have divine revelations.