Starship Asterisk*

harry wrote: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 wrote:[snip]

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

[snip]

harry wrote: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 wrote: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

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?

harry wrote:

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

Good idea if I knew how to add to it.

FAQ

harry wrote: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.

geckzilla wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:

geckzilla wrote: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.

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.

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

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)?

harry wrote: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.

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.

astro_uk wrote:

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.

GOD wrote:

astro_uk wrote:

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.