PDA

View Full Version : Visible to eye? 7.5 billion LYA!


Dancing David
21st March 2008, 04:10 AM
A gamma ray burst 7.5 billion light years away, and it might have been visible!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080321/ts_afp/usspace;_ylt=AoRdQnaxxWkbtpDHqzhEYXV34T0D

MG1962
21st March 2008, 04:16 AM
That is just simply amazing - How the hell do you wrap your mind around that sort of information

Dancing David
21st March 2008, 06:01 AM
I don't know, I can barely visualise a thousand people in my mind.

wollery
21st March 2008, 06:10 AM
Best piece of advice I was ever given in Astronomy was by my undergraduate stellar structure lecturer. He said (paraphrased, my memory isn't that good), "Don't try to get a feel for the sizes, masses, energies or distances involved in astronomy. You can't. Just learn to work the numbers and know which ones are reasonable and which ones aren't."

alfaniner
21st March 2008, 08:26 AM
?? What would be an "unreasonable" number in astronomy?

Tubbythin
21st March 2008, 08:39 AM
?? What would be an "unreasonable" number in astronomy?

7.
Most numbers in astronomy are phenomenaly big (eg. intergalactic distances). A few are ridiculously small (eg. the probability of a single solar neutrino interacting with a proton in a big tank of water). There is very little in the way of middleground. Hence, 7 is about as unreasonable as it gets.

IXP
21st March 2008, 10:57 AM
Warning: Never look directly at a gamma ray burst!

On second thought: Never look indirectly at a gamma ray burst.

IXP

MattusMaximus
21st March 2008, 03:50 PM
Damn, that is sooo cool :cool:

shadron
21st March 2008, 04:31 PM
Now, we know from past experience that GRB's are detectable in our neutrino detectors by an above normal count on the order of "several" detected neutrinos. Anyone like to make a guess at the neutrino flux at its peak (say, neutrinos per square meter facing the GRB) caused by the GRB based on a detection of, say, 5 hits on one of the detectors? When you consider the neutrinos are spreading out in distance squared relationship, for 5 billion light years, that's a pot-load of neuts.

MG1962
21st March 2008, 07:36 PM
?? What would be an "unreasonable" number in astronomy?

42

Foster Zygote
21st March 2008, 08:41 PM
It's terrifying to think what a violent place the universe is. Not only are we no longer at the center of it, but we could just be exterminated by it like a single beetle in a forest fire.

BeAChooser
21st March 2008, 09:05 PM
When you consider the neutrinos are spreading out in distance squared relationship, for 5 billion light years, that's a pot-load of neuts.

I'm curious.

What could GRB's be?

Mainstream theory (if it is right about their distance based on their redshift) would require the objects give off more energy in that brief flash than entire galaxies in a year. And those calculations were for GRB's that weren't visible to the naked eye and that were at a third the distance of this lastest one.

If the mainstream is right, whatever it is needs to be able to do it more than once because in July of 2005, a GRB occurred at the exact same location as a previous one. Can any star (which is the source according to mainstream theory) survive such a incredible release of energy?

Furthermore, if the mainstream is right, the object needs to be smaller than a lightsecond across and still survive that energy release. Tell me, do you know of any possible object that is no more than 186,000 miles in diameter that could release more energy in an instant than galaxies do in entire years and still survive?

And here are a few more odd facts to add to the puzzle. The energy that at least some of these objects release is apparently polarized (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0528rhessigrb.html ) ... indicating intense magnetic fields are driving the event. According to the above link: "'The amount of polarization they found is so intense, that it looks like it's pure synchrotron radiation and nothing else, and all the other theories are going to have to bite the dust now,' said Dr. Kevin Hurley". In fact, according to that source, the fields must be the strongest ones in the universe ... more intense then those on the surface of a neutron star. If the mainstream is right. What kind of star could that possibly be?

And if the mainstream is right about the distance, the afterglow (not the main event itself) of this latest GRB is 2.5 million times more intense than the brightest supernova on record. So what in the world does the mainstream say this object is? Would they like to propose a new gnome?

Or could it be that redshift doesn't equate to distance and these objects are a lot closer than the mainstream believes and a lot less energetic?

:D

Corsair 115
21st March 2008, 09:49 PM
BeAChooser, my question in response would be this: why do you feel the need to evangelize for your belief in the "electric universe" in almost every thread discussing astronomy?

BeAChooser
21st March 2008, 10:33 PM
BeAChooser, my question in response would be this: why do you feel the need to evangelize for your belief in the "electric universe" in almost every thread discussing astronomy?

I didn't evangelize. I just asked a simple question that you apparently can't answer. :D

UnrepentantSinner
22nd March 2008, 12:42 AM
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10266&d=1204643637

Reality Check
22nd March 2008, 12:45 AM
I'm curious.

What could GRB's be?

Mainstream theory is that they are the result of when the core of an extremely massive, low-metallicity, rapidly-rotating star collapses into a black hole (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray_burst#Progenitors:_what_makes_GRBs_explo de.3F). However that could also be the product be a collision between a black hole and neutron star (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/swift/bursts/short_burst_oct5.html).


Mainstream theory (if it is right about their distance based on their redshift) would require the objects give off more energy in that brief flash than entire galaxies in a year. And those calculations were for GRB's that weren't visible to the naked eye and that were at a third the distance of this lastest one.

The objects do give off more energy in that brief flash than entire galaxies in a year, like supernova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova).


If the mainstream is right, whatever it is needs to be able to do it more than once because in July of 2005, a GRB occurred at the exact same location as a previous one. Can any star (which is the source according to mainstream theory) survive such a incredible release of energy?

A reference to a paper would be appreciated.


Furthermore, if the mainstream is right, the object needs to be smaller than a lightsecond across and still survive that energy release. Tell me, do you know of any possible object that is no more than 186,000 miles in diameter that could release more energy in an instant than galaxies do in entire years and still survive?

Yes, e.g. the collision between a black hole and a neutron star.


And here are a few more odd facts to add to the puzzle. The energy that at least some of these objects release is apparently polarized (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0528rhessigrb.html ) ... indicating intense magnetic fields are driving the event. According to the above link: "'The amount of polarization they found is so intense, that it looks like it's pure synchrotron radiation and nothing else, and all the other theories are going to have to bite the dust now,' said Dr. Kevin Hurley". In fact, according to that source, the fields must be the strongest ones in the universe ... more intense then those on the surface of a neutron star. If the mainstream is right. What kind of star could that possibly be?

The paragraph reads
The strong polarization measured by RHESSI provides a unique window on how these bursts are powered, according to Boggs. He interprets the measurements to mean that the burst originates from a region of highly structured magnetic fields, stronger than the fields at the surface of a neutron star - until now, the strongest magnetic fields observed in the universe. "The polarization is telling us that the magnetic fields themselves are acting as the dynamite, driving the explosive fireball we see as a gamma-ray burst," he said.
This means that the magnetic fields are stronger than the magnetic fields at the surface of a neutron star which makes them the strongest fields currently observed in the universe. It does not mean that even stronger magnetic fields cannot be discovered.


And if the mainstream is right about the distance, the afterglow (not the main event itself) of this latest GRB is 2.5 million times more intense than the brightest supernova on record. So what in the world does the mainstream say this object is? Would they like to propose a new gnome?

Or could it be that redshift doesn't equate to distance and these objects are a lot closer than the mainstream believes and a lot less energetic?

:D
They propose models to fit the data.

Dancing David
22nd March 2008, 05:22 AM
I'm curious.

What could GRB's be?

Mainstream theory (if it is right about their distance based on their redshift) would require the objects give off more energy in that brief flash than entire galaxies in a year. And those calculations were for GRB's that weren't visible to the naked eye and that were at a third the distance of this lastest one.

If the mainstream is right, whatever it is needs to be able to do it more than once because in July of 2005, a GRB occurred at the exact same location as a previous one. Can any star (which is the source according to mainstream theory) survive such a incredible release of energy?

Furthermore, if the mainstream is right, the object needs to be smaller than a lightsecond across and still survive that energy release. Tell me, do you know of any possible object that is no more than 186,000 miles in diameter that could release more energy in an instant than galaxies do in entire years and still survive?

gee, here I will get you started, how about a black hole at the center of an AGN?



And here are a few more odd facts to add to the puzzle. The energy that at least some of these objects release is apparently polarized (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0528rhessigrb.html ) ... indicating intense magnetic fields are driving the event. According to the above link: "'The amount of polarization they found is so intense, that it looks like it's pure synchrotron radiation and nothing else, and all the other theories are going to have to bite the dust now,' said Dr. Kevin Hurley". In fact, according to that source, the fields must be the strongest ones in the universe ... more intense then those on the surface of a neutron star. If the mainstream is right. What kind of star could that possibly be?

And if the mainstream is right about the distance, the afterglow (not the main event itself) of this latest GRB is 2.5 million times more intense than the brightest supernova on record. So what in the world does the mainstream say this object is? Would they like to propose a new gnome?

Or could it be that redshift doesn't equate to distance and these objects are a lot closer than the mainstream believes and a lot less energetic?

:D

Gee and what have you got to demonstrate anything about redshift problems?

Care to address Arp and sampling error yet?

Dancing David
22nd March 2008, 05:25 AM
I didn't evangelize. I just asked a simple question that you apparently can't answer. :D

Here are the ones you are avoiding answering!

1. Arp's use of statistic involves sampling error that are significant. Discuss.
2. You have used a number of ways of waving Perrat's models around to explain the galaxy rotation curves, in the one that you might have started with, what force of field is moving the stars at a faster rate? What is the size of that field.
3. You have also said that Lerner’s plasmoid model will not collapse due to gravitation. Please address a 40,000 solar mass plasma, in an area of 43 AU in diameter and how it avoids gravitational collapse?

As a side bar you have also stated :

4. That Perrat's model imparted the flat rotation curve to the galaxy when it was plasma and formative , it would appear that you also stated that this explains the current flat rotation curve. Yes or no?
5. It would also appear that is one post you mentioned Alfven's mechanism of a star imparting momentum to planets as a possible means that a Lerner plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse. Discuss your later denial and explain what you think might be happening.
6. Then recently you made a claim that perhaps the motion of stars in galaxies did not need to be accounted for by dark matter because the observation related solely to plasma, and not stars. And therefore since plasma could be explained by Perrat's model to have a flat rotational curve, there was no need for dark matter. This seems to ignore the observation that the orbits of star clusters also would indicate dark matter and that galaxy rotation rate may also be measured on stars. Please explain.


:D

Corsair 115
22nd March 2008, 04:09 PM
I didn't evangelize. I just asked a simple question that you apparently can't answer. :DYou are evangelizing, you just don't realize it. I mostly lurk in this forum, but I have seen many astronomy threads where you have entered and offered up your theories. In fact, in any thread discussing cosmology, I now anticipate your appearance, and you have yet to disappoint me in that regard.

You also apparently don't realize that you are becoming the astronomical equivalent to a 9/11 conspiracist — always taking every opportunity to spread this special inside knowledge you have of how the universe really operates, knowledge that, somehow, almost none of the scientific minds in the field shares. The fact that there is little in the way of hard evidence to support your view doesn't deter you.

Ladewig
22nd March 2008, 04:52 PM
7.
Most numbers in astronomy are phenomenaly big (eg. intergalactic distances). A few are ridiculously small (eg. the probability of a single solar neutrino interacting with a proton in a big tank of water). There is very little in the way of middleground. Hence, 7 is about as unreasonable as it gets.

I'm glad you didn't say 8. I'd hate to live in a solar system with an unreasonable number of planets.

BeAChooser
22nd March 2008, 10:48 PM
The objects do give off more energy in that brief flash than entire galaxies in a year, like supernova.

No ... not like supernova. These are giving off way more energy. Even the afterglow of the latest event is reported to have been 2.5 million times more intense than a supernova. Then there are articles like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/mar/09/spaceexploration.technology "A gamma ray burst lasts for about two minutes. But during that time, it is brighter than all the rest of the universe put together"

http://www.aapps.org/archive/ bulletin/vol13/13_6/13_6_p53p54.pdf "For more than 30 seconds the burst outshone the entire universe in gamma rays."

Supernova outshine galaxies. These outshine the universe. Now THAT is energetic ... if you believe the mainstream as to how far away they are.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
If the mainstream is right, whatever it is needs to be able to do it more than once because in July of 2005, a GRB occurred at the exact same location as a previous one. Can any star (which is the source according to mainstream theory) survive such a incredible release of energy?

A reference to a paper would be appreciated.

My mistake. What was observed was a gamma ray burst, followed 30 seconds later by a 150 second long burst of x-rays.

Yes, e.g. the collision between a black hole and a neutron star.

Ah ... so the theory is that the collision of two gnomes produces a third gnome using yet another gnome (certain hypothetical physics). I see. :D

Quote:
The strong polarization measured by RHESSI provides a unique window on how these bursts are powered, according to Boggs. He interprets the measurements to mean that the burst originates from a region of highly structured magnetic fields, stronger than the fields at the surface of a neutron star - until now, the strongest magnetic fields observed in the universe. "The polarization is telling us that the magnetic fields themselves are acting as the dynamite, driving the explosive fireball we see as a gamma-ray burst," he said.

This means that the magnetic fields are stronger than the magnetic fields at the surface of a neutron star which makes them the strongest fields currently observed in the universe. It does not mean that even stronger magnetic fields cannot be discovered.

Wow. You sort of missed the point. But at least you left room for introducing yet another gnome. :D

They propose models to fit the data.

Yes, models using multiple gnomes to produce new gnomes. Gotta love that *scientific* methodology. ;)

BeAChooser
22nd March 2008, 10:58 PM
You are evangelizing, you just don't realize it.

Do you have any clue as to what GRB's really are? I think I've asked a reasonable question given that this is a forum for skeptics.

On one hand we have the mainstream theory involving two different types of very exotic, still quite hypothetical objects (I like to call them gnomes) and some hypothetical physics that would be needed to produce sychrotron radiation and the x-ray bursts from those objects when they collide.

On the other hand, we have the possibility supported by numerous observations that redshift does not always equate to distance so that these events might be much closer to us and thus not require these hypothetical gnomes and hypothetical physics to produce amounts of energy that are literally beyond imagination.

And keep in mind that GRB's are not rare events. So now it would appear the hypothetical gnomes need to be everywhere we look, being destroyed in their hypothetical collisions many times a day throughout the universe. As opposed to a quite simple alternative that redshift does not always equate to distance and something far more ordinary is going on.

BeAChooser
22nd March 2008, 11:02 PM
You also apparently don't realize that you are becoming the astronomical equivalent to a 9/11 conspiracist

By the way, the folks defending the mainstream 9/11 explanation (and I am one of them) don't need to invoke a list of hypothetical gnomes to explain what happened. And 9/11 conspiracists also can't identify any credible scientists who support their views (as opposed to the PC and EU theorists). So there are some important differences between the two situations. But you apparently don't realize that. :D

CFLarsen
23rd March 2008, 01:06 AM
A gamma ray burst 7.5 billion light years away, and it might have been visible!

We might want to reconsider using "light years away". What is really happening is that we look back in time. We are looking at a time machine that shows us, at the same time, what happened on the sun 8 minutes ago and what happened in another galaxy billions of years ago.

Looking at the sky is like having an almost-infinite number of channels sent to your widescreen TV at the same time.

Best piece of advice I was ever given in Astronomy was by my undergraduate stellar structure lecturer. He said (paraphrased, my memory isn't that good), "Don't try to get a feel for the sizes, masses, energies or distances involved in astronomy. You can't. Just learn to work the numbers and know which ones are reasonable and which ones aren't."

You guys spend an awful lot of time writing zeros, don't you? :)

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 02:12 AM
No ... not like supernova. These are giving off way more energy. Even the afterglow of the latest event is reported to have been 2.5 million times more intense than a supernova. Then there are articles like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2000/mar/09/spaceexploration.technology "A gamma ray burst lasts for about two minutes. But during that time, it is brighter than all the rest of the universe put together"

http://www.aapps.org/archive/ bulletin/vol13/13_6/13_6_p53p54.pdf "For more than 30 seconds the burst outshone the entire universe in gamma rays."

Supernova outshine galaxies. These outshine the universe. Now THAT is energetic ... if you believe the mainstream as to how far away they are.



My mistake. What was observed was a gamma ray burst, followed 30 seconds later by a 150 second long burst of x-rays.



Ah ... so the theory is that the collision of two gnomes produces a third gnome using yet another gnome (certain hypothetical physics). I see. :D



Wow. You sort of missed the point. But at least you left room for introducing yet another gnome. :D



Yes, models using multiple gnomes to produce new gnomes. Gotta love that *scientific* methodology. ;)
It has finaly clicked: "gnome" = something that you cannot understand and so don't want to exist! :rolleyes:

Klimax
23rd March 2008, 02:23 AM
Ah ... so the theory is that the collision of two gnomes produces a third gnome using yet another gnome (certain hypothetical physics). I see. :D


How long it will take your brain to understand that Neutron star is product of standard star (yet to be disproven) theory and black hole is in family of solutions of GR,which are by observation backed up.

You have your gnomes,which are far worse in explaining the observations.Which are mostly incorrect as Sol and Ziggurat and others explained...

BTW.:Somewhere I read that scientists were able to "simulate" event horizon.
No links so far,but I did not search.

EDIT:Arghh apparently I missed joke,but given his posts before ,I overlooked the smiley....

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 02:27 AM
No ... not like supernova. These are giving off way more energy. Even the afterglow of the latest event is reported to have been 2.5 million times more intense than a supernova. Then there are articles like this:

You are right. A supernove only outshines a galaxy for a year. I have not seen any figures on what the GRB output. Have you?

P.S. Did you read this posting (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3540399#post3540399) (in another thread) which has a question for you.

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 02:47 AM
Ah ... so the theory is that the collision of two gnomes produces a third gnome using yet another gnome (certain hypothetical physics). I see. :D

It is lucky that you are joking otherwise I would think that you did not know about the 2000 observed neutron stars (gnome 1), a dozen stellar black hole candidates, the observed supermassive black holes in our galaxy, M87 and probaby others (gnome 2) and another unnamed gnome.
I guess that the "certain hypothetical physics" is plasma "cosmology" :rolleyes:


Yes, models using multiple gnomes to produce new gnomes. Gotta love that *scientific* methodology. ;)

You mean the *scientific* methodology that you use?:D

Soapy Sam
23rd March 2008, 03:14 AM
I find it fitting that this marks the passing of Arthur C.Clarke, who would be highly amused by the neat coincidence.

sol invictus
23rd March 2008, 05:37 AM
You are right. A supernove only outshines a galaxy for a year. I have not seen any figures on what the GRB output. Have you?


No one knows for sure what the total energy output of GRBs is, because no one knows how tightly beamed the energy release is. The most plausible theory is that when a certain class of spinning star collapses it "squirts" a lot of it energy out along the axis of rotation. Supercomputer simulations support this theory. Some standard supernovae may simply be GRBs viewed from the side.

http://orbitingfrog.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/gamma_hist.jpg

When we see a GRB in the sky, we can't tell if we're looking directly along that axis or at an angle to it, and we also don't know the angular dependence of the energy released, and so from the apparent brightness we cannot really deduce the total energy (although we can make a reasonable estimate).

Careyp74
23rd March 2008, 06:09 AM
42

I have to disagree. I think 42 is a perfectly reasonable number. It explains a lot about life, the universe, practically everything when you think about it.

(I had to respond to a good Douglas Adams reference)

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 09:20 AM
BTW.:Somewhere I read that scientists were able to "simulate" event horizon.
No links so far,but I did not search.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=simulate+event+horizon&btnG=Google+Search

Tubbythin
23rd March 2008, 10:43 AM
I'm glad you didn't say 8. I'd hate to live in a solar system with an unreasonable number of planets.
True... though its a pretty artificial number.

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 10:44 AM
You are right. A supernove only outshines a galaxy for a year. I have not seen any figures on what the GRB output. Have you?

http://www.aapps.org/archive/bulletin/vol13/13_6/13_6_p53p54.pdf "AAPPS Bulletin December 2003, Gamma-ray Burst Supports Hypernova Hypothesis ... snip ... NASA's High-Energy Transient Explorer satellite (HETE-II) initially detected the burst on 29 March 2003 (at 11:37:14 UTC) in the constellation Leo. For more than 30 seconds the burst outshone the entire universe in gamma rays. ... snip ... According to the group of 27 researchers from 17 institutes, the spectral changes of the fading source give irrefutable evidence of a direct connection between the GRB and "hypernova" explosion of a very massive, highly evolved star."

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Gamma-Ray-Burst-Brightest-in-the-Universe-81320.shtml "Gamma-Ray Burst, Brightest in the Universe - Five million times brighter than our galaxy By: Gabriel Gache, Science News Editor ... snip ... The most powerful gamma-ray emission ever seen in the universe was detected yesterday by the Swift satellite, and originated from an area of space more than seven thousand times further away than the distance to the Andromeda galaxy. It was probably created by a massive star in the final stages of life that collapsed into a black hole. University of Leicester researchers say that the brightness of the GRB exceeded that of the whole Milky Way more than five million times! ... snip ... y, the Swift satellite detects a gamma-ray burst once every week, however during the massive release of energy yesterday the satellite detected five of these bursts in less than 24 hours."

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/mar/HQ_08086_Swift_Detects_GRB.html "March 20, 2008 ... snip ... NASA Satellite Detects Record Gamma Ray Burst Explosion Halfway Across Universe ... snip ... Most gamma ray bursts occur when massive stars run out of nuclear fuel. Their cores collapse to form black holes or neutron stars, releasing an intense burst of high-energy gamma rays and ejecting particle jets that rip through space at nearly the speed of light like turbocharged cosmic blowtorches. When the jets plow into surrounding interstellar clouds, they heat the gas, often generating bright afterglows. Gamma ray bursts are the most luminous explosions in the universe since the big bang. ... snip ... "This burst was a whopper," said Swift principal investigator Neil Gehrels of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md. "It blows away every gamma ray burst we've seen so far." ... snip ... GRB 080319B's optical afterglow was 2.5 million times more luminous than the most luminous supernova ever recorded, making it the most intrinsically bright object ever observed by humans in the universe. The most distant previous object that could have been seen by the naked eye is the nearby galaxy M33, a relatively short 2.9 million light-years from Earth." ... snip ... GRB 080319B was one of four bursts that Swift detected, a Swift record for one day."

P.S. Did you read this posting (in another thread) which has a question for you.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=zc22ejwj&pf=YES

MattusMaximus
23rd March 2008, 10:45 AM
http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=10266&d=1204643637


That shirt is so damn cool. I want one - where can I get it?

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 10:58 AM
It is lucky that you are joking otherwise I would think that you did not know about the 2000 observed neutron stars (gnome 1), a dozen stellar black hole candidates, the observed supermassive black holes in our galaxy, M87 and probaby others (gnome 2) and another unnamed gnome.

They haven't actually "observed" neutron stars. They've only inferred them from the presence of jets they could but refuse to explain by much more ordinary physics. And they haven't "observed" black holes either. Again, they are only inferred from jets and a questionable redshift equals distance relationship that leds them to believe immense energies are being released.

And you forget that space is VERY big and the distance between stars is immense ... so large that they say galaxies can pass through one another without any collisions between their stars. Yet, we are now asked to believe that relatively rare neutron stars and relatively rare black holes are colliding daily throughout the universe creating GRBs that some mainstream proponents say we see only because we happened to be aligned with the spin axis of the colliding bodies (i.e., along the axis of the jets they produce ... by means of a still hypothetical physics gnome, I should note).

:D

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 11:01 AM
Not only are we no longer at the center of it, but we could just be exterminated by it like a single beetle in a forest fire.

http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/03/looking-down-the-barrel-of-a-gamma-ray-burst/ "March 3rd, 2008, Looking Down the Barrel of A Gamma Ray Burst, A team of astronomers from the University of Sydney in Australia have been keeping an eye on a binary star system called Wolf-Rayet 104, located in the constellation Sagittarius. ... snip ... Usually, a supernova explosion would be harmless at interstellar distances like the 8000 lightyears that this system lays from Earth, and it would just provide an impressive show for stargazers. But astronomers say the only way WR 104 could appear as an almost perfect spiral is if those of us on Earth were looking down the spin-axis of the system. Astronomer Peter Tuthill says that sometimes, supernovae focus their energy into a narrow beam of very destructive gamma-ray radiation along the axis of the system. A gamma-ray burst is a super-duper supernova that sometimes happens to massive stars, like the ones in WR 104."

If you believe the mainstream ...

Dancing David
23rd March 2008, 11:15 AM
Do you have any clue as to what GRB's really are? I think I've asked a reasonable question given that this is a forum for skeptics.

On one hand we have the mainstream theory involving two different types of very exotic, still quite hypothetical objects (I like to call them gnomes) and some hypothetical physics that would be needed to produce sychrotron radiation and the x-ray bursts from those objects when they collide.

On the other hand, we have the possibility supported by numerous observations that redshift does not always equate to distance

I call you on this BAC, it is your Number One Gnome, it is based upon optical allignments and statistics that could be the result of sampling error.

Produce the evidence and take it to the thread started just for this topic.

You have not addressed the potential for sampling error at all have you?

Oh Gnome of Wonder, what evidence is there that any objects are at distaances not related to the potential cosmological redshift?

so that these events might be much closer to us and thus not require these hypothetical gnomes and hypothetical physics to produce amounts of energy that are literally beyond imagination.

And your gnomes are still gnomes, they are products of confimation bias on your part and you have yet to defend them or explain them.


And keep in mind that GRB's are not rare events. So now it would appear the hypothetical gnomes need to be everywhere we look, being destroyed in their hypothetical collisions many times a day throughout the universe. As opposed to a quite simple alternative that redshift does not always equate to distance and something far more ordinary is going on.

And the simple explanation that Arp's use of statistics is possibly based upon sampling error?

Klimax
23rd March 2008, 12:40 PM
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=simulate+event+horizon&btnG=Google+Search

Good,now do you see black holes are possible?Or do you dispute that we can have event horizon without black hole?
(Once we have event horizon,we have in effect black hole...)

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 05:07 PM
what evidence is there that any objects are at distaances not related to the potential cosmological redshift?

Very well, David ... since you insist (and obviously are going to continue misrepresenting our past conversations), I'll address this issue again. But for the record, all of the following evidence has been posted to you previously. You just ignored it and dismissed it as "coincidence" or, as in your latest hand-waving, "sampling error". In any case, I suggest that wise readers will decide for themselves after reading the following material and links, keeping in mind that I'm only going to touch on the number of examples that Arp and others have actually offered as the basis for questioning whether redshift always equates to distance.

First, there is the case of galaxy 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. You can see this alignment in this image:

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred/illustrations/figure_1_b.jpg

Two astronomers, Martin López-Corredoira and Carlos M. Gutiérrez (note that neither of them is Halton Arp), wrote several peer reviewed papers on the above alignment. The first paper (http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aaea241/aaea241.right.html ) was published in 2002 and titled "Two Emission Line Objects with z>0.2 in the Optical Filament Apparently Connecting the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 7603 to Its Companion”. The second (www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2004/26/aa0260/aa0260.right.html) was titled "The field surrounding NGC 7603: Cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts?" and published in 2004. The third (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0509630.pdf ), published in 2005, is titled "Research on Candidates for non-cosmological redshifts". I will try to summarize their conclusions but I highly recommend readers visit these links and read the papers for themselves ... particularly the last two.

These astronomers have concluded, based on Hubble Telescope observations, that the three objects are small compact galaxies. Note that makes the Big Bang redshift problem larger than just an inconsistency in quasar data. The astronomers say the two objects along the filament are highly unusual dwarf HII galaxies whose light characteristics are themselves suggestive of a non-cosmological explanation for redshift. Both objects are EXACTLY centered on the filament but at opposite ends.

According to the references the papers cite, statistically there should be "one object like these per each square of 3-7 arcmin size (20 arcmin size for NGC 7603B); much larger than the area of the filament (~100 arcsec2." Ultimately, the astronomers calculate the probability of the alignment of all three galaxies on the filament at about 3 x 10-9. That is very, very unlikely. And, by the way, they go into great detail regarding how that probability is calculated in the second and third papers. And the third paper also looks at the (un)likelihood of some other unusual redshift alignment cases. For the sake of brevity, I'll not go into them here but be aware those examples exist. As well as many, many others.

In addition to the above, the astronomers 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." The authors conclude in the first paper that "everything points to the four objects being connected among themselves". In the second paper they conclude "an explanation in terms of cosmological redshifts (with or without gravitational lensing, with or without clusters in the line of sight) has a very low probability although it is not impossible." Please see the paper for exactly why they conclude this. In the third paper they conclude: "Summing up, observations challenge the standard model, which assumes that the redshift of all galaxies is due to the expansion of the Universe, and we must consider they are at least an open problem to be solved."

And finally, regarding this particular case, note that there has been no specific response offered by David or any other mainstream proponent to the contents of any of these papers. They've simply been ignored or dismissed out of hand, as David has been trying to do with his self-published, sampling error argument thread.

Now, what other evidence have I offered to support the assertion that redshift is not always related to distance ... evidence that David has specifically ignored? Well, the case of NGC 3628, a low redshift (Z = .0028) galaxy, comes to mind. In this case, numerous high redshift QSO's that are in the vicinity seem to be unusually aligned with certain features of that galaxy. A paper at http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/33/aah3558/aah3558.right.html by Arp, Burbidge, Chu, Flesch, Patat and Rupprecht discusses these alignments.

The following image

http://www.eitgaastra.nl/pl/f54a.gif (or download it in smaller form here: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/33/aah3558/img5.gif )

shows the location of the galaxy features relative to the various QSO's. NGC 3628 has an active nucleus with HI plumes emerging in both directions on the minor axis sides. 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 and 1.75. There is a 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."

Now 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 very, very small. Yet, Big Bang proponents like David 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. David insists this is just sampling error (but note that he hasn't offered any peer reviewed work that looks at the actual statistics ... just a bunch of handwaving). He insists this despite the fact that numerous such examples have been identified to him previously.

For example, Arp and David Russell (notice all the researchers lining up to agree with Arp, folks?) looked at quasar clustering near a wide range of galaxies in the following peer reviewed paper: 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." This 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 ... as in the case I described above. In particular, 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".

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 lists numerous examples of this and it's true in both the NGC 7603 and NGC 3628 examples I described above. Here's still another case ... 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 like David continue to insist that all these alignments are just a matter of pure chance (or now he's claiming sampling error). Time and time again, peer reviewed papers cite extremely low probabilities for these alignments, yet Big Bang cosmologists wave these concerns away as nothing but coincidence. They don't publish peer reviewed papers in response. Not once do they specifically address the data that is cited and specific probabilities that are calculated. They just ignore them. Wave them away with the words "coincidence" and "sampling error".

But that's not all the evidence I've offered David to support my thesis, either. That's not all the evidence that David has specifically ignored and now dismisses with his bogus sampling error claim. There is the curious alignment of groups of galaxies (as well as quasars), all at various redshifts and all along an important feature of what would appear to be the major galaxy in the group. Our own Local Group is an prime example of that (what a coincidence).

Here's a 1994 paper by Arp (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994ApJ...430...74A&amp;db_key=AST&amp;h igh=40f19ad6db11758) that shows an alignment between galaxies. It states that "the two nearest, best-studied groups of galaxies, the Local Group and the M81 group, are analyzed. It is shown that 22 out of 22 major companions have redshifts that are positive with respect to the dominant galaxy. The chance that this can be an accidental configuration of velocities is only one in four million. Investigations of more distant groups, including clusters such as Virgo, show that the smaller galaxies characteristically have systematically positive redshifts with respect to the larger ones. No selection effects or contamination are capable of avoiding this result."

Here's an image of this Local Group alignment

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/051104localgroup.jpg

from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051104localgroup.htm where it is described thus: "The Local Group, of which our Milky Way is a member, stretches in a line along the minor axis of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, which is the dominant galaxy in the group. In the image above, the filled circles mark the locations of accepted members. Open circles and plus signs mark the locations of higher-redshift dwarf and spiral galaxies respectively. (Although in other clusters similar dwarfs and spirals are accepted as companions of the larger galaxies, these dwarfs and spirals are excluded because their systematically higher redshifts are too obvious.) Redshifts of several objects are printed beside their names. Long-exposure photographs of this area reveal a cloud of low-luminosity material extending along this line of galaxies and engulfing them. That the higher-redshift galaxies are not “background objects” is shown by their interaction with the cloud: The interacting pair of galaxies, NGC935/IC1801, have a semicircle of brighter material around them. NGC918 has a jet that ends in a bright region of the cloud. The high-redshift radio galaxy, 3C120, is most famous for its “faster-than-light” jet. Astronomers have measured the movements of knots of material in the jet. If the galaxy is located where the redshift-equals-distance theory dictates, the knots would have to be traveling six times the speed of light. But if 3C120 is a member of the Local Group, the knots would be traveling at only four percent of the speed of light. Not shown in the diagram are the line of quasars extending across M33 and the cluster of quasars close around 3C120. In addition, low surface brightness galaxies, with redshifts between .015 and .018, cluster around these two galaxies."

Here's another article, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510654, by different authors (not Arp) that seems to corroborate the existence of this alignment. It states, for instance, that "we find that the M31 satellites are asymmetrically distributed with respect to our line-of-sight to this object, so that the majority of its satellites are on its near side with respect to our line-of-sight. We quantify this result and find it to be significant at the ~3 sigma level. Until such time as a satisfactory explanation for this finding is presented, our results warn against treating the M31 subgroup as complete, unbiased and relaxed."

And so far, Big Bang proponents like David have just ignored these observations because they have no logical explanation for them. Their standard response seems to be that all unlikely alignments are coincidence (or perhaps now it's going to be "sampling error" ;) ). The only sampling error I see taking place here is David selectively ignoring any data that disagrees with the mainstream theory and being unable to offer any peer reviewed work to support his claims.

David and his friends on this forum like to go on and on about dark matter being directly "observed" in the case of the Bullet Cluster ... even though there are a host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation. Yet, the 2003 discovery of a high redshift (z = 2.11) quasar that is visually (in ordinary light) between us and the dense core of a low redshift (z = 0.022) galaxy, NGC 7319, is just dismissed out of hand. The galaxy and the quasar in question are shown in the following linked image:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2004/spiralgalaxy.new.gif

Not only is the density of matter in that region of the galaxy likely to prevent a quasar from shining through, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215 , a paper that does include Arp amongst its authors, 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 impossible if the quasar is 93 times farther than the galaxy, as required by the mainstream's redshift/distance relationship. And in closeups of the galaxy (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasar2.jpg ) even a lay-person can see there is a short V shaped plasma filament (jet) linking the core of the galaxy to that quasar.

So it seems to me rather tenuous for you to dismiss evidence such as this as "sampling error", David. Perhaps, for once, you can provide a peer reviewed paper that directly confronts the data (and mind you, what I've presented here isn't the only data) that Arp and many others have presented. The fact that you don't is quite telling. In fact, do a Google search with the keywords "Halton Arp" and "sampling error", folks, and you get a total of 8 hits ... not one of which is a peer reviewed paper. Not one of which is a scientific paper at all. So why don't you try to get yours published David ... then you can be the first and become as famous as Halton Arp, who you disparage. :D

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 05:18 PM
Good,now do you see black holes are possible? Or do you dispute that we can have event horizon without black hole?

Perhaps it is noteworthy that they are using EM effects to produce this effect. Or should I say trying to produce this effect? :D

Fredrik
23rd March 2008, 05:39 PM
They haven't actually "observed" neutron stars. They've only inferred them from the presence of jets they could but refuse to explain by much more ordinary physics.

:rolleyes:

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 06:30 PM
They haven't actually "observed" neutron stars. They've only inferred them from the presence of jets they could but refuse to explain by much more ordinary physics. And they haven't "observed" black holes either. Again, they are only inferred from jets and a questionable redshift equals distance relationship that leds them to believe immense energies are being released.


The observation of the "jets" (actually beams of radio waves) from pulsars is observation of the object creating them. Neutron stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star) are a logical consequence of stars being powered by nuclear fusion. You have already agreed that stars are "mostly" powered by nuclear power elsewhere. The properties of the objects match those of neutron stars, e.g. the rate or rotation is such that only nuclear forces can keep them intact. This is one case in which neither electromagnetic or gravitational forces dominate.

P.S. Would you like to put a number to the mostly in "mostly powered by nuclear power"?

You really better read up about black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes). Is your jets comment about the M87 super-massive black hole? This is 1 of many observations.


And you forget that space is VERY big and the distance between stars is immense ... so large that they say galaxies can pass through one another without any collisions between their stars. Yet, we are now asked to believe that relatively rare neutron stars and relatively rare black holes are colliding daily throughout the universe creating GRBs that some mainstream proponents say we see only because we happened to be aligned with the spin axis of the colliding bodies (i.e., along the axis of the jets they produce ... by means of a still hypothetical physics gnome, I should note).
:D

I guess you have never heard of binary stars? All it takes is that one of the stars be massive enough to form a neutron star and the other one be massive enough to form a black hole.

Yes gravity is a "still hypothetical physics gnome" as is the conservation of angular momentum. :rolleyes:

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 06:50 PM
...
David and his friends on this forum like to go on and on about dark matter being directly "observed" in the case of the Bullet Cluster ... even though there are a host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation.
...

This is something that I have asked you before in other threads about the actual detection of dark matter (http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2006/1e0657/)but I will put it a different way here:

Would you like to list the "host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation"?

Is "host" more than 10?
Are there more than 10 assumptions?

If you can show that the observation is "so-called" then you should at least tell NASA about it.

Dancing David
23rd March 2008, 08:10 PM
Very well, David ... since you insist (and obviously are going to continue misrepresenting our past conversations), I'll address this issue again. But for the record, all of the following evidence has been posted to you previously. You just ignored it and dismissed it as "coincidence" or, as in your latest hand-waving, "sampling error". In any case, I suggest that wise readers will decide for themselves after reading the following material and links, keeping in mind that I'm only going to touch on the number of examples that Arp and others have actually offered as the basis for questioning whether redshift always equates to distance.

First, there is the case of galaxy 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. You can see this alignment in this image:

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred/illustrations/figure_1_b.jpg

Two astronomers, Martin López-Corredoira and Carlos M. Gutiérrez (note that neither of them is Halton Arp), wrote several peer reviewed papers on the above alignment. The first paper (http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aaea241/aaea241.right.html ) was published in 2002 and titled "Two Emission Line Objects with z>0.2 in the Optical Filament Apparently Connecting the Seyfert Galaxy NGC 7603 to Its Companion”. The second (www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2004/26/aa0260/aa0260.right.html) was titled "The field surrounding NGC 7603: Cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts?" and published in 2004. The third (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0509630.pdf ), published in 2005, is titled "Research on Candidates for non-cosmological redshifts". I will try to summarize their conclusions but I highly recommend readers visit these links and read the papers for themselves ... particularly the last two.

These astronomers have concluded, based on Hubble Telescope observations, that the three objects are small compact galaxies. Note that makes the Big Bang redshift problem larger than just an inconsistency in quasar data. The astronomers say the two objects along the filament are highly unusual dwarf HII galaxies whose light characteristics are themselves suggestive of a non-cosmological explanation for redshift. Both objects are EXACTLY centered on the filament but at opposite ends.

According to the references the papers cite, statistically there should be "one object like these per each square of 3-7 arcmin size (20 arcmin size for NGC 7603B); much larger than the area of the filament (~100 arcsec2." Ultimately, the astronomers calculate the probability of the alignment of all three galaxies on the filament at about 3 x 10-9. That is very, very unlikely. And, by the way, they go into great detail regarding how that probability is calculated in the second and third papers. And the third paper also looks at the (un)likelihood of some other unusual redshift alignment cases. For the sake of brevity, I'll not go into them here but be aware those examples exist. As well as many, many others.

In addition to the above, the astronomers 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." The authors conclude in the first paper that "everything points to the four objects being connected among themselves". In the second paper they conclude "an explanation in terms of cosmological redshifts (with or without gravitational lensing, with or without clusters in the line of sight) has a very low probability although it is not impossible." Please see the paper for exactly why they conclude this. In the third paper they conclude: "Summing up, observations challenge the standard model, which assumes that the redshift of all galaxies is due to the expansion of the Universe, and we must consider they are at least an open problem to be solved."

And finally, regarding this particular case, note that there has been no specific response offered by David or any other mainstream proponent to the contents of any of these papers. They've simply been ignored or dismissed out of hand, as David has been trying to do with his self-published, sampling error argument thread.

Now, what other evidence have I offered to support the assertion that redshift is not always related to distance ... evidence that David has specifically ignored? Well, the case of NGC 3628, a low redshift (Z = .0028) galaxy, comes to mind. In this case, numerous high redshift QSO's that are in the vicinity seem to be unusually aligned with certain features of that galaxy. A paper at http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/33/aah3558/aah3558.right.html by Arp, Burbidge, Chu, Flesch, Patat and Rupprecht discusses these alignments.

The following image

http://www.eitgaastra.nl/pl/f54a.gif (or download it in smaller form here: http://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/full/2002/33/aah3558/img5.gif )

shows the location of the galaxy features relative to the various QSO's. NGC 3628 has an active nucleus with HI plumes emerging in both directions on the minor axis sides. 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 and 1.75. There is a 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."

Now 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 very, very small. Yet, Big Bang proponents like David 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. David insists this is just sampling error (but note that he hasn't offered any peer reviewed work that looks at the actual statistics ... just a bunch of handwaving). He insists this despite the fact that numerous such examples have been identified to him previously.

For example, Arp and David Russell (notice all the researchers lining up to agree with Arp, folks?) looked at quasar clustering near a wide range of galaxies in the following peer reviewed paper: 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." This 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 ... as in the case I described above. In particular, 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".

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 lists numerous examples of this and it's true in both the NGC 7603 and NGC 3628 examples I described above. Here's still another case ... 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 like David continue to insist that all these alignments are just a matter of pure chance (or now he's claiming sampling error). Time and time again, peer reviewed papers cite extremely low probabilities for these alignments, yet Big Bang cosmologists wave these concerns away as nothing but coincidence. They don't publish peer reviewed papers in response. Not once do they specifically address the data that is cited and specific probabilities that are calculated. They just ignore them. Wave them away with the words "coincidence" and "sampling error".

But that's not all the evidence I've offered David to support my thesis, either. That's not all the evidence that David has specifically ignored and now dismisses with his bogus sampling error claim. There is the curious alignment of groups of galaxies (as well as quasars), all at various redshifts and all along an important feature of what would appear to be the major galaxy in the group. Our own Local Group is an prime example of that (what a coincidence).

Here's a 1994 paper by Arp (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_query?bibcode=1994ApJ...430...74A&amp;db_key=AST&amp;h igh=40f19ad6db11758) that shows an alignment between galaxies. It states that "the two nearest, best-studied groups of galaxies, the Local Group and the M81 group, are analyzed. It is shown that 22 out of 22 major companions have redshifts that are positive with respect to the dominant galaxy. The chance that this can be an accidental configuration of velocities is only one in four million. Investigations of more distant groups, including clusters such as Virgo, show that the smaller galaxies characteristically have systematically positive redshifts with respect to the larger ones. No selection effects or contamination are capable of avoiding this result."

Here's an image of this Local Group alignment

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/images05/051104localgroup.jpg

from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051104localgroup.htm where it is described thus: "The Local Group, of which our Milky Way is a member, stretches in a line along the minor axis of M31, the Andromeda galaxy, which is the dominant galaxy in the group. In the image above, the filled circles mark the locations of accepted members. Open circles and plus signs mark the locations of higher-redshift dwarf and spiral galaxies respectively. (Although in other clusters similar dwarfs and spirals are accepted as companions of the larger galaxies, these dwarfs and spirals are excluded because their systematically higher redshifts are too obvious.) Redshifts of several objects are printed beside their names. Long-exposure photographs of this area reveal a cloud of low-luminosity material extending along this line of galaxies and engulfing them. That the higher-redshift galaxies are not “background objects” is shown by their interaction with the cloud: The interacting pair of galaxies, NGC935/IC1801, have a semicircle of brighter material around them. NGC918 has a jet that ends in a bright region of the cloud. The high-redshift radio galaxy, 3C120, is most famous for its “faster-than-light” jet. Astronomers have measured the movements of knots of material in the jet. If the galaxy is located where the redshift-equals-distance theory dictates, the knots would have to be traveling six times the speed of light. But if 3C120 is a member of the Local Group, the knots would be traveling at only four percent of the speed of light. Not shown in the diagram are the line of quasars extending across M33 and the cluster of quasars close around 3C120. In addition, low surface brightness galaxies, with redshifts between .015 and .018, cluster around these two galaxies."

Here's another article, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0510654, by different authors (not Arp) that seems to corroborate the existence of this alignment. It states, for instance, that "we find that the M31 satellites are asymmetrically distributed with respect to our line-of-sight to this object, so that the majority of its satellites are on its near side with respect to our line-of-sight. We quantify this result and find it to be significant at the ~3 sigma level. Until such time as a satisfactory explanation for this finding is presented, our results warn against treating the M31 subgroup as complete, unbiased and relaxed."

And so far, Big Bang proponents like David have just ignored these observations because they have no logical explanation for them. Their standard response seems to be that all unlikely alignments are coincidence (or perhaps now it's going to be "sampling error" ;) ). The only sampling error I see taking place here is David selectively ignoring any data that disagrees with the mainstream theory and being unable to offer any peer reviewed work to support his claims.

David and his friends on this forum like to go on and on about dark matter being directly "observed" in the case of the Bullet Cluster ... even though there are a host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation. Yet, the 2003 discovery of a high redshift (z = 2.11) quasar that is visually (in ordinary light) between us and the dense core of a low redshift (z = 0.022) galaxy, NGC 7319, is just dismissed out of hand. The galaxy and the quasar in question are shown in the following linked image:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2004/spiralgalaxy.new.gif

Not only is the density of matter in that region of the galaxy likely to prevent a quasar from shining through, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215 , a paper that does include Arp amongst its authors, 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 impossible if the quasar is 93 times farther than the galaxy, as required by the mainstream's redshift/distance relationship. And in closeups of the galaxy (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasar2.jpg ) even a lay-person can see there is a short V shaped plasma filament (jet) linking the core of the galaxy to that quasar.

So it seems to me rather tenuous for you to dismiss evidence such as this as "sampling error", David. Perhaps, for once, you can provide a peer reviewed paper that directly confronts the data (and mind you, what I've presented here isn't the only data) that Arp and many others have presented. The fact that you don't is quite telling. In fact, do a Google search with the keywords "Halton Arp" and "sampling error", folks, and you get a total of 8 hits ... not one of which is a peer reviewed paper. Not one of which is a scientific paper at all. So why don't you try to get yours published David ... then you can be the first and become as famous as Halton Arp, who you disparage. :D

So in other words your understanding of statistics is porr, was a census taken, how did they determine a representative sample.

i suggest you review what I put in the othee thread that you didn't respond to, you are on thin ice, perhaps you wish to revise your rash support of statistics that are in error, in fact i did read about the Poisson distributions. they do not make snese when there are now a much larger body of QSOs to sample.

So i shall address your ponderous and foolsih areguments tomorrow.

I don't have to get mine published BAC, wrong is wrong.

Good luck changing this all to make sense.

Nor did i disparge him, which just shows your argue from talking points, not a true ability to engage in critical thought.

Dancing David
23rd March 2008, 08:15 PM
Here is my rebuttal to BAC for the night;

Funny how you can summon a cogent argument to address my thread BAC:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107779

I shall address you there tomorrow. Funny you had twenty day and you couldn't even address my thread.

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 08:53 PM
http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/graphics/images/2004/spiralgalaxy.new.gif

Not only is the density of matter in that region of the galaxy likely to prevent a quasar from shining through, http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0409215 , a paper that does include Arp amongst its authors, 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 impossible if the quasar is 93 times farther than the galaxy, as required by the mainstream's redshift/distance relationship. And in closeups of the galaxy (http://www.electric-cosmos.org/NGC7319quasar2.jpg ) even a lay-person can see there is a short V shaped plasma filament (jet) linking the core of the galaxy to that quasar.

I want to thank you for the UCSD news release (http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp) link. It made me think about how we manage to see any quasars at all from our position inside our galaxy, especially those where "the density of matter in that region of the galaxy likely to prevent a quasar from shining through". This lead me to a page about the Lockman Hole (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/Lockman_Hole.html) with an interesting image - "The image on the left is a deep X-ray Chandra image of the Lockman Hole. Virtually each of these dots - with the red objects usually cooler than the blue objects - represents a supermassive black hole". The Chandra site is also interesting, e.g. "Never Before Seen: Two Supermassive Black Holes in Same Galaxy (http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/02_releases/press_111902.html)".

Unfortunately your last link is from a pseudo-science web site and the statement that a jet that happens to point at the QSO actually links them is totally false. It has a couple of gnomes in it - that the QSO is part of the galaxy and that the jet is in any way related to the QSO. The first is in doubt (Arp says "likely", most other astronomers say no). The second needs proof other than a 2D photograph.

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 09:47 PM
The observation of the "jets" (actually beams of radio waves) from pulsars is observation of the object creating them.

Actually, RC, some neutron stars have jets that appear to be somewhat distinct from the radio wave phenomena. Now electrical engineers (like Donald Scott) say the phenomenon that gives pulsars their name (rapidly pulsed radio signals) "are produced electrically." He says "In the plasma that surrounds a star (or planet) there are conducting paths whose sizes and shapes are controlled by the magnetic field structure of the body. Those conducting paths are giant electrical transmission lines and can be analyzed as such. Depending on the electrical properties of what is connected to the ends of electrical transmission lines, it is possible for pulses of current and voltage (and therefore power) to oscillate back and forth from one end to the other. The ends can both be on the same object (as occurs on Earth) or one end might be on one member of a closely spaced binary pair of stars and the other end on the other member of the pair similar to the "flux tube" connecting Jupiter and its inner moon, Io."

Scott goes on to note that in 1995 several super computer simulations were performed on a transmission line system model with properties believed to be those of a pulsar atmosphere and the results matched seventeen different observed emission properties. The 1995 analysis he refers to is "Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment" by Kevin Healy and Anthony Peratt (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf ). Healy and Peratt concluded, “Our results support the ‘planetary magnetosphere’ view, where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emission points on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission. In other words, we do not require a hypothetical super-condensed object to form a pulsar. A normal stellar remnant undergoing periodic discharges will suffice. Plasma cosmology has the virtue of not requiring neutron stars or black holes to explain compact sources of radiation."

As to the jets, here is an image of the Vela Pulsar

http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/objects/heapow/compact_objects/vela_pulsar_jet.jpg

You can clearly see the jet. If seen head on, the pulsar will blink. Whether one accepts the mainstream or alternative explanation, this could be due to the wobbling of the source star. It might also be due to something else in the PC explanation (explained in a moment).

Mainstream advocates claim the jets result from magnetic reconnection ... which strangely enough most plasma physicists outside the astrophysics and (now corrupted) nuclear fusion community don't acknowledge as real plasma phenomena. Plasma cosmologists (like Eric Lerner) say the jet is produced by the same phenomena created in focus fusion devices here on earth. In a focus fusion device a plasmoid forms and stores energy. When the plasmoid reaches a critical energy level, it discharges its energy in a collimated jet along its axis in the form of electromagnetic radiation and neutrons. The neutrons soon decay into protons and electrons. The electrons are held back by the electromagnetic field, and the high-speed protons are beamed away. The process can be repeated over and over at very high frequencies. Now unlike magnetic reconnection, focus fusion is real physics (see http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php). And note the "bow-like" arcs observed in the Vela Pulsar. They have the same shape as the discharge from a focus fusion device.

Plasma cosmologists note (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/040920pulsar.htm) that "astronomers expected that the 'rotation' (pulsing) of the neutron star--conceived as an isolated mass in space -- would slow at a consistent rate. But then they observed a significant 'glitch' in the pulse rate, an event that 'released a burst of energy that was carried outward at near the speed of light by the pulsar 'wind.' Of course, unpredictable variations in both the pulse rate and intensity of an electrically discharging Pulsar would be expected with any changes in the electrical environment through which it moved. Proponents of the electric model are particularly impressed by the two embedded 'bows' seen along the polar jet ... snip ... . Astronomers initially called these 'windbow shocks', a theorized mechanical effect of high-velocity material encountering the interstellar medium. But electrical theorists recognized a configuration common to intense plasma discharge in laboratory experiments: toruses or rings stacked along the polar axis of the discharge. And subsequent enhanced pictures ... snip ... made clear that the 'bows' were in fact stacked toruses, not easily explained in gravitational terms."

And this is not the only pulsar example where plasma cosmologists seem to have a better explanation for the observations than Big Bang proponents. Consider the Crab Nebula pulsar. Here are photos of that object:

http://www.seds.org/messier/Pics/Jpg/m1pulsar.jpg

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_ciencia/sol01_07.jpg

The shape is consistent with a homopolar motor ... the electrical circuit concept that plasma cosmologists (like Alfven) use to explain stars and galaxies. And the concept as envisioned by Alfven included double layers along the axis of rotation of the object with the known property of producing jets. And some plasma theorists also speculate that a plasmoid forms in such an object.

And there is another reason to suspect the PC/EU model is right. Supernova are the phenomena that supposedly produce a pulsar. Supernova SN 1987A provided some interesting insights into the difficulties that mainstream astrophysicists are having. First, note that a blue supergiant (with an estimated mass of 20 suns) was the star that went supernova. This is contrary to mainstream theory which predicted that only red supergiants (which are much more massive) could go supernova. To try and explain that, mainstream astronomers have been forced to ASSUME that the star system was a binary which merged 20,000 years before the explosion (to give it enough mass to go supernova).

Second, mainstream astronomers expected to find a neutron star afterwords, but have not. They now hypothesize that the reason we can't see the neutron star is that it is either hidden by dense dust clouds (which surprisingly weren't cleared out by the supernova explosion) or it has collapsed further and become a black hole (that helpful gnome in use again).

Here is what SN 1987A looked like recently:

http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2005/sn87a/sn87a_xray_opt.jpg

Note there are 3 rings. The supernova is supposedly at the center of the bright, smaller, central one ... the one with the many discrete bright spots around it's circumference. Mainstream astronomers claim that what we see in that image is the expanding supernova remnant colliding with dense material that was ejected by the binary pair even before the merge. Note that they did not predict the presence of the three rings or the bright beads in the equatorial ring, and to explain the phenomena they've had to invoke numerous untestable gnomes.

Plasma cosmologists, on the other hand, can explain the rings, the bright beads, the number of bright beads and why the ejections observed from supernova remnants are axially symmetric (another fact that the exploding star hypothesis has great difficulty explaining). That explanation involves a z-pinch and the observation that in such a device the Birkeland current filaments that create the plasmoid are only visible where the plasma density is high and they have a tendency to pair to a number close to 28. The bright spots in SN 1987A show a tendency towards that configuration. It is also important to note that the z-pinch naturally takes the hourglass shape of planetary nebulae (associated with nova and supernova). No mysterious magnetic field phenomena or special conditions are required as is the case with the mainstream explanation.

Here is peer reviewed paper that discusses this further: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=36024&arnumber=1707326&count=477&index=452 "The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants". It notes that "the new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted."

Now consider the "Symmetric Bipolar Nebula Around MWC 922", the Red Square nebula, described here http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~gekko/redsquare.html . Here's their photo of it.

http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/redsquare.jpg

It has much the same characteristics as the SN1987A data only seen from the side. As holoscience notes "The Red Square shows the stellar Z-pinch in close-up and we can see the Birkeland filaments for the first time, called 'combs' in the Science paper. They match the electrical model."

Neutron stars are a logical consequence of stars being powered by nuclear fusion.

How odd that before pulsars were discovered and jets observed, neutron stars had been pretty much dismissed by the mainstream community. But then things changed and they needed a gnome or two to explain the unexplainable. Right? :)

You have already agreed that stars are "mostly" powered by nuclear power elsewhere.

Where those nuclear reactions are occurring hasn't been totally settled and a nuclear powered star is not necessarily inconsistent with the transmission line model described above or even Alfven's homopolar motor model. We know that large flux tubes (Birkeland currents) connecting the sun to nearby bodies exist in our own solar system. There's no reason to doubt they would exist in a binary system like that hypothesized in the transmission model. Right?

The properties of the objects match those of neutron stars, e.g. the rate or rotation is such that only nuclear forces can keep them intact.

Except the rate of rotation is only INFERRED from the pulsar emissions. If the transmission line model is correct, then that inference would be a mistake.

You really better read up about black holes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_holes).

I need to read about black holes? :)

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/310/5750/956a "Science 11 November 2005: Vol. 310. no. 5750, pp. 956 - 957, Surprise Neutron Star Suggests Black Holes Are Hard to Make, Govert Schilling, Black holes may be harder to create than previously believed, according to an unexpected discovery made with NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080114162455.htm "Neutron Stars Can Be More Massive, While Black Holes Are More Rare, ScienceDaily (Jan. 17, 2008) ... snip ... neutron stars can be considerably more massive than previously believed, and it is more difficult to form black holes, according to new research developed by using the Arecibo Observatory in Arecibo, Puerto Rico. ... snip ... "The matter at the center of a neutron star is highly incompressible. Our new measurements of the mass of neutron stars will help nuclear physicists understand the properties of super-dense matter," said Freire. "It also means that to form a black hole, more mass is needed than previously thought. Thus, in our universe, black holes might be more rare and neutron stars slightly more abundant."


I guess you have never heard of binary stars?

But what percentage of stars are black hole / neutron star binaries? Can you identify one? What percentage of binaries have companions that are both large enough to become neutron stars and black holes. Can you point to any such systems? And when the first supernova occurs to create the first neutron star or black hole, what happens to the companion star? Besides ...

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=7F4BC59C49A2BDE1777010B 119AB6647.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=435809 "GRBs as rare stages of stellar evolution, E. P. J. van den Heuvel, 2006, ... snip ... As to the short-duration GRBs (< 2 seconds), which make up about one third of all GRBs, the most favoured model is that of the coalescence of a double neutron star or of a neutron star-black hole binary. Also these events are expected to be very rare, having a frequency of at most one event per hundred thousand years for a galaxy like our own."

Now the HST site estimates there are about a hundred billion galaxies in the universe (maybe twice that). So that 100,000 year per event rate would mean several thousand GRB type events are occurring every year over the whole of the universe.

Yet, this source (http://www.scienceonline.org/cgi/content/summary/294/5548/1816 ) says GRBs are occurring at the rate of 1 per minute ... or 1440 per day ... a hundred times the van den Heuvel estimate. So are you sure binary neutron star/black hole pairs are the answer, RC?

:D

wollery
23rd March 2008, 09:48 PM
So, let me get this straight;

BAC's entire problem with standard cosmology is that there are a few low (but non-zero) probability alignments of high and low redshift objects, and there are a large number of events which require interactions between relatively rare objects?

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 09:50 PM
Would you like to list the "host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation"?

I believe I've done that on several occasions, RC. Weren't you paying attention? Or are you like David ... a non-listener? :D

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 09:54 PM
I believe I've done that on several occasions, RC. Weren't you paying attention? Or are you like David ... a non-listener? :D
I have not seen such a list. Perhaps a link to it?

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 09:55 PM
I don't have to get mine published BAC, wrong is wrong.

Is that the approach that the entire mainstream community now uses, David? Why else can't you find a peer reviewed article to support your position? :D

And by the way, David, you don't need to clutter up the thread by reposting everything I post ... just to wave your hands and not address any of the specifics I offered. Save a few electrons and just wave your hands. It will have the same impact. :D

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 10:06 PM
I shall address you there tomorrow.

By all means, David. And if you do that, it would make sense to repost my post here in its entirety to that thread so that folks know to what you are responding. So be my guest and repost it. But try to keep the hand waving to a minimum in your response, please. Because I'm not going to respond to hand waving. I'll also not respond if you misrepresent what I posted. I'll just leave it to readers to see that. ;)

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 10:17 PM
the statement that a jet that happens to point at the QSO actually links them is totally false.

No it isn't. I see the jet quite clearly. Don't you? Or do you only see "dark" matter and "dark" energy ... stuff you can't actually see. :D

It has a couple of gnomes in it - that the QSO is part of the galaxy

RC, if you bothered to read the peer reviewed papers that have been published (and I think you just admitted that you can't be bothered to do that), you'd find that they gave quite reasonable explanations for why they think the QSO is associated with the galaxy ... one of them being the optical characteristics of the plasma in the galaxy and the quasar ... another being the location of the quasar at the tip of a jet coming from the core of the galaxy ... and the third being the likely density of the core of this galaxy.

The first is in doubt (Arp says "likely", most other astronomers say no).

I dare you to post any peer reviewed article from "other astronomers" that refutes what Arp said with regard to this specific case. "Other astronomers" seem to be simply ignoring this observation.

The second needs proof other than a 2D photograph.

Well, RC, if we had such a thing as a 3D camera there'd be no doubt that many high redshift objects are closer than you think. :D

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 10:19 PM
So, let me get this straight;

BAC's entire problem with standard cosmology is that there are a few low (but non-zero) probability alignments of high and low redshift objects, and there are a large number of events which require interactions between relatively rare objects?

Obviously, you haven't actually tried to get this straight. Did you even bother to read the peer reviewed papers I linked on this? No? Thought so. :D

BeAChooser
23rd March 2008, 10:23 PM
I have not seen such a list. Perhaps a link to it?

Nah. I'm not in the mood to go back and repost for the Nth time the same material. I think I'll just stick to the redshift issue for the moment. And note that if redshift isn't necessarily related to distance, then lensing calculations are going to be perhaps full of error. :D

Reality Check
23rd March 2008, 10:27 PM
Nah. I'm not in the mood to go back and repost for the Nth time the same material. I think I'll just stick to the redshift issue for the moment. And note that if redshift isn't necessarily related to distance, then lensing calculations are going to be perhaps full of error. :D
How about a bit of text that you remember from the post?
Then I can find it myself.

Reality Check
24th March 2008, 01:51 AM
Nah. I'm not in the mood to go back and repost for the Nth time the same material. I think I'll just stick to the redshift issue for the moment. And note that if redshift isn't necessarily related to distance, then lensing calculations are going to be perhaps full of error. :D

I don't know if gravitation lensing calculations depend on the distance that the object causing the lensing is. I would guess yes.
I do know that redshifts have been confirmed by other techniques out to 100 Mpc. That is how Hubble came up with the redshift & distance relationship in the first place. I saw that the crackpot thunderbolts.info site talks about the Bullet Cluster being inside the Local Group! This places it within 10 million light-years and easily within the range of the other techniques.

Arp has observed anomalous redshifts. The source of these anomalies has not been determined. It is not usual practice to throw away a theory (the redshift & distance relationship) which fits many data points when a few observations do not fit and there is no theory to explain this.

Dancing David
24th March 2008, 04:12 AM
Is that the approach that the entire mainstream community now uses, David? Why else can't you find a peer reviewed article to support your position? :D

And by the way, David, you don't need to clutter up the thread by reposting everything I post ... just to wave your hands and not address any of the specifics I offered. Save a few electrons and just wave your hands. It will have the same impact. :D

Ah, ever thwe play book and talking points, eh Karl Jr.?

This your your usualu double speak because it implies that publication in a peer reviewed journal (sometimes a long time ago) denotes that something do not contain iaccuracies.

But wait, isn't there a double standard there? What? Ho!

You discount all the peer reviewed articles that support the theories you don't like, and engage is semnatic arguments based upon pop science articles to refute them at times.

So pray tell if you engage in a critique of peer reviewed statemenst, but you are not citing a peer reviewed article your self then, double standard.

It is also a double standard because then the argument from authority of all the peer reviewed articles you don't like comes into play. Argument from authority is argument from authority. So your twent journal articles and my lack of a publication related directly to thousands of articles and twenty articles.

lastly, you should critique the ideas and not hide behind your Gnames!

:p

Dancing David
24th March 2008, 04:13 AM
I believe I've done that on several occasions, RC. Weren't you paying attention? Or are you like David ... a non-listener? :D


So here we have more Karl Rove Jr. and Cheney Clone playbook. Why not just whip out the evidence and data? Surely your argument by spam would mean you have them saved?

Because appeals to emotions are a strong suit for you?

:p

Dancing David
24th March 2008, 04:19 AM
By all means, David. And if you do that, it would make sense to repost my post here in its entirety to that thread so that folks know to what you are responding. So be my guest and repost it. But try to keep the hand waving to a minimum in your response, please. Because I'm not going to respond to hand waving. I'll also not respond if you misrepresent what I posted. I'll just leave it to readers to see that. ;)


Ah, great excuse for your inability to engage in critical thinking. Have to front load you inability to defend your ideas and make it look like a victory eh?

Funny, when will you come out with the talking points memo Karl Jr.?

Well the man sized safe must have a great wet bar so you can stupor yourself into believing that you are right, while you hum with your fingers in your ears.

:D

Reality Check
24th March 2008, 11:52 AM
No it isn't. I see the jet quite clearly. Don't you? Or do you only see "dark" matter and "dark" energy ... stuff you can't actually see. :D

Like all the gnomes in plasma "cosmology" or the weird "electric universe"?

You see a jet in a 2D photograph and think that you can conclude that it points to a object and is caused by that object.


RC, if you bothered to read the peer reviewed papers that have been published (and I think you just admitted that you can't be bothered to do that), you'd find that they gave quite reasonable explanations for why they think the QSO is associated with the galaxy ... one of them being the optical characteristics of the plasma in the galaxy and the quasar ... another being the location of the quasar at the tip of a jet coming from the core of the galaxy ... and the third being the likely density of the core of this galaxy.

I did read it.
Have you read all the peer reviewed papers that have been published (and I think you just admitted that you can't be bothered to do that), you'd find that they gave quite reasonable explanations for why neutron stars and black holes exist?


I dare you to post any peer reviewed article from "other astronomers" that refutes what Arp said with regard to this specific case. "Other astronomers" seem to be simply ignoring this observation.

I think that the deafening silence tells its own story.

BeAChooser
24th March 2008, 02:19 PM
I do know that redshifts have been confirmed by other techniques out to 100 Mpc.

For what type of objects? You see, that may be quite important.

That is how Hubble came up with the redshift & distance relationship in the first place.

But he did that with large spiral and elliptical galaxies. Arp isn't suggesting the redshift relationship is wrong for those class of objects (although others have ... e.g.,, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0408348 , http://www.springerlink.com/content/v169j1g4l01vw78t/ ).

I saw that the crackpot thunderbolts.info site talks about the Bullet Cluster being inside the Local Group! This places it within 10 million light-years and easily within the range of the other techniques.

I'm not here to argue the distance to the Bullet Cluster. The claim it's part of the local group may be wrong. Or maybe not. Have they actually confirmed the location of the Bullet Cluster with any method other than redshift? :)

It is not usual practice to throw away a theory (the redshift & distance relationship) which fits many data points when a few observations do not fit and there is no theory to explain this.

Except a theory has been offered to explain this. Didn't you read all of what Arp has published or the links I provided. He has a quite detailed theory. And are you unaware of Narlikar's work?

And say, RC ... are you aware that redshifts may be quantized? A number of researchers have reported this ... with redshifts seeming to clump around z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96. How do you explain that with the mainstream theory? Isn't it curious that the redshift of the Bullet Cluster turns out to be 0.9? How could Arp be so prescient? :)

And note: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12037.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=mnr "We analyse the first publicly released deep field of the UK Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) Deep eXtragalactic Survey to identify candidate galaxy overdensities at z = 1 ...snip ... we identify and spectroscopically follow up five candidate structures with Gemini/Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph and confirm that they are all true overdensities with between five and 19 members each. Surprisingly, all five structures lie in a narrow redshift range at z = 0.89 ± 0.01, although they are spread across 30 Mpc on the sky." Isn't that a remarkable coincidence. :D

BeAChooser
24th March 2008, 02:21 PM
Ah, ever thwe play book and talking points, eh Karl Jr.?

You also won't get a response from me, David, with this tactic. :)

BeAChooser
24th March 2008, 02:25 PM
So here we have more Karl Rove Jr. and Cheney Clone playbook.

Very well, David. As you wish. You are back to being ignored.

BeAChooser
24th March 2008, 02:54 PM
You see a jet in a 2D photograph and think that you can conclude that it points to a object and is caused by that object.

First, it's not just me who sees a jet in that photo. Lot's of people do. Second, I didn't say the jet was "caused" by the object. It may be the result of the process that created the object. And third, it does happen to point in the direction of the one object that is a quasar in the image and which just happens to be visible despite its location over a dense obscuring portion of the galaxy. But you go ahead and wave your hand to make it go away. :)

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
I dare you to post any peer reviewed article from "other astronomers" that refutes what Arp said with regard to this specific case. "Other astronomers" seem to be simply ignoring this observation.

I think that the deafening silence tells its own story.

So you can't. I see. Is ignoring peer reviewed observations and calculations the way you see science *working*? I don't. And, curiously, I have no problem finding peer reviewed articles and papers that challenge the neutron star and black hole gnomes. I wonder why that is. I wonder why you can't find any to challenge the probabilities that Arp and many others calculated. I think in this case the deafening silence does indeed tell the story. :D

Reality Check
24th March 2008, 03:24 PM
For what type of objects? You see, that may be quite important.

Galaxies


But he did that with large spiral and elliptical galaxies. Arp isn't suggesting the redshift relationship is wrong for those class of objects (although others have ... e.g.,, http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0408348 , http://www.springerlink.com/content/v169j1g4l01vw78t/ ).

I thought we were talking about the Bullet Cluster - a cluster of galaxies.
I assume that the class of objects that Arp refers to are QSOs. In that case I agree with him - a few of the objects that astronomers call QSOs have anomalous redshifts and are probably some other type of object that happen to have high intrinsic velocities.


I'm not here to argue the distance to the Bullet Cluster. The claim it's part of the local group may be wrong. Or maybe not. Have they actually confirmed the location of the Bullet Cluster with any method other than redshift? :)

I do not know. However the Bullet Cluster seems to be under a lot of observation so I expect that events (e.g. Cepheids (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid#Use_as_a_.22standard_candle.22) and novae (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova#Novae_as_distance_indicators) ) that indicate that it is in the Local Group would be noticed.


Except a theory has been offered to explain this. Didn't you read all of what Arp has published or the links I provided. He has a quite detailed theory. And are you unaware of Narlikar's work?

I looked at those and they describe yet another partially developed steady state theory. Once they develop the theory to cover all of the observations that we have and produce testable, falsifiable predictions then I will have another look.


And say, RC ... are you aware that redshifts may be quantized? A number of researchers have reported this ... with redshifts seeming to clump around z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96. How do you explain that with the mainstream theory? Isn't it curious that the redshift of the Bullet Cluster turns out to be 0.9? How could Arp be so prescient? :)

Now you credit Arp with paranormal powers :rolleyes:.

You may want to reead about quantized redshifts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization) and note that "Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function".


And note: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12037.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=mnr (http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12037.x?cookieSet=1&journalCode=mnr) "We analyse the first publicly released deep field of the UK Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) Deep eXtragalactic Survey to identify candidate galaxy overdensities at z = 1 ...snip ... we identify and spectroscopically follow up five candidate structures with Gemini/Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph and confirm that they are all true overdensities with between five and 19 members each. Surprisingly, all five structures lie in a narrow redshift range at z = 0.89 ± 0.01, although they are spread across 30 Mpc on the sky." Isn't that a remarkable coincidence. :D


So what? The universe is big (100 billion galaxies). Coincidences are expected.

Reality Check
24th March 2008, 03:33 PM
First, it's not just me who sees a jet in that photo. Lot's of people do. Second, I didn't say the jet was "caused" by the object. It may be the result of the process that created the object. And third, it does happen to point in the direction of the one object that is a quasar in the image and which just happens to be visible despite its location over a dense obscuring portion of the galaxy. But you go ahead and wave your hand to make it go away. :)

I also see a jet in this 2D photo. This does not mean that it "links" or has any other relationship to the QSO.


So you can't. I see. Is ignoring peer reviewed observations and calculations the way you see science *working*? I don't. And, curiously, I have no problem finding peer reviewed articles and papers that challenge the neutron star and black hole gnomes. I wonder why that is. I wonder why you can't find any to challenge the probabilities that Arp and many others calculated. I think in this case the deafening silence does indeed tell the story. :D


No. It is a bad idea to ignore any peer reviewed observations and calculations. But there are only so many scientists and each has only so much time. Every scientist has to decide whether a paper is worth reading and whether a read paper is worth investigating. Thus an indicator that scientists do not think that a paper is significant is that there are no papers written to challenge it.
The fact that there are papers "that challenge the neutron star and black hole gnomes" is a good example of my point. Thank you for pointing it out.

BeAChooser
24th March 2008, 05:23 PM
Galaxies

But there are lots of different types of galaxies, RC. And not all of them contain the sort of objects that have verified the redshift/distance relationship out to (you say) 100 Mpc.


I thought we were talking about the Bullet Cluster - a cluster of galaxies.

So have any other means beside redshift been used to determine the distance to any of the Bullet Cluster galaxies?

I assume that the class of objects that Arp refers to are QSOs.

You assume wrong. It's not just QSOs that are the problem. You just demonstrated that you've made no attempt to actually understand what Arp is saying or the theory he proposed. You demonstrated you didn't even bother to look at what I posted earlier in response to David or the links I supplied since some of them explained Arp's theory in great detail.

a few of the objects that astronomers call QSOs have anomalous redshifts and are probably some other type of object that happen to have high intrinsic velocities.

Oh ... like black holes traveling near the speed of light? :rolleyes:

By the way, can you identify any high redshift QSO that the mainstream has said has a high redshift only because it is moving away from us very fast rather than just being far away? No? So would that make your argument a gnome? :)

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Except a theory has been offered to explain this. Didn't you read all of what Arp has published or the links I provided. He has a quite detailed theory. And are you unaware of Narlikar's work?

I looked at those and they describe yet another partially developed steady state theory.

Obviously you didn't look very closely at them if you think they only dealt with QSOs. And this is not a steady state theory ... at least in the sense you seem to want folks to think. That's a red herring. They simply allow for the creation of matter now rather than just at the moment of the Big Bang. A different assumption before solving the Equation of General Relativity.

Once they develop the theory to cover all of the observations that we have and produce testable, falsifiable predictions then I will have another look.

I rather doubt that's your reason given that you've been presented with lots of data potentially falsifying one of the foundations of the Big Bang cosmology and you don't seem at all interested in looking closely at it.

How could Arp be so prescient?

Now you credit Arp with paranormal powers.

Why shouldn't we take notice when researchers say redshifts intrinsically tend to be clustered around particular numbers (suggesting a non-cosmological basis for redshift) and a particular case the mainstream is touting as proof that dark matter exists via a calculation where the distance to the various objects is important just happens to have one of those quantized redshifts. :)

You may want to reead about quantized redshifts and note that "Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function".

You should have read a little farther.

"In 2006, Martin Bell and D. McDiarmid, reported: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model".

Now yes, I know it then states "There is a brief response to this paper in a comment in section 5 of Schneider et al. (2007) [28] where they note that all "periodic" structure disappears after the previously known selection effects are accounted for."

But then that obviously isn't the end of the story since I found this even more recent peer reviewed paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3833v2 "Redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey, J.G. Hartnett, 8 Feb 2008 ... snip ... Fourier spectral analysis has been carried out on the abundance of quasar redshifts as a function of redshift from the SDSS DR6 data release. The analysis finds that there are preferred redshifts separated by intervals of ?z =0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. Also it has been noted that within the standard error for each peak in the Fourier power spectrum, determined from Gaussian fits, the redshift intervals, represented by the peaks, could all be harmonics of some more fundamental value ?z = 0.062. If this is the case, this strengthens the argument that quasar redshifts are not entirely of cosmological origin but a significant proportion in the database analyzed here have some non-cosmological contribution."

The universe is big (100 billion galaxies). Coincidences are expected.

So they had a billion galaxies to select from and just managed to randomly pick 5 that all had the same redshift ... within +- 0.01 Just coincidence. :D

BeAChooser
24th March 2008, 05:36 PM
Thus an indicator that scientists do not think that a paper is significant is that there are no papers written to challenge it.

Or it could be an indicator of bias or that the mainstream hasn't been able to muster an effective/convincing counter argument. The ol' stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away syndrome. :p

Dancing David
24th March 2008, 06:03 PM
Very well, David. As you wish. You are back to being ignored.


Oh, gosh, if you cared to debate the merits of things rather than engage in appeals to emotion then a debate would occur.

Funny how you ignore me for acting like you!

Can't debate the sampling error problem so you find any excuse to run away.

:D

Dancing David
24th March 2008, 06:07 PM
Or it could be an indicator of bias or that the mainstream hasn't been able to muster an effective/convincing counter argument. The ol' stick your head in the sand and hope it goes away syndrome. :p

Hmm, just like you and Arp's sampling error, oh how Alanic! Except you can borrow DC's man sized safe.

:p

Dancing David
24th March 2008, 06:46 PM
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3555620&postcount=40



David and his friends on this forum like to go on and on about dark matter being directly "observed" in the case of the Bullet Cluster ... even though there are a host of gnomes and assumption based calculations implicit in that so-called observation.

You so funny BAC, I think you will have a very hard time finding me referencing the bullet cluster once, much less more than once. I did mention gravitational lensing, as a gravitational demonstration of GR.

I did however mention star clusters of the type that rotate in the halo of the galaxy, how do you explain their rates of rotation without dark matter, hmmm?


So I now award to you the second of these BAC, but I name you the Grand Master of the Order:

Pants of Fire!

BTW if you find where I have mentioned the Bullet Cluster directly in one of my posts, and not a quote, I shall be surprised, if you find more than one I will be amazed.

But you are a silver tongued devil and you have now been telling fibs. I am so sure that Papa Karl would be sooo proud of you Karl Jr.

Do you really have to resort to lying; seriously I am very willing to ignore your rudeness, but lying?

Reality Check
24th March 2008, 06:48 PM
But there are lots of different types of galaxies, RC. And not all of them contain the sort of objects that have verified the redshift/distance relationship out to (you say) 100 Mpc.

OK


So have any other means beside redshift been used to determine the distance to any of the Bullet Cluster galaxies?

I do not know and doubt it since the redshift means that its distance is 3.4 billion light years (conventionally calculated). Can Arp's model calculate the distance?


You assume wrong. It's not just QSOs that are the problem. You just demonstrated that you've made no attempt to actually understand what Arp is saying or the theory he proposed. You demonstrated you didn't even bother to look at what I posted earlier in response to David or the links I supplied since some of them explained Arp's theory in great detail.



Oh ... like black holes traveling near the speed of light? :rolleyes:

Maybe :D


By the way, can you identify any high redshift QSO that the mainstream has said has a high redshift only because it is moving away from us very fast rather than just being far away? No? So would that make your argument a gnome? :)

Define gnome?


Obviously you didn't look very closely at them if you think they only dealt with QSOs. And this is not a steady state theory ... at least in the sense you seem to want folks to think. That's a red herring. They simply allow for the creation of matter now rather than just at the moment of the Big Bang. A different assumption before solving the Equation of General Relativity.

So it is magic creation of matter?


I rather doubt that's your reason given that you've been presented with lots of data potentially falsifying one of the foundations of the Big Bang cosmology and you don't seem at all interested in looking closely at it.

The big problem is that these are isolated observations with various theories to explain them, none of which are fully developed. Which one is correct: plasma cosmology, electric universe, Arp's hypos thesis, quasi-steady state theory, etc.? A combination of them?

Personally I do not treat redshifts as "one of the foundations of the Big Bang cosmology". I look at them as experimental results that have been confirmed to a certain distance (100 Mpc) and then extended to further distances. Big Bang cosmology is merely a justification for extending the straight line fit below 100 Mpc to further than 100 Mpc.


Why shouldn't we take notice when researchers say redshifts intrinsically tend to be clustered around particular numbers (suggesting a non-cosmological basis for redshift) and a particular case the mainstream is touting as proof that dark matter exists via a calculation where the distance to the various objects is important just happens to have one of those quantized redshifts. :)

Why shouldn't we take notice when researchers say redshifts are not intrinsically tend to be clustered around particular numbers?


You should have read a little farther.

"In 2006, Martin Bell and D. McDiarmid, reported: "Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model".

Now yes, I know it then states "There is a brief response to this paper in a comment in section 5 of Schneider et al. (2007) [28] where they note that all "periodic" structure disappears after the previously known selection effects are accounted for."

But then that obviously isn't the end of the story since I found this even more recent peer reviewed paper:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.3833v2 "Redshift periodicity in quasar number counts from Sloan Digital Sky Survey, J.G. Hartnett, 8 Feb 2008 ... snip ... Fourier spectral analysis has been carried out on the abundance of quasar redshifts as a function of redshift from the SDSS DR6 data release. The analysis finds that there are preferred redshifts separated by intervals of ?z =0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1. Also it has been noted that within the standard error for each peak in the Fourier power spectrum, determined from Gaussian fits, the redshift intervals, represented by the peaks, could all be harmonics of some more fundamental value ?z = 0.062. If this is the case, this strengthens the argument that quasar redshifts are not entirely of cosmological origin but a significant proportion in the database analyzed here have some non-cosmological contribution."

The paper is recent (8 Feb 2008) so I think I will wait a couple of months until someone more knowledgeable reviews it. However it looks like the paper does not agree with your intervals of z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96. So is the paper is supporting that the Bullet Cluster (redshift of z = 0.9) does not fit a non-cosmological redshift?


So they had a billion galaxies to select from and just managed to randomly pick 5 that all had the same redshift ... within +- 0.01 Just coincidence. :D

You are right - just coincidence:D.

P.S. Did you read A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407) ?

We present new weak lensing observations of 1E0657-558 (z=0.296), a unique cluster merger, that enable a direct detection of dark matter, independent of assumptions regarding the nature of the gravitational force law. Due to the collision of two clusters, the dissipationless stellar component and the fluid-like X-ray emitting plasma are spatially segregated. By using both wide-field ground based images and HST/ACS images of the cluster cores, we create gravitational lensing maps which show that the gravitational potential does not trace the plasma distribution, the dominant baryonic mass component, but rather approximately traces the distribution of galaxies. An 8-sigma significance spatial offset of the center of the total mass from the center of the baryonic mass peaks cannot be explained with an alteration of the gravitational force law, and thus proves that the majority of the matter in the system is unseen.

BeAChooser
24th March 2008, 11:38 PM
I do not know and doubt it since the redshift means that its distance is 3.4 billion light years (conventionally calculated). Can Arp's model calculate the distance?

So in other words if Arp is right about non-cosmological sources of redshift in certain types of objects, then the bullet cluster calculation might be in error because the distances to the clusters and the lensing object might be in error. And no, I don't believe Arp offers some special way to calculate distance. So what?

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Oh ... like black holes traveling near the speed of light?

Maybe

Just curious. What sort of energy does it take to get a black hole mass to near the speed of light? :D

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
By the way, can you identify any high redshift QSO that the mainstream has said has a high redshift only because it is moving away from us very fast rather than just being far away? No? So would that make your argument a gnome?

Define gnome?

Your suggesting that the mainstream has admitted there are high redshift QSOs where the interpretation of redshift as distance is wrong. :D

So it is magic creation of matter?

No. In fact, there have been many peer reviewed papers published on this by eminent physicists (not magicians) and this matter creation directly follows from the GR equation as long as you don't ASSUME that all matter was created in a Big Bang. Think of this as a lot of little bangs. Perhaps without your magical inflation gnome. :)

The big problem is that these are isolated observations with various theories to explain them

You haven't offered any theories to explain them. And you haven't linked us to even ONE peer reviewed paper explaining them. You are just waving your hands hoping they will go away.

Personally I do not treat redshifts as "one of the foundations of the Big Bang cosmology".

But they are. The very notion of an expanding universe came about because redshifts seem to suggest one ... one where everything must have had an initial origin back in time. And the redshift/distance relationship is intimately entwined in all the interpretations of observations by Big Bang proponents ... in the development of gnomes such as quasars being black holes, lensing proof of dark matter and the existence of dark energy.

Why shouldn't we take notice when researchers say redshifts are not intrinsically tend to be clustered around particular numbers?

Except the verdict is still out and until we are sure, one way or the other, we'd better take notice of contrary evidence. Or some might really look foolish in the end.

The paper is recent (8 Feb 2008) so I think I will wait a couple of months until someone more knowledgeable reviews it. However it looks like the paper does not agree with your intervals of z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96. So is the paper is supporting that the Bullet Cluster (redshift of z = 0.9) does not fit a non-cosmological redshift?

Remember, the exact quantization numbers are going to depend on sample size. And perhaps other factors. There are undoubtedly uncertainties in any result of this sort. The truth is that those intervals are not all that different from these and you'll note that the paper did observe that they might all be harmonics of 0.06.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
So they had a billion galaxies to select from and just managed to randomly pick 5 that all had the same redshift ... within +- 0.01 Just coincidence.

You are right - just coincidence.

How improbable is that coincidence? Say one has a large population of numbers uniformly distributed from 0.80 to 1.10 in increments of 0.01 ... and randomly picks 5 numbers. What are the odds that the five numbers picked will all be within 0.01 of any given number in the range? Hmmmmmm? Unless I'm mistaken, there is 3 in 30 chance of picking a number within 0.01 of any number. So is the odds of all 5 numbers being within 0.01 of that same number = 0.1^^5? If so, that's a might large coincidence. :D

Reality Check
25th March 2008, 12:39 AM
So in other words if Arp is right about non-cosmological sources of redshift in certain types of objects, then the bullet cluster calculation might be in error because the distances to the clusters and the lensing object might be in error. And no, I don't believe Arp offers some special way to calculate distance. So what?

Then why bother with his theory? If it cannot give the distance of "certain types of objects" then what use is it?
This has probably has little relevance to the Bullet Cluster in any case since we are talking about the cluster as a whole not any objects in it.

You haven't offered any theories to explain them. And you haven't linked us to even ONE peer reviewed paper explaining them. You are just waving your hands hoping they will go away.

As I said there are various theories to explain these observations. Which one is correct?


But they are. The very notion of an expanding universe came about because redshifts seem to suggest one ... one where everything must have had an initial origin back in time. And the redshift/distance relationship is intimately entwined in all the interpretations of observations by Big Bang proponents ... in the development of gnomes such as quasars being black holes, lensing proof of dark matter and the existence of dark energy.



Have you ever heard of Hubble and his constant? The experimental results started with his paper in 1929 after he worked for a decade when a steady state universe was accepted. He fit a straight line to the data without Big Bang cosmology. So the experimental results came before the expanding universe theory. Einstein did not remove the cosmological constant from GR until 1931.

Have you found an explanation for the supermassive black hole at the center of our galaxy yet? Or is it just a real massive thingy that the core stars are orbiting around?
How many times have I asked this? My guess is 5.

P.S. What is causing the lensing in the 2 papers that I quoted?


Except the verdict is still out and until we are sure, one way or the other, we'd better take notice of contrary evidence. Or some might really look foolish in the end.

That is correct except in science no one looks foolish in the end since it is the evidence that makes a theory correct.


Remember, the exact quantization numbers are going to depend on sample size. And perhaps other factors. There are undoubtedly uncertainties in any result of this sort. The truth is that those intervals are not all that different from these and you'll note that the paper did observe that they might all be harmonics of 0.06.

The paper has z intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1 so:

Paper: z = 0.258, 0.57, 1.01, 1.64, 2.74
You: z = 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96To my mind that is really different.


How improbable is that coincidence? Say one has a large population of numbers uniformly distributed from 0.80 to 1.10 in increments of 0.01 ... and randomly picks 5 numbers. What are the odds that the five numbers picked will all be within 0.01 of any given number in the range? Hmmmmmm? Unless I'm mistaken, there is 3 in 30 chance of picking a number within 0.01 of any number. So is the odds of all 5 numbers being within 0.01 of that same number = 0.1^^5? If so, that's a might large coincidence. :D


I just read the full abstract:
We analyse the first publicly released deep field of the UK Infrared Deep Sky Survey (UKIDSS) Deep eXtragalactic Survey to identify candidate galaxy overdensities at z http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/entityImage/223C.gif</IMG> 1 across http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/entityImage/223C.gif</IMG>1 deg2 in the ELAIS-N1 field. Using I − K, J − K and K − 3.6 μm colours, we identify and spectroscopically follow up five candidate structures with Gemini/Gemini Multi-Object Spectrograph and confirm that they are all true overdensities with between five and 19 members each. Surprisingly, all five structures lie in a narrow redshift range at z = 0.89 ± 0.01, although they are spread across 30 Mpc on the sky. We also find a more distant overdensity at z = 1.09 in one of the spectroscopic survey regions. These five overdense regions lying in a narrow redshift range indicate the presence of a supercluster in this field and by comparing with mock cluster catalogues from N-body simulations we discuss the likely properties of this structure. Overall, we show that the properties of this supercluster are similar to the well-studied Shapley and Hercules superclusters at lower redshift

It was surprising that the 5 candidate structures were close in z range and the explanation is that they are a supercluster of galaxies. Remember that 30 Mpc is smaller than the Local Group.

I think from now I will not trust that you will not quote mine the abstracts and look them up myself.

sol invictus
25th March 2008, 04:48 AM
It's like arguing with someone that believes the earth is flat...


BAC: Look, I see something something far away! If the earth were round distant objects would be below the horizon. The earth is flat!


Us: Uh, BAC, that's a mountain. Some objects are big enough to stick up above the horizon even when they're far away.


BAC: "Mountains." :rolleyes: Yet another gnome invented by the mainstream to save their ridiculous theories. Tell me, if the earth is round why don't people on the other side fall off?
:D


Us: Because of gravity, BAC. It pulls things towards the center of the earth.


BAC: Here's a paper published in the Journal of Flat Earth Science which says they would fall off. I've asked you in thread after thread for a single peer-reviewed paper which rebuts this. Still looking? :D :D


Us: But, BAC, I've been to the other side. I've got friends that live there. And here's a photo taken from space showing the earth is a sphere.


BAC: Magnetic reconnection violates Gauss' law for magnetism!

iantresman
25th March 2008, 07:52 AM
That is just simply amazing - How the hell do you wrap your mind around that sort of information
.
Try scaling. Imagine that one Astronomical Unit (the distance from the Sun to the Earth, 93m miles) is an inch. A light year is about 5.8E12 miles or 62,000 AU, which in our analogy is about a mile.

So if an inch represents 1AU, then the Sun is a spec of dust some 1/100th-inch (0.25mm) in diameter, and the nearest star is about 4 miles away. (Gravitational force between two specs of sand 4 miles apart?)

Then our Milky Way galaxy is some 100,000 miles across, and the distance to one of our nearest neighbour, the Andromeda Galaxy, would be 2.5 million miles away.

Dancing David
25th March 2008, 08:16 AM
Now Ian there was no need for the dig on gravity, was there? So if you wish to not have people make statements about your character, how about not making sly little digs.

(Or we can continue in the discussion in Something New Under the Sun, where you state that a ion ratio of 1% is highly ionised? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3555538&postcount=1008) Have you read about the ion versus the collision ratio yet?)

I can still go to your web site and find generalizations and overstatement by the gross. So if you wish to not have people slam on you for such digs, then don't make them.

iantresman
25th March 2008, 09:53 AM
Now Ian there was no need for the dig on gravity, was there? So if you wish to not have people make statements about your character, how about not making sly little digs.
.
I think it's quite a valid point in the context of the vast scale of the Universe. Was my gravity comparison unfair?

(Or we can continue in the discussion in Something New Under the Sun, where you state that a ion ratio of 1% is highly ionised? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3555538&postcount=1008) Have you read about the ion versus the collision ratio yet?)

I can still go to your web site and find generalizations and overstatement by the gross. So if you wish to not have people slam on you for such digs, then don't make them.
.
I quoted Alfvén as saying that a 1% ionized gas may be treated as fully ionized; the ionosphere is a partially ionized plasmas at a degree of ionization of around 2x10-3(Ref (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WbkLRSNB3uwC&pg=PA13&dq=%22degree+of+ionization%22+altitude+layer+ionos phere&sig=FT03x2evnPDFEhi_ZZmxJ9R-oEU#PPA13,M1))

And if you find some over-generalization and overstatement on my Web site, I would be happy for you to bring them to my attention, and will take them into consideration (as I have done so already).

Dancing David
25th March 2008, 10:32 AM
.
I think it's quite a valid point in the context of the vast scale of the Universe. Was my gravity comparison unfair?

Whip out those EM forces between the two stars and then you can say if it has meaning.
I said dig at 'gravity', perhaps that does not translate well from Americanese into your English (the mother tounge came from your end). So if you take pot shots at gravity and make no attempt to compare it to anything, it the sort of thing that will bring down the slurs, which you might or might not wish to have slung.



.
I quoted Alfvén as saying that a 1% ionized gas may be treated as fully ionized;

As I recall Ian, that is not what Alfven said at all, there was a condition on that staement was there not?

the ionosphere is a partially ionized plasmas at a degree of ionization of around 2x10-3(Ref (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=WbkLRSNB3uwC&pg=PA13&dq=%22degree+of+ionization%22+altitude+layer+ionos phere&sig=FT03x2evnPDFEhi_ZZmxJ9R-oEU#PPA13,M1))

And if you find some over-generalization and overstatement on my Web site, I would be happy for you to bring them to my attention, and will take them into consideration (as I have done so already).


You just made an overgenralization again, there was a conditional clause on the quote from Alfven, you are seemingly mis-stating his statement.

And again you keep ignoring certain things, like the charge and velocity of the particles in the plasma, that have a very important impact upon the meanings of the word.

So if fact you did not read about electron density and collision ratios as one of the descriptors of plasmas? have you amended any references to Alfven statement that the EM forces dominate when the charge and velocity are above certain parameters or do you still misquote him?

Sorry , I should put a bunch of these :) :) :)

I don't mean to get snarky.

And you web site it states on the front page "99.999% of the universe" is plasma, but then when you go to your citation for it, it is a reference to an estimate and not the actual citation, so that is bad form for a reference and perhaps the subtitle of Sec. 3 should read "Estimates say that the universe is 99.99% plasma."


here is Alfven, from a post of yours.

It must then be observed that due to the large effective cross-section for collisions between charged particles, such collisions can be dominant even at a relatively low degree of ionization. Thus, as far as collision processes are concerned, plasmas with degrees of ionization larger than 1 per cent are to be considered as highly ionized."


This is what you said right here:

"I quoted Alfvén as saying that a 1% ionized gas may be treated as fully ionized"

No he said that you may treat it as fully ionised in terms of the collision processes. Which I take to mean the mechanical bumping of particles as opposed to the EM scattering and magnetic effects of a plasma.

Corsair 115
25th March 2008, 12:15 PM
I see the 'electric universe' evangelizing has continued in my absence. I am not surprised.

Really, it's not so much I mind the theory, I just wish it could be contained to one thread discussing its merits and drawbacks as opposed to being dropped into practically every thread dealing with astronomy and cosmology. Might I be able to read one astronomy/cosmology thread in here where BAC or someone else doesn't feel compelled to spread their EU beliefs?

schlitt
25th March 2008, 12:23 PM
This event could have potentially wiped out numerous life supporting planets like earth?

Or is 7.5 billion years to early in the universe for life conditions?

Dancing David
25th March 2008, 12:44 PM
This event could have potentially wiped out numerous life supporting planets like earth?

Or is 7.5 billion years to early in the universe for life conditions?

That is a great question, and while ponderable, probably not answerable, I think the current best guess is that it took the earth 4-3.5 billion years to develop life. So maybe, maybe not?

Dancing David
25th March 2008, 12:46 PM
I see the 'electric universe' evangelizing has continued in my absence. I am not surprised.

Really, it's not so much I mind the theory, I just wish it could be contained to one thread discussing its merits and drawbacks as opposed to being dropped into practically every thread dealing with astronomy and cosmology. Might I be able to read one astronomy/cosmology thread in here where BAC or someone else doesn't feel compelled to spread their EU beliefs?


Sorry, Corsair, I will have to start splitting my responses, to help prevent my derailing of my own thread.

iantresman
25th March 2008, 01:26 PM
Whip out those EM forces between the two stars and then you can say if it has meaning.
I said dig at 'gravity', perhaps that does not translate well from Americanese into your English (the mother tounge came from your end). So if you take pot shots at gravity and make no attempt to compare it to anything, it the sort of thing that will bring down the slurs, which you might or might not wish to have slung.
.
I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I made a valid analogy of scale, and of course mentioned gravity which any textbook will tell you is important, and hopefully is valid with my analogy too. I did omit any mention of dark matter. But if anyone else had suggested there same analogy, I'm sure there would have been no complaint.

As I recall Ian, that is not what Alfven said at all, there was a condition on that statement was there not?

You just made an overgenralization again, there was a conditional clause on the quote from Alfven, you are seemingly mis-stating his statement.
.
Indeed, which is why I emphasized that it may, which implies certain conditions.

And you web site it states on the front page "99.999% of the universe" is plasma, but then when you go to your citation for it, it is a reference to an estimate and not the actual citation, so that is bad form for a reference and perhaps the subtitle of Sec. 3 should read "Estimates say that the universe is 99.99% plasma."
.
If you mean the link in box 2 "Where is plasma?" where it says "The visible Universe is 99.999% plasma", the yes, the link goes to a page with a dozen citations with this in context. Some of these are given as "statements of fact", and some say it is an estimate. In this instance, I am happy with the generalization and subsequent page of context. But thank you for highlighting it.

Tubbythin
25th March 2008, 01:29 PM
This event could have potentially wiped out numerous life supporting planets like earth?

Or is 7.5 billion years to early in the universe for life conditions?

I don't know, but you seem to be asking slightly the wrong question. The event happened 7.5 billion light years away meaning it happened 7.5 billion years ago (since we're only just seeing it). Current consesus, I believe, is that the Universe is ~13.7 billion years old. Hence the appropriate question should be "Is 6.2 billion years too early in the universe for life conditions"?

That is a great question, and while ponderable, probably not answerable, I think the current best guess is that it took the earth 4-3.5 billion years to develop life. So maybe, maybe not?
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but I believe there were signs of life after around a billion years. (http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/exhibits/historyoflife.php)

Having said this. The big bang nucleosynthesis phase produced almost exclusively hydrogen and helium. Thus to get an environment with more useful things for life like carbon and oxygen one would have to have at least one round of stellar nucleosynthesis.
Having said this, big stars have much shorter lives than smaller mass stars, so thats not impossible in the available time frame to the best of my knowledge.
I'm sure there's lots of other important factors I haven't considered. Can anyone add anything to the debate?

iantresman
25th March 2008, 01:32 PM
here is Alfven, from a post of yours.
It must then be observed that due to the large effective cross-section for collisions between charged particles, such collisions can be dominant even at a relatively low degree of ionization. Thus, as far as collision processes are concerned, plasmas with degrees of ionization larger than 1 per cent are to be considered as highly ionized."

This is what you said right here:

"I quoted Alfvén as saying that a 1% ionized gas may be treated as fully ionized"

No he said that you may treat it as fully ionised in terms of the collision processes. Which I take to mean the mechanical bumping of particles as opposed to the EM scattering and magnetic effects of a plasma.
.
This is my understanding. There are two types of collision in a partially ionized gas/plasma; (1) Collision of charged particles with charged particles (2) Collision of charged particles with neutrals. The latter is what I think you would call "mechanical" collisions, whereas ion collisions are what you are describing as EM..., which I think are called Coulomb collisions due to Coulomb's Law.

By saying that 1% ionized gas can be treated as a fully-ionized plasma, I think Alfvén is saying that Coulomb collisions dominate. I note that:

"Collisions between charged particles in a plasma differ fundamentally from those between molecules in a neutral gas because of the long range of the Coulomb force." -- Richard Fitzpatrick1, Introduction to Plasma Physics: A graduate level course, "Collisionality (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node9.html)"
.
Or a better clarification:
".. Coulomb collisions will dominate over collisions with neutrals in any plasma that is even just a few percent ionized. Only if the ionization level is very low (<10-3) can neutral collisions dominate." -- Robert J. Goldston, Paul Harding Rutherford, Introduction to Plasma Physics, "Fully and Partially Ionized Plasmas" (page 164 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7kM7yEFUGnAC&pg=PT182&lpg=PT182&dq=%22coulomb+collisions%22+plasma+ionization&source=web&ots=8kX3aWgJk6&sig=MJWc_ax-qkNzaSIIUhn5362q5TU&hl=en))

Dancing David
25th March 2008, 01:59 PM
.
I think you're blowing this out of proportion. I made a valid analogy of scale, and of course mentioned gravity which any textbook will tell you is important, and hopefully is valid with my analogy too. I did omit any mention of dark matter. But if anyone else had suggested there same analogy, I'm sure there would have been no complaint.


.
Indeed, which is why I emphasized that it may, which implies certain conditions.

The point I am making is that the condition is regards the collision, which is a normal gas effect, not a normal plasma effect?


So the condition is, for the ways that plasma acts like an unionised gas, a 1% ionization is highly ionised?




.
If you mean the link in box 2 "Where is plasma?" where it says "The visible Universe is 99.999% plasma", the yes, the link goes to a page with a dozen citations with this in context. Some of these are given as "statements of fact", and some say it is an estimate. In this instance, I am happy with the generalization and subsequent page of context. But thank you for highlighting it.

Whatever, cool by me, cool by you. i was responding to the first section and the plasma page where you make that statement and then don't directly reference it.

Dancing David
25th March 2008, 02:03 PM
.
This is my understanding. There are two types of collision in a partially ionized gas/plasma; (1) Collision of charged particles with charged particles (2) Collision of charged particles with neutrals. The latter is what I think you would call "mechanical" collisions, whereas ion collisions are what you are describing as EM..., which I think are called Coulomb collisions due to Coulomb's Law.

By saying that 1% ionized gas can be treated as a fully-ionized plasma, I think Alfvén is saying that Coulomb collisions dominate. I note that:

"Collisions between charged particles in a plasma differ fundamentally from those between molecules in a neutral gas because of the long range of the Coulomb force." -- Richard Fitzpatrick1, Introduction to Plasma Physics: A graduate level course, "Collisionality (http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/plasma/lectures/node9.html)"
.
Or a better clarification:
".. Coulomb collisions will dominate over collisions with neutrals in any plasma that is even just a few percent ionized. Only if the ionization level is very low (<10-3) can neutral collisions dominate." -- Robert J. Goldston, Paul Harding Rutherford, Introduction to Plasma Physics, "Fully and Partially Ionized Plasmas" (page 164 (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=7kM7yEFUGnAC&pg=PT182&lpg=PT182&dq=%22coulomb+collisions%22+plasma+ionization&source=web&ots=8kX3aWgJk6&sig=MJWc_ax-qkNzaSIIUhn5362q5TU&hl=en))

okay , that would make a lot more sense, i have barely gotten into it, the stuff I did read was pointing out different paparmeters for the defintions of plasma, and collision was used in a different sense.

If that is the context to which Alfven put it, that would make sense, especially due to the Coulomb effects.

schlitt
25th March 2008, 03:28 PM
I don't know, but you seem to be asking slightly the wrong question. The event happened 7.5 billion light years away meaning it happened 7.5 billion years ago (since we're only just seeing it). Current consesus, I believe, is that the Universe is ~13.7 billion years old. Hence the appropriate question should be "Is 6.2 billion years too early in the universe for life conditions"?


I was actually taking that into account, by way of star/planet formation, elements required for life etc. Was the universe in a sufficient state 7.5 billion years ago to have had the necessary time required prior to this event for all elements required for a life supporting planet such as earth?

Madalch
25th March 2008, 03:30 PM
You guys spend an awful lot of time writing zeros, don't you?
Only when marking....

Tubbythin
25th March 2008, 03:49 PM
I was actually taking that into account, by way of star/planet formation, elements required for life etc. Was the universe in a sufficient state 7.5 billion years ago to have had the necessary time required prior to this event for all elements required for a life supporting planet such as earth?

I see. The original question didn't have the "ago" in it. Hence the misunderstanding.

BeAChooser
25th March 2008, 05:31 PM
Then why bother with his theory? If it cannot give the distance of "certain types of objects" then what use is it?

So now the litmus test of a cosmological theory is whether it tells one the distance to objects? Saying "I don't know" is to not allowed in mainstream thinking? Maybe that's why they find it necessary to invent gnome after gnome. Because they don't feel comfortable just saying "I don't know". :D


As I said there are various theories to explain these observations.

Again, you haven't offered any theories to explain them. You haven't linked us to any peer reviewed papers explaining them. You haven't quoted any published article in scientific magazines. You are just waving your hands hoping the observations they will go away.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
The very notion of an expanding universe came about because redshifts seem to suggest one ... one where everything must have had an initial origin back in time. ... snip ...

Have you ever heard of Hubble and his constant? The experimental results started with his paper in 1929 after he worked for a decade when a steady state universe was accepted. He fit a straight line to the data without Big Bang cosmology.

That's not a correct rendition of history, RC. Vesto Slipher started measuring the Doppler shift of galaxies about 1910, although at the time he didn't know that's what they were ... he called them nebula. Almost all of the objects showed a redshift which suggested the objects were collectively moving away from us. That is where matters stood until 1922 when Friedmann derived equations from Einstein's theory of General Relativity that suggested the universe should either be expanding or collapsing. In 1924, Hubble measured the distance to the nearest spiral "nebula" and showed that they weren't nebula at all, but other galaxies filled with stars just like the Milky Way. In 1927, Georges Lemaître independently derived Friedmann's equations and for the first time, it was concluded in a paper that the recession of the objects was due to the expansion "of the universe". His model included a redshift/distance relationship similar to that which in 1929 Hubble and Humason obtained by fitting a line through the observational data that had been collected so far. However, it wasn't until 1931 that Lemaître actually published a paper suggesting that the universe began as a simple "primeval atom" or "cosmic egg". Therefore, one might consider 1931 as the real birthdate of the *Big Bang* theory, in which case, redshifts are "one of the foundations of the Big Bang cosmology". Like I said. And if the redshift/distance formula doesn't actually hold for many objects ... :)

The paper has z intervals of 0.258, 0.312, 0.44, 0.63, and 1.1 so:
• Paper: z = 0.258, 0.57, 1.01, 1.64, 2.74
• You: z = 0.061, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96
To my mind that is really different.

Actually, the paper does mention the sequence might start at z=0.062. So let's line them up again with that in mind.

Harnett's Paper:

z = 0.06, 0.26, 0.57, 1.01, 1.64, 2.74

Burbidge and Napier (2000) /Karlsson/Arp:

z = 0.06, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96

Sorry but that doesn't look all that different considering all the possible factors that might cause a difference. You know that there are uncertainties in any given calculation of this sort, especially as you go farther out.

How about we add some further data by another author:

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411548 "Intrinsically faint quasars: evidence for meV axion dark matter in the Universe, Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, November 18, 2004 ... snip ... Growing amount of observations indicate presence of intrinsically faint quasar subgroup (a few % of known quasars) with noncosmological quantized redshift. Here we find an analytical solution of Einstein equations describing bubbles made from axions with periodic interaction potential. Such particles are currently considered as one of the leading dark matter candidate. The bubble interior possesses equal gravitational redshift which can have any value between zero and infinity. Quantum pressure supports the bubble against collapse and yields states stable on the scale more then hundreds million years. Our results explain the observed quantization of quasar redshift and suggest that intrinsically faint point-like quasars associated with nearby galaxies are axionic bubbles ... snip ... . They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space. Properties of such quasars unambiguously indicate presence of axion dark matter in the Universe and yield the axion mass m ? 1 meV, which fits in the open axion mass window constrained by astrophysical and cosmological arguments." This source lists quantization at:

z = X.XX, 0.36, 0.63, 0.96, 1.40, 2.06

That again seems to line up relatively well.

Also, are you aware (http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part5/4.html ) that "there is a difference between radio quasars redshifts in the Right Ascension = 0 hour region (peaks at .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96) relative to the Right Ascension = 12 hour region (peaks at .34, .65, 1.02, 1.48, 2.05)29." That might explain some of the variation too.

What a coincidence that the redshifts in all the examples of curious alignments I listed or quasars in front of low redshift galaxies or the bullet cluster case just happen to have redshifts near one of these peaks. Just a coincidence. Right? :rolleyes:

These five overdense regions lying in a narrow redshift range indicate the presence of a supercluster in this field

That speculation is perhaps another gnome. Do you have any confirmation that all 5 objects are part of a supercluster? How many foreground and background objects are there in the field? And do all the supercluster members have a redshift within 0.01 of the others?

Overall, we show that the properties of this supercluster are similar to the well-studied Shapley and Hercules superclusters at lower redshift

Well let's look at the spread of redshifts in the Shapely supercluster which has somewhat over 700 members. Here's a source (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903028 ) with histograms of redshifts for the Shapely cluster and in the direction of that supercluster. Note that three quarters of them have velocities in the range 7580 to 18300 kms (where 18300 km/s corresponds to z of about 0.061) and the rest are outside that range. So that means that three quarters of the members have z ranging from 0.025 to 0.061. So what are the odds that if you picked 5 of them at random you'd end up with all 5 being within 0.01? Pretty slim? That source also notes that there is a foreground wall of 269 galaxies with quite different redshifts (z = 0.067 to 0.02). What are the odds that one of them wouldn't be picked randomly in a sample of 5? I think you are hand waving, RC.

And you might find this interesting:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/qt7454133824p423/ "On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity, K.*Bajan, P.*Flin, W.*Godlowski, and V.*N.*Pervushin, 2006, ... snip ... We conclude that galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist." That reference has a histogram of radial velocities for the Hercules cluster. Again, we see that z has a very large range ... far more than 0.01. :D

Remember that 30 Mpc is smaller than the Local Group.]

Let's look at redshifts in the Local Group. It consists of about 30 galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy is one of them. And guess what? It's moving towards us at about 50 km/s. Wonder what the rest are doing? :)

Dancing David
25th March 2008, 06:22 PM
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411548 "Intrinsically faint quasars: evidence for meV axion dark matter in the Universe, Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, November 18, 2004 ... snip ... Growing amount of observations indicate presence of intrinsically faint quasar subgroup (a few % of known quasars) with noncosmological quantized redshift. Here we find an analytical solution of Einstein equations describing bubbles made from axions with periodic interaction potential. Such particles are currently considered as one of the leading dark matter candidate. The bubble interior possesses equal gravitational redshift which can have any value between zero and infinity. Quantum pressure supports the bubble against collapse and yields states stable on the scale more then hundreds million years. Our results explain the observed quantization of quasar redshift and suggest that intrinsically faint point-like quasars associated with nearby galaxies are axionic bubbles ... snip ... . They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space. Properties of such quasars unambiguously indicate presence of axion dark matter in the Universe and yield the axion mass m ? 1 meV, which fits in the open axion mass window constrained by astrophysical and cosmological arguments."

Really!

And what to my wondering eyes should appear but BAC waving around the chameleon dark matter particle, with it's cute little red hat and everything.

Evidently a gnome that supports your theory is a gnome you can trust!

'unambiguously', wow i wonder how ambiguous that data is? So if it supports a QSO ejection theory it is a gnome that BAC will have a drink with.

Amazing, is it April 1st?

BeAChooser
25th March 2008, 06:33 PM
And what to my wondering eyes should appear but BAC waving around the chameleon dark matter particle, with it's cute little red hat and everything.

Now David, you don't really expect Big Bang supporters to give up on dark matter (you being an example).

Did you notice this though? They said "They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space." Is that matter creation post Big Bang they are talking about, David? My goodness! And if they were wrong about that being impossible (I'd be willing to bet at some point they were saying just what you Big Bang supporters on this thread have been saying ... that it's impossible), perhaps they are also wrong as to the nature of what's been created and ejected. Maybe that's just ordinary matter doing what Narlikar and Hoyle predicted ordinary matter would do when they solved the equation of GR without assuming all mass was created in the beginning. :D

Reality Check
25th March 2008, 07:05 PM
So now the litmus test of a cosmological theory is whether it tells one the distance to objects? Saying "I don't know" is to not allowed in mainstream thinking? Maybe that's why they find it necessary to invent gnome after gnome. Because they don't feel comfortable just saying "I don't know". :D

No it is not the litmus test. We are only talking about the use of red-shifts to measure distances. Arp states that certain objects are do not obey Hubble's law, provides a theory to explain it and cannot do the calculations (according to you). This means that as far as red-shifts are concerned his theory is useless. His theory may have applications in other areas.


Again, you haven't offered any theories to explain them. You haven't linked us to any peer reviewed papers explaining them. You haven't quoted any published article in scientific magazines. You are just waving your hands hoping the observations they will go away.

Dark matter (see the paper you cite below).


Actually, the paper does mention the sequence might start at z=0.062. So let's line them up again with that in mind.
Harnett's Paper:
z = 0.06, 0.26, 0.57, 1.01, 1.64, 2.74
Burbidge and Napier (2000) /Karlsson/Arp:
z = 0.06, 0.30, 0.60, 0.91, 1.41, 1.96
...

From the paper (http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0712/0712.3833v2.pdf):

Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20 of 0.062.

So there is no "might start at z=0.062". The first number is 4 times that. There may be some reason why the integer multiples do not include 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, etc. But until an analysis reveals that reason there is no z = 0.06 in their results.


Also, are you aware (http://www.eitgaastra.nl/timesgr/part5/4.html ) that "there is a difference between radio quasars redshifts in the Right Ascension = 0 hour region (peaks at .30, .60, .96, 1.41, 1.96) relative to the Right Ascension = 12 hour region (peaks at .34, .65, 1.02, 1.48, 2.05)29." That might explain some of the variation too.

What no peak at z = 0.06? :D


What a coincidence that the redshifts in all the examples of curious alignments I listed or quasars in front of low redshift galaxies or the bullet cluster case just happen to have redshifts near one of these peaks. Just a coincidence. Right? :rolleyes:

Probably.


That speculation is perhaps another gnome. Do you have any confirmation that all 5 objects are part of a supercluster? How many foreground and background objects are there in the field? And do all the supercluster members have a redshift within 0.01 of the others?

I do not - that is the conclusion of the paper.


Well let's look at the spread of redshifts in the Shapely supercluster which has somewhat over 700 members. Here's a source (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903028 ) with histograms of redshifts for the Shapely cluster and in the direction of that supercluster. Note that three quarters of them have velocities in the range 7580 to 18300 kms (where 18300 km/s corresponds to z of about 0.061) and the rest are outside that range. So that means that three quarters of the members have z ranging from 0.025 to 0.061. So what are the odds that if you picked 5 of them at random you'd end up with all 5 being within 0.01? Pretty slim? That source also notes that there is a foreground wall of 269 galaxies with quite different redshifts (z = 0.067 to 0.02). What are the odds that one of them wouldn't be picked randomly in a sample of 5? I think you are hand waving, RC.

Perhaps you should send this to the other paper's authors?


How about we add some further data by another author:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411548 (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0411548) "Intrinsically faint quasars: evidence for meV axion dark matter in the Universe, Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, November 18, 2004 ... snip ... Growing amount of observations indicate presence of intrinsically faint quasar subgroup (a few % of known quasars) with noncosmological quantized redshift.

Now you are are quoting a paper supporting dark matter!
I take you now are either going to drop red-shift quantization or support dark matter.

Seriously - now that we know that dark matter can explain red-shift quantization then every paper that you quote supporting red-shift quantization is also a support for dark matter.



And you might find this interesting:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/qt7454133824p423/ "On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity, K.*Bajan, P.*Flin, W.*Godlowski, and V.*N.*Pervushin, 2006, ... snip ... We conclude that galaxy redshift periodization is an effect which can really exist." That reference has a histogram of radial velocities for the Hercules cluster. Again, we see that z has a very large range ... far more than 0.01. :D

That is nice - more proof of dark matter!



Let's look at redshifts in the Local Group. It consists of about 30 galaxies. The Andromeda galaxy is one of them. And guess what? It's moving towards us at about 50 km/s. Wonder what the rest are doing? :)


Galaxies in clusters are affected by the other galaxies more than the expansion of the universe.

Reality Check
25th March 2008, 07:09 PM
Now David, you don't really expect Big Bang supporters to give up on dark matter (you being an example).

Did you notice this though? They said "They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space." Is that matter creation post Big Bang they are talking about, David? My goodness! And if they were wrong about that being impossible (I'd be willing to bet at some point they were saying just what you Big Bang supporters on this thread have been saying ... that it's impossible), perhaps they are also wrong as to the nature of what's been created and ejected. Maybe that's just ordinary matter doing what Narlikar and Hoyle predicted ordinary matter would do when they solved the equation of GR without assuming all mass was created in the beginning. :D

Actually the authors reference Arp as the source for that statement.

wollery
25th March 2008, 07:56 PM
You guys spend an awful lot of time writing zeros, don't you? :)No, we have powers. ;)

wollery
25th March 2008, 07:59 PM
So now the litmus test of a cosmological theory is whether it tells one the distance to objects? Saying "I don't know" is to not allowed in mainstream thinking? Maybe that's why they find it necessary to invent gnome after gnome. Because they don't feel comfortable just saying "I don't know". :DI know a hell of a lot of cosmologists, and I can assure you that they are extremely good at saying "I don't know".

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 03:21 AM
Now David, you don't really expect Big Bang supporters to give up on dark matter (you being an example).

Did you notice this though? They said "They are born in active galaxies and ejected into surrounding space." Is that matter creation post Big Bang they are talking about, David? My goodness! And if they were wrong about that being impossible (I'd be willing to bet at some point they were saying just what you Big Bang supporters on this thread have been saying ... that it's impossible), perhaps they are also wrong as to the nature of what's been created and ejected. Maybe that's just ordinary matter doing what Narlikar and Hoyle predicted ordinary matter would do when they solved the equation of GR without assuming all mass was created in the beginning. :D


Arm waving noted. Your are speculating again, so when 'dark matter' supports your hypothesis it is 'good' dark matter?

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 10:51 AM
Arp states that certain objects are do not obey Hubble's law, provides a theory to explain it and cannot do the calculations (according to you).

Arp hasn't claimed to be able to tell you the real distance to every object in the universe, RC. Only the mainstream has made that claim. Arp just maintains that some objects which you claim to know the distance to are not at those distances based on a wide range of observations and calculations of probabilities ... which you and David have specifically ignored or dismissed with nothing more than handwaving. And his theory (actually Narlikar's and Hoyle's) provides the theoretical basis for explaining why redshift of these objects might not correspond to distance ... but rather to the time since they were first created.

This means that as far as red-shifts are concerned his theory is useless.

Oh please, RC ... if this is the level that your argument is going to sink to, you may get thrown in the hopper with David.


Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Again, you haven't offered any theories to explain them. You haven't linked us to any peer reviewed papers explaining them. You haven't quoted any published article in scientific magazines. You are just waving your hands hoping the observations they will go away

Dark matter.


Really? Tell us how dark matter explains that quasar that appears to be in front of a galaxy (NGC 7319). Tell us how dark matter explains the highly unlikely association of high and low redshift objects along that filament coming from NGC 7603. Tell us how dark matter explains the unlikely association of high and low redshift objects with respect to NGC 3628 and its features. Tell us how dark matter explains similar unlikely associations around GC 6217, NGC 470/474, NGC 3516, NGC 5985. Tell us how dark matter explains why in each of the cases the redshift of the high redshift objects near the low redshift object decreases as one moves away from the low redshift object. Tell us how dark matter explains the positional alignment of the various objects in the Local Group with respect to the major object in the group, M31? What's dark matter got to do with any of them?


From the paper:
Quote:
Within their standard errors these intervals are integer multiples 4, 5, 7, 10 and 20 of 0.062.

So there is no "might start at z=0.062".

You are just quoting the abstract. The body of the paper states "Also it has been noted that within the standard error for each peak in the Fourier power spectrum, determined from Gaussian fits, the redshift intervals, represented by the peaks, could all be harmonics of some more fundamental value z = 0.062. If this is the case, this strengthens the argument that quasar redshifts are not entirely of cosmological origin but a significant proportion in the database analyzed here have some non-cosmological contribution."


What no peak at z = 0.06?

Now don't get so hung up on 0.06 you miss seeing the forest, RC.

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
Well let's look at the spread of redshifts in the Shapely supercluster which has somewhat over 700 members. Here's a source (http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9903028 ) with histograms of redshifts for the Shapely cluster and in the direction of that supercluster. Note that three quarters of them have velocities in the range 7580 to 18300 kms (where 18300 km/s corresponds to z of about 0.061) and the rest are outside that range. So that means that three quarters of the members have z ranging from 0.025 to 0.061. So what are the odds that if you picked 5 of them at random you'd end up with all 5 being within 0.01? Pretty slim? That source also notes that there is a foreground wall of 269 galaxies with quite different redshifts (z = 0.067 to 0.02). What are the odds that one of them wouldn't be picked randomly in a sample of 5? I think you are hand waving, RC.

Perhaps you should send this to the other paper's authors?

No doubt they've already ignored it in their haste to keep the redshift/distance gnome alive so BB cosmology doesn't collapse. :D


Now you are are quoting a paper supporting dark matter!

You missed the important part, RC. The authors of that paper suggest that dark matter is created in galaxies and ejected post BB? Now aren't you one of this forum's denizens who has declared matter creation post BB is impossible ... a violation of natural laws? And besides, how do the authors know that's dark matter, instead of the ordinary matter that was predicted by Narliker and Hoyle under such conditions? And also, I thought dark matter didn't interact with EM ... doesn't emit light ... can't have a redshift. What is the specific observation that tells the authors this is dark matter? :D

Seriously - now that we know that dark matter can explain red-shift quantization

Really? You KNOW this? For a certainty? Tell us, RC, did that paper contain any tests whatsoever to tell if the matter being created was dark matter axions or any other form of dark matter? No? So isn't that merely SPECULATION ... another gnome being introduced to prop up a cosmology that is against faced with an observation the mainstream can't otherwise explain. Gnome after gnome after gnome ... all piled on one another.

That is nice - more proof of dark matter!

RC, that's not explaining observations. That's hiding from them. And so typical of the mainstream. And I think readers of this thread will be able to see that.

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 10:57 AM
Actually the authors reference Arp as the source for that statement.

So it appears some Big Bang, Dark Matter believing mainstream researchers have opened the door a crack. They are starting to accept that what Arp has been telling them might be right?. How long can it be before they toss out the dark matter component of their argument completely and just accept the rest of Arp's thesis? Maybe there is hope for astrophysics yet. :)

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 11:02 AM
I know a hell of a lot of cosmologists, and I can assure you that they are extremely good at saying "I don't know".

So what do your "hell of a lot of cosmologists" have to say about the observations I noted regarding NGC 7319, NGC 7603, and NGC 3628? Any of them put any of what they said in print for us to read? Or are they just hiding behind their gnomes? :D

Reality Check
26th March 2008, 11:49 AM
BeAChooser: Back to the Bullet Cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster).
The distance to the Bullet Cluster is not really an issue here. The distance was established using the galaxies in the cluster, i.e. non-Arp objects. No astronomer would make a distance measurement using only Arp objects. If you have evidence that they did then please present it.

Next gnome?

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 12:07 PM
Arp hasn't claimed to be able to tell you the real distance to every object in the universe, RC. Only the mainstream has made that claim. Arp just maintains that some objects which you claim to know the distance to are not at those distances based on a wide range of observations and calculations of probabilities ... which you and David have specifically ignored or dismissed with nothing more than handwaving.

No it is not mere handwaving, it is a valid critique of Arp (and others) use of statistics.

Sampling error or sampling bias is a real thing, Arp's statistics, expecially the ones that rely upon a Poisson distribution (which at least Gutierrez did not do) are prone to a smaple bias or sampling wrror. At the time that Arp made the observations, there were a double handful and then a score handful of QSOs, so it is understandable.
However now that there is a much larger population of QSOs, this method is no longer reaspnable.

I will take this to the thread for that topic later today. So you can continue to ignore it and continue to not deal with it.

And his theory (actually Narlikar's and Hoyle's) provides the theoretical basis for explaining why redshift of these objects might not correspond to distance ... but rather to the time since they were first created.



Oh please, RC ... if this is the level that your argument is going to sink to, you may get thrown in the hopper with David.

Hide away in DC's man sized safe BAC, if you don't answer questions it just makes you look bad.





Really? Tell us how dark matter explains that quasar that appears to be in front of a galaxy (NGC 7319).

Uh gee, sure, after you tell us how you eliminate the possibility that it isn't. that is what that thing, science , is about as opposed to your political philosophical musings

Tell us how dark matter explains the highly unlikely association of high and low redshift objects along that filament coming from NGC 7603.

Ah, no need for dark matter, just sampling bias, again. More to discuss later and for you to ignore.

Tell us how dark matter explains the unlikely association of high and low redshift objects with respect to NGC 3628 and its features.

No dark matter needed, look my finger is touching the moon!

Tell us how dark matter explains similar unlikely associations around GC 6217, NGC 470/474, NGC 3516, NGC 5985.

Tell us how you just make sampling bias go away, there are things called census models and comparative analysis of populatiopns within the census, to test for significance. Oh I know, when some one quotes you directly, accuse them of mischaracterization, that will make the sample bias just disappear.


[quote]
Tell us how dark matter explains why in each of the cases the redshift of the high redshift objects near the low redshift object decreases as one moves away from the low redshift object.

Look I have one finger in my eye and my other finger is on the moon, that means one arm is really, really long.

tell us how you made the sampling bias just go away?

Tell us how dark matter explains the positional alignment of the various objects in the Local Group with respect to the major object in the group, M31? What's dark matter got to do with any of them?



You are just quoting the abstract. The body of the paper states "Also it has been noted that within the standard error for each peak in the Fourier power spectrum, determined from Gaussian fits, the redshift intervals, represented by the peaks, could all be harmonics of some more fundamental value z = 0.062. If this is the case, this strengthens the argument that quasar redshifts are not entirely of cosmological origin but a significant proportion in the database analyzed here have some non-cosmological contribution."

oh wait, you mean there is a a partial consmological component, how much?





Now don't get so hung up on 0.06 you miss seeing the forest, RC.



No doubt they've already ignored it in their haste to keep the redshift/distance gnome alive so BB cosmology doesn't collapse. :D

There are always your Gnomes, which grow daily
-Arp's statistics don't have a sampling bias
-Perrat's suggests a magnetic field in effect but no one has yet to say how big it would be or measure it, except for that cute little toy plasma in the box. 10 cm, was it?
-Lerner's plasmoid which BAC said would avoid gravitational collapse and then blames Alfven for it
-BAC tell us that the flat rotation curve for the galaxies was imparted to them while they were plasma in the formative phase.
-Bac suggests that there is not a rotation curve issue, it is just a plasma effect
-BAC thinks that star clusters that orbit a galaxy are gnome clusters because thier motion can not be explained by PC models but can by dark matter models.

You said them all, you won't address any of them, that makes them sad. :(:(:(:(:(:( You said veryone of thiose things BAC, some of them more than once, it is all here.




You missed the important part, RC. The authors of that paper suggest that dark matter is created in galaxies and ejected post BB? Now aren't you one of this forum's denizens who has declared matter creation post BB is impossible ... a violation of natural laws?

Aren't you the one who calls DARK MATTER a GNOME but now that Gnome has agreed to not invade you while you invade 'quasars ejected by AGN', you now have made a deal with the Gnome.

And besides, how do the authors know that's dark matter, instead of the ordinary matter that was predicted by Narliker and Hoyle under such conditions?

Your quote, you tell us, and while you are at it, how is that matter creation coming?

And also, I thought dark matter didn't interact with EM ... doesn't emit light ... can't have a redshift. What is the specific observation that tells the authors this is dark matter? :D

your reference, you feed your own gnome dude.




Really? You KNOW this? For a certainty? Tell us, RC, did that paper contain any tests whatsoever to tell if the matter being created was dark matter axions or any other form of dark matter? No? So isn't that merely SPECULATION ... another gnome being introduced to prop up a cosmology that is against faced with an observation the mainstream can't otherwise explain. Gnome after gnome after gnome ... all piled on one another.

My goodness, your gnomes just made a pyramid!




RC, that's not explaining observations. That's hiding from them. And so typical of the mainstream. And I think readers of this thread will be able to see that.

And hiding is something you know a lot about, isn't it?

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 12:25 PM
BeAChooser: Back to the Bullet Cluster.

You're hiding from the redshift observations and I think our readers can see that. :D

The distance to the Bullet Cluster is not really an issue here. The distance was established using the galaxies in the cluster, i.e. non-Arp objects.

The distance to the Bullet Cluster was established with the redshift/distance relationship the mainstream claims is always right. But if Arp is right, it's not. Furthermore, the lensing calculations used to make the claim about dark matter depend not only on the distance to those galaxies but the distance to something much farther away. And if that distance is wrong ...

Furthermore, the Bullet cluster is the type of object Arp has said may produce erroneous redshifts. What we see are the sort of distorted galaxies and filaments that Arp has claimed are fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable "BL Lac" phase. The cluster redshift z = 0.3 that Arp says is typical of BL Lac objects.

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 12:33 PM
Originally Posted by BeAChooser Arp just maintains that some objects which you claim to know the distance to are not at those distances based on a wide range of observations and calculations of probabilities ... which you and David have specifically ignored or dismissed with nothing more than handwaving.

No it is not mere handwaving, it is a valid critique of Arp (and others) use of statistics.

If it's a valid critique, why can't you come up with even ONE peer reviewed article making that critique about Arp's work? It would be a sure-fire way to make that pesky Arp go away. Wouldn't you think? But you can't find one, can you. Looks like the mainstream has placed that heavy burden on your little shoulders, David. Why you'll probably get one of their awards if you manage to do in Arp and these observations all by yourself. :D

Reality Check
26th March 2008, 01:18 PM
You're hiding from the redshift observations and I think our readers can see that. :D

I am not. I know that Arp's results are applicable to the objects that he studied - QSOs. The Bullet Cluster is not a QSO - it is a galactic cluster. If you have evidence that it is some sort of "QSO cluster" then you should present it. If you have evidence that the distance to the Bullet Cluster was determined only from QSOs in it then please present it.
Otherwise I will trust that the astronomers who measured the distance to the Bullet Cluster knew their job and did it correctly.


The distance to the Bullet Cluster was established with the redshift/distance relationship the mainstream claims is always right. But if Arp is right, it's not. Furthermore, the lensing calculations used to make the claim about dark matter depend not only on the distance to those galaxies but the distance to something much farther away. And if that distance is wrong ...

Furthermore, the Bullet cluster is the type of object Arp has said may produce erroneous redshifts. What we see are the sort of distorted galaxies and filaments that Arp has claimed are fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable "BL Lac" phase. The cluster redshift z = 0.3 that Arp says is typical of BL Lac objects.

You need to give a citation for this claim that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL Lac object. Or is it that 1 or more galaxies in the cluster are a BL Lac object?

We can of course "walk and chew gum at the same time" :) .
Next gnome please.

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 02:29 PM
I know that Arp's results are applicable to the objects that he studied - QSOs.

You just demonstrated that you haven't even read the posts I've made on this thread, much less what Arp's written. The case of NGC 7603 doesn't have a quasar in it. All 4 of the objects are now clearly galaxies. The unusual alignments with regard to the Local Group and the Virgo Group pertain not only to quasars in those groups but to their galaxy components as well. And Arp did extensive study of BL-Lac objects which are not quasars.

The Bullet Cluster is not a QSO - it is a galactic cluster.

And the Bullet Cluster just happens to be at the redshift that Arp theorized (before this cluster was made an issue) was where BL-Lacs (which he says evolve from quasars according to Narlikar and Hoyle's matter creation cosmology) break up and evolve into individual galaxies.

If you have evidence that the distance to the Bullet Cluster was determined only from QSOs in it then please present it.

The mainstream claims that the Bullet Cluster is 3.4 BILLION light years away based on redshift. Every source I find mentions only redshift being used in this determination. Can you offer any proof that the cluster's distance has been measured by any other means? Or is what you are proposing a *dark measurement*? :D

Otherwise I will trust that the astronomers who measured the distance to the Bullet Cluster knew their job and did it correctly.

In other words, you'll assume the gnomes are right.


You need to give a citation for this claim that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL Lac object.

I didn't say that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL-Lac object. I said the cluster is at the distance that Arp believes BL-Lac objects break up and evolve into individual galaxies. And that is clearly stated in his writings.

We can of course "walk and chew gum at the same time" .

But perhaps you have trouble reading at the same time. :)

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 02:39 PM
If it's a valid critique, why can't you come up with even ONE peer reviewed article making that critique about Arp's work? It would be a sure-fire way to make that pesky Arp go away. Wouldn't you think? But you can't find one, can you. Looks like the mainstream has placed that heavy burden on your little shoulders, David. Why you'll probably get one of their awards if you manage to do in Arp and these observations all by yourself. :D

I can't say why people don't take the time to talk about Arp's work BAC, it is a puzzle to me as well, however you are still enegaging in an appeal to authority. And you are not engaging in critical thought, why not look at what sampling bias is and what what sampling errors are? Why not address the issues that I present? If you try to search for 'aposteriori statistics' and Arp you might get a few more hits.

I have no desire to make Arp go away, that is another fallacy of construction on your part. Many smart people make silly mistakes in many possible ways.

I have no desire at this point to get a degree in astrophysics, I did when i was younger but not anymore. I am content with my life. so going into publishing a paper, no thanks.

Perhaps people don't critique Arp because the error is so obvious. I mean really you ought to see some of the stuff that people try to pas off as science in psychology. It is much worse than a very smart man making a simple error. There is room for all voices at the table, time will decide whose theories stand up and which don't.

So instead I choose to debate people here, and the sampling error is evry evident in Arp's (and others) use of statitistics.(The Ganfeld stuff is much much worse.) So why not address that, this is a critical thinking forum, show us what you got. I disapprove of appeals to authority from either side BAC.

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 02:43 PM
You're hiding from the redshift observations and I think our readers can see that. :D
.

They can also see you hiding from your gnomish friends:


1. Arp's use of statistic involves sampling error that are significant. Discuss.
2. You have used a number of ways of waving Perrat's models around to explain the galaxy rotation curves, in the one that you might have started with, what force of field is moving the stars at a faster rate? What is the size of that field.
3. You have also said that Lerner’s plasmoid model will not collapse due to gravitation. Please address a 40,000 solar mass plasma, in an area of 43 AU in diameter and how it avoids gravitational collapse?

As a side bar you have also stated :

4. That Perrat's model imparted the flat rotation curve to the galaxy when it was plasma and formative , it would appear that you also stated that this explains the current flat rotation curve. Yes or no?
5. It would also appear that is one post you mentioned Alfven's mechanism of a star imparting momentum to planets as a possible means that a Lerner plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse. Discuss your later denial and explain what you think might be happening.
6. Then recently you made a claim that perhaps the motion of stars in galaxies did not need to be accounted for by dark matter because the observation related solely to plasma, and not stars. And therefore since plasma could be explained by Perrat's model to have a flat rotational curve, there was no need for dark matter. This seems to ignore the observation that the orbits of star clusters also would indicate dark matter and that galaxy rotation rate may also be measured on stars. Please explain.


hey Lucy, you got some 'splaining to do!

sol invictus
26th March 2008, 02:43 PM
I can't say why people don't take the time to talk about Arp's work BAC, it is a puzzle to me as well, however you are still enegaging in an appeal to authority.

There are no peer-reviewed papers refuting the idea the earth is flat. Therefore the earth is flat.

That's BAC's argument.

Reality Check
26th March 2008, 02:48 PM
You just demonstrated that you haven't even read the posts I've made on this thread, much less what Arp's written. The case of NGC 7603 doesn't have a quasar in it. All 4 of the objects are now clearly galaxies. The unusual alignments with regard to the Local Group and the Virgo Group pertain not only to quasars in those groups but to their galaxy components as well. And Arp did extensive study of BL-Lac objects which are not quasars.

whoops - missed out ", etc." in that post.


And the Bullet Cluster just happens to be at the redshift that Arp theorized (before this cluster was made an issue) was where BL-Lacs (which he says evolve from quasars according to Narlikar and Hoyle's matter creation cosmology) break up and evolve into individual galaxies.

The mainstream claims that the Bullet Cluster is 3.4 BILLION light years away based on redshift. Every source I find mentions only redshift being used in this determination. Can you offer any proof that the cluster's distance has been measured by any other means? Or is what you are proposing a *dark measurement*? :D

I know that only redshift is mentioned in the papers about the Bullet Cluster so I assume that only redshift was used.
The only comments that I made about measurements by any other means were in relation to local measurements (< 100 Mpc).

I didn't say that every galaxy in the Bullet Cluster is a BL-Lac object. I said the cluster is at the distance that Arp believes BL-Lac objects break up and evolve into individual galaxies. And that is clearly stated in his writings.



That clears that up - it is an interesting but not pertinent point that the distance is the distance that Arp believes BL-Lac objects (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BL_Lac_object) break up and evolve into individual galaxies.

So we can go onto the next gnome...

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 03:20 PM
I disapprove of appeals to authority from either side BAC.

Nice hand-waving David. Of course, I'm the only one actually citing any authorities on this matter. :D

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 03:24 PM
There are no peer-reviewed papers refuting the idea the earth is flat. Therefore the earth is flat.

That's BAC's argument.

Not quite, sol. Of course, you wouldn't know since you claim to not be reading half this debate. You have me on ignore ... right?

But even on ignore, you still seem concerned about me. :D

Almo
26th March 2008, 03:52 PM
I have to say, given my experience with Arp's work, I would worry about where his conclusions led me. He got mixed up in Redshift Quantization with Tifft.

eEw7l3Fi6e4

In grad school, I investigated the work of Guthrie, B. N. G. and Napier, W. M. They did a corroborating study, and, at the time, found that there was in fact weirdness in the data used to claim RQ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization). However, to quote Wikipedia: As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 04:08 PM
So we can go onto the next gnome...

You want another observation and some more peer reviewed work you can ignore? Sure ...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2g83q568k2vv5063/ " M 87 as a younger progenitor galaxy in the virgo cluster, Halton Arp, 1999 ... snip ... The structure of the Virgo cluster with the brighter, redder galaxy M 49 at its center argues that the rest of the cluster, including M 87, originated from M 49 and is younger. M 87 (Vir A), like most other bright radio galaxies, e.g. Cen A, Per A, For A, shows current ejection activity as well as conspicuous, lines of galaxies originating from its center. It is argued that M 87 is showing second generation ejection of objects which are evolving into younger galaxies. Observations show that in general quasars are ejected along the minor axes of active galaxies and then evolve into alignments of low redshift, companion galaxies. In M 87, it is argued that the knots in the jet are decelerating outward, evolving into quasars, BL Lac objects and finally lower redshift, aligned companions. If this is true the knots must consist of a low-particle mass plasma and the physics of the jet would have to be recalculated with this new assumption."

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051101virgo.htm "A Bigger View of the Virgo Cluster ... snip ... Illustrated above is a “contour map” of the x-ray intensity around the Virgo Cluster of galaxies. M49, an active elliptical galaxy (near the middle of the swirl), is the largest member of the cluster. (A line of quasars—not shown—extends through it in a northwest-southeast direction.) On opposite sides of it, only a few degrees away and engulfed in the stream of x-ray-emitting material, are M87 to the north (top) and 3C273 to the south (bottom). 3C273 is a quasar that has a jet pointing at an elongated hydrogen cloud to the southwest (lower right). In gamma-ray maps, a bridge of gamma-ray-emitting material connects the quasar with a variable quasar, 3C279, to the southeast and also back toward M49. M87 is also an active galaxy with a jet extending to the northwest (upper right). Beyond the jet are the radio- and x-ray-emitting galaxies M86 and, close by, M84. Further along the line is a quasar that has a pair of quasars aligned across it. Several elliptical galaxies lie along the M87-M86 line, and an oval of higher-redshift spiral galaxies surrounds the line."

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 04:15 PM
Nice hand-waving David. Of course, I'm the only one actually citing any authorities on this matter. :D

Um, that is a really weak demonstration of critical thinking. Shall we stack authorities like gnomes and see whose pile is bigger?

:p

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 04:41 PM
Shall we stack authorities like gnomes and see whose pile is bigger?

Go ahead, David. Link us to the peer reviewed papers that directly challenge the specifics of what Arp has noted about numerous observations related to the alignments and proximity of low and high redshift objects. Let's see who your authorities are.

As to the size of gnomes ... yours are definitely bigger:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2008/03/18-billion-suns.html "March 18, 2008, 18 Billion Suns -A Galaxy Classic: Biggest Black Hole in Universe Discovered—and it’s BIG ... snip ... , the massive black hole has a puny twin hovering nearby ... snip ... it’s 3.5 billion light years away, forming the heart of a quasar called OJ287 ... snip ... the smaller black hole, which weighs about 100 million Suns, orbits the larger one on an oval-shaped path every 12 years ... snip ... the black holes are on track to merge within 10,000 years."

And what an odd coincidence that this black hole ... which is supposedly about 6 times larger than the previous record holder ... is going to get hit by another black hole in less than 10,000 years. Why that's a blink in the eye in the life of the universe. How could we be so lucky to be alive right now and see it. Perhaps we should conclude, David, that such huge black holes and mergers are a very common occurrence and up till now we just missed seeing them? Hmmmmm? :D

iantresman
26th March 2008, 04:48 PM
There are no peer-reviewed papers refuting the idea the earth is flat. Therefore the earth is flat.
.
Are there any peer reviewed papers claiming that the Earth is flat?

Reality Check
26th March 2008, 04:52 PM
You want another observation and some more peer reviewed work you can ignore? Sure ...

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2g83q568k2vv5063/ " M 87 as a younger progenitor galaxy in the virgo cluster, Halton Arp, 1999 ... snip ... The structure of the Virgo cluster with the brighter, redder galaxy M 49 at its center argues that the rest of the cluster, including M 87, originated from M 49 and is younger. M 87 (Vir A), like most other bright radio galaxies, e.g. Cen A, Per A, For A, shows current ejection activity as well as conspicuous, lines of galaxies originating from its center. It is argued that M 87 is showing second generation ejection of objects which are evolving into younger galaxies. Observations show that in general quasars are ejected along the minor axes of active galaxies and then evolve into alignments of low redshift, companion galaxies. In M 87, it is argued that the knots in the jet are decelerating outward, evolving into quasars, BL Lac objects and finally lower redshift, aligned companions. If this is true the knots must consist of a low-particle mass plasma and the physics of the jet would have to be recalculated with this new assumption."

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051101virgo.htm "A Bigger View of the Virgo Cluster ... snip ... Illustrated above is a “contour map” of the x-ray intensity around the Virgo Cluster of galaxies. M49, an active elliptical galaxy (near the middle of the swirl), is the largest member of the cluster. (A line of quasars—not shown—extends through it in a northwest-southeast direction.) On opposite sides of it, only a few degrees away and engulfed in the stream of x-ray-emitting material, are M87 to the north (top) and 3C273 to the south (bottom). 3C273 is a quasar that has a jet pointing at an elongated hydrogen cloud to the southwest (lower right). In gamma-ray maps, a bridge of gamma-ray-emitting material connects the quasar with a variable quasar, 3C279, to the southeast and also back toward M49. M87 is also an active galaxy with a jet extending to the northwest (upper right). Beyond the jet are the radio- and x-ray-emitting galaxies M86 and, close by, M84. Further along the line is a quasar that has a pair of quasars aligned across it. Several elliptical galaxies lie along the M87-M86 line, and an oval of higher-redshift spiral galaxies surrounds the line."

Nice links.

Are we ever going to get back to the Bullet Cluster?

Tubbythin
26th March 2008, 04:55 PM
Go ahead, David. Link us to the peer reviewed papers that directly challenge the specifics of what Arp has noted about numerous observations related to the alignments and proximity of low and high redshift objects. Let's see who your authorities are.

I believe in unicorns. I have never seen a single peer reviewed scientific paper discrediting the "unicorns exist" hypothesis. I'll try and find one of the papers you "request" if you first find me a peer reviewed scientific paper debunking the existence of the unicorn. Deal?


And what an odd coincidence that this black hole ... which is supposedly about 6 times larger than the previous record holder ... is going to get hit by another black hole in less than 10,000 years. Why that's a blink in the eye in the life of the universe. How could we be so lucky to be alive right now and see it.

Argument from incredulity. Pretty low probability things happen when you have around 10 to the power of twenty two (ish) trials at them.
As far as I'm aware, the fact that the moon and Sun as viewed from Earth have almost identical angular sizes is complete fluke. But without this we wouldn't have solar eclipses. This has only one "trial". What are the chances of that happening?


Perhaps we should conclude, David, that such huge black holes and mergers are a very common occurrence and up till now we just missed seeing them?
Perhaps we should conclude, BAC, that there is more than one moon orbiting the Earth and up till now we just missed seeing them?

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 05:10 PM
.
Are there any peer reviewed papers claiming that the Earth is flat?

http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=1445 "The Journal of Young Investigators: An Undergraduate, Peer-reviewed Science Journal, Editorial: The World is Flat and Bad."

:)

Actually, you make a good point which I'm certain the other side will miss.

And you know how the mainstream community is always saying "the consensus this" or "the consensus that"? Well the consensus was once that the earth is flat and the leading scientists of the day (or at least what passed for such) promoted that view.

sol invictus
26th March 2008, 05:21 PM
.
Are there any peer reviewed papers claiming that the Earth is flat?

Yes, probably.

And if there aren't it's because of a conspiracy by mainstreamers to suppress new and threatening ideas.

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 06:04 PM
I believe in unicorns. I have never seen a single peer reviewed scientific paper discrediting the "unicorns exist" hypothesis.

For your analogy to be applicable, you first have to show that there are peer reviewed papers saying unicorns exist. Care to offer one? :D

I'll try and find one of the papers you "request" if you first find me a peer reviewed scientific paper debunking the existence of the unicorn. Deal?

Sure. If you first come up with a peer reviewed scientific paper saying that unicorns exist. You see, I've already offered a number of peer reviewed scientific articles supporting the thesis of Arp. For your analogy to work, you need to start by doing the same where unicorns existing is concerned. :)

Quote:
And what an odd coincidence that this black hole ... which is supposedly about 6 times larger than the previous record holder ... is going to get hit by another black hole in less than 10,000 years. Why that's a blink in the eye in the life of the universe. How could we be so lucky to be alive right now and see it.

Argument from incredulity. Pretty low probability things happen when you have around 10 to the power of twenty two (ish) trials at them.

Not incredulity. Likelihood. Contrary to what you claim, the mainstream hasn't made 1022 trials. They've made far less. They've only actually sampled and investigated a small fraction of the objects seen out there. They looked at this object because it's blinking. There aren't that many such objects out there. And it's very curious that this one very unlikely object just by it's supposed nature also happens to be about to merge with another relatively rare object in a few short years. That is also an unlikely coincidence. Or it suggests that such objects and mergers aren't rare at all.

As far as I'm aware, the fact that the moon and Sun as viewed from Earth have almost identical angular sizes is complete fluke.

Hundreds of millions of years ago the moon would have appeared larger than the sun because the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Eventually ... in hundreds of millions of years more ... we will no longer have total solar eclipses at all. A half a billion year window in a solar system that is 4 or 5 billion years old is a lot more probable than a 10,000 year window in a history 14 billion years old.

And who knows ... perhaps the reason we are here now is somehow connected to a large close moon. Perhaps having a large moon near a planet billions of years ago creating large tides was necessary for life to appear and evolve? We know that it took time for life to come into being and evolve to the point that intelligent creatures looked up and marveled. So maybe it's not so unlikely that we happen to be alive at the moment when the moon has retreated to about the same apparent size as the sun?

Perhaps the evolution of intelligent life looking up at the heavens is also tied to interesting phenomena like solar eclipses. They've certainly stimulated humans to study the skies in greater detail. Maybe civilizations that don't have solar eclipses keep looking down. :D

By the way ... did you know that Phobos produces annular eclipses on Mars, covering more than half the diameter of the sun? In fact, Phobos apparently eclipses the sun every day. So maybe it's not all that rare of thing to have moons mask suns?

Ziggurat
26th March 2008, 06:18 PM
And what an odd coincidence that this black hole ... which is supposedly about 6 times larger than the previous record holder ... is going to get hit by another black hole in less than 10,000 years. Why that's a blink in the eye in the life of the universe. How could we be so lucky to be alive right now and see it. Perhaps we should conclude, David, that such huge black holes and mergers are a very common occurrence and up till now we just missed seeing them? Hmmmmm? :D

You say this as if there's no correlation between the various events. But that's probably not a good assumption. A super-massive black hole is only going to form in very high mass-density environments. And in such environments, it's not unreasonable to think that multiple black holes might form. The big black hole may have already swallowed many smaller black holes over its lifetime, which might be part of why it's so big. And while there's only one smaller black hole orbiting close in right now, there might be others farther out which might get swallowed in the future. Hell, it's possible we already missed the really interesting stuff.

In other words, there's no reason anyone should take your guess (and don't kid yourself that it's anything more) about the likelihood of these events at all seriously.

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by iantresman
Are there any peer reviewed papers claiming that the Earth is flat?

Yes, probably.

And if there aren't it's because of a conspiracy by mainstreamers to suppress new and threatening ideas.

Yet another gnome introduced by sol to salvage mainstream theories. :D

Ziggurat
26th March 2008, 06:20 PM
Yet another gnome introduced by sol to salvage mainstream theories. :D

Do you not recognize mockery when it's pointed right at you?

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 06:31 PM
The big black hole may have already swallowed many smaller black holes over its lifetime, which might be part of why it's so big.

Yeah ... that neighborhood 3.5 billion light years distant must be littered with them. :D

BeAChooser
26th March 2008, 06:33 PM
Do you not recognize mockery when it's pointed right at you?

Do you? :D

Olowkow
26th March 2008, 06:47 PM
I keep seeing the word "mainstream" and "mainstreamer" in this thread. Actually, I think it is only BAC who uses it. I guess it is some sort of insult, like "fundy", for reasonable people, not sure. So I looked it up in the Urban dictionary:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=mainstreamer

Just so I can sit back with my popcorn and enjoy the discussion, would someone please select one from among these definitions? :confused: Or make up a definition?

Reality Check
26th March 2008, 07:00 PM
You say this as if there's no correlation between the various events. But that's probably not a good assumption. A super-massive black hole is only going to form in very high mass-density environments. And in such environments, it's not unreasonable to think that multiple black holes might form. The big black hole may have already swallowed many smaller black holes over its lifetime, which might be part of why it's so big. And while there's only one smaller black hole orbiting close in right now, there might be others farther out which might get swallowed in the future. Hell, it's possible we already missed the really interesting stuff.

Stellar back holes are not the only objects that can merge with super-massive black holes. In some (perhaps rare) cases the merging object may be another super-massive black hole (http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/02_releases/press_111902.html) :eye-poppi !

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 07:04 PM
I think you are just babbling BAC, but that is your forte. How many galaxies are there, ho wmany stars? And now you babble about black holes, the appeal to authority is what it is, for every paper you have supporting your theories i am sure there are equal numbers supporting the mainstream model.

Again you seem incapable of engaging in critical thought, too bad, you seem to have potential.

How are you coming with that Lerner plasmoid, lets see it was hot, and what else kept it from undergoing gravitational collapse, a bucket brigade of gnomes? I suppose they come in useful for maintaining a flat rotation curve once a galaxy isn't plasma anymore.

Tell me, how do you see a black hole merge, especially from the inside of the man sized safe? And really, i don't have any plasns to be alive at that time.

Tubbythin
26th March 2008, 07:04 PM
For your analogy to be applicable, you first have to show that there are peer reviewed papers saying unicorns exist. Care to offer one? :D

Not really. My point was that scientists don't generally sit around writing articles debunking other people's ideas. It happens from time to time but usually only when the controversial article carries particular weight. Thus the fact that there are apparently no articles debunking it is less likely an indicator that the article is a good one and more that no one cares enough to bother.


Not incredulity. Likelihood.

Numbers?


Contrary to what you claim, the mainstream hasn't made 1022 trials. They've made far less. They've only actually sampled and investigated a small fraction of the objects seen out there. They looked at this object because it's blinking. There aren't that many such objects out there. And it's very curious that this one very unlikely object just by it's supposed nature also happens to be about to merge with another relatively rare object in a few short years. That is also an unlikely coincidence. Or it suggests that such objects and mergers aren't rare at all.
It doesn't really suggest anything. That's the problem with using statistics after the event. Its the same problem creationists have. They try to assign a probability to us existing "by chance" when they already know we exist. They conclude that the probability is nearly zero when in fact of course it is 1.


Hundreds of millions of years ago the moon would have appeared larger than the sun because the moon is slowly moving away from the earth. Eventually ... in hundreds of millions of years more ... we will no longer have total solar eclipses at all. A half a billion year window in a solar system that is 4 or 5 billion years old is a lot more probable than a 10,000 year window in a history 14 billion years old.
But we've observed a lot more stars than we have moons of Earth.


And who knows ... perhaps the reason we are here now is somehow connected to a large close moon. Perhaps having a large moon near a planet billions of years ago creating large tides was necessary for life to appear and evolve? We know that it took time for life to come into being and evolve to the point that intelligent creatures looked up and marveled. So maybe it's not so unlikely that we happen to be alive at the moment when the moon has retreated to about the same apparent size as the sun?
Perhaps. But that's pure speculation.

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 07:11 PM
.
Are there any peer reviewed papers claiming that the Earth is flat?

Well Ian there are some people engaged in some great contortions in the "Towards a Theory of the Mind" thread on the science forum, seriously the gnome there is a true boojum of unimaginable proportions compared to the puny gnomes in this thread. And there are some people in that thread who insist in the equivalent of the earth being flat, repeatedly. And believe me, peer review is no sign of good thinking, in psychology or physics.

Pssst: hey you might want to continue a disucssion with me on this thread:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=109843

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 07:12 PM
Nice links.

Are we ever going to get back to the Bullet Cluster?


Not if BAC thinks you have him pinned in that area, it might be time to post in another thread soon.

Dancing David
26th March 2008, 07:16 PM
http://www.jyi.org/features/ft.php?id=1445 "The Journal of Young Investigators: An Undergraduate, Peer-reviewed Science Journal, Editorial: The World is Flat and Bad."

:)

Actually, you make a good point which I'm certain the other side will miss.

And you know how the mainstream community is always saying "the consensus this" or "the consensus that"? Well the consensus was once that the earth is flat and the leading scientists of the day (or at least what passed for such) promoted that view.

See , that just shows an appaling lack of knowledge and the typical Victorian eurocentric view of reality.

Gosh, I wonder, did people really think that the earth was flat? A lot of them didn't and one Ptolomey of the Hoarde of Ptolomies even computed a good ball park figure for the size of the round earth.

But hey, we all follow the stories that we like, you like the idea that other people are stupid.

BeAChooser
27th March 2008, 02:14 PM
I keep seeing the word "mainstream" and "mainstreamer" in this thread. Actually, I think it is only BAC who uses it. I guess it is some sort of insult

It isn't meant as an insult. It's just a way of point to those who accept what encompasses all the current consensus about cosmology and astrophysics. Here's are some definitions of mainstream:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/mainstream "The prevailing current of thought, influence, or activity. ... Representing the prevalent attitudes, values, and practices of a society or group."

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mainstream "a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence"

BeAChooser
27th March 2008, 02:57 PM
Thus the fact that there are apparently no articles debunking it is less likely an indicator that the article is a good one and more that no one cares enough to bother.

Nice hand-waving. Frankly I can't see any logical reason (other than fear they are wrong) why mainstream astronomers and cosmologists would NOT care enough to bother in this case. Arp is a distinguished scientist. He won awards for the quality of his research. He's not alone in his view. He and others have written dozen's of articles that have been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. He and others have written a number of widely read books on the topic. And it's a pretty significant assertion to claim that all redshifts are not related to distance because if it's true, it could impact the legitimacy of nearly every notion in mainstream cosmology.

It doesn't really suggest anything.

Do you really believe that? If so, that might explain why you could care less about Arp's (and other's) conclusions regarding certain observations. You really do think everything unusual that happens in the world and universe is just coincidence. :D

That's the problem with using statistics after the event.

You wouldn't make a very good homicide detective. ;)

Its the same problem creationists have.

Nice attempt to associate Arp and others with creationists and avoid debating the actual facts. Creationists have nothing to do with the basis of Arp's theories. This reminds me of the mainstreams attempt to associate allegations surrounding the death of Ron Brown with UFOologists. It's a dishonest tactic.


Quote:
And who knows ... perhaps the reason we are here now is somehow connected to a large close moon. Perhaps having a large moon near a planet billions of years ago creating large tides was necessary for life to appear and evolve? We know that it took time for life to come into being and evolve to the point that intelligent creatures looked up and marveled. So maybe it's not so unlikely that we happen to be alive at the moment when the moon has retreated to about the same apparent size as the sun?

Perhaps. But that's pure speculation.

Actually it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution "This timeline of the evolution of life outlines the major events in the development of life on the planet Earth. ... snip ... Note that Ma means "million years ago". ... sinp ... 3000 Ma Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolve; they use water as a reducing agent, thereby producing oxygen as waste product. The oxygen initially oxidizes dissolved iron in the oceans, creating iron ore. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rises, acting as a poison for many bacteria. The moon is still very close to the earth and causes tides 1000 feet high. The earth is continually wracked by hurricane force winds. These extreme mixing influences are thought to stimulate evolutionary processes."

Even on other planets, large tides are thought to be important:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0202/08europa/ "Tides of Jovian moon Europa might support life, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA NEWS RELEASE, February 8, 2002 ... snip ... Richard Greenberg, a professor of planetary sciences and member of the Imaging Team for NASA's Galileo Jupiter-orbiter spacecraft, reported in the February issue of American Scientist that a combination of several factors could create habitable niches. ... snip ... The combination of tidal processes, warm waters and periodic surface exposure may be enough to not only warrant life but also encourage evolution, Greenberg said."

Tubbythin
27th March 2008, 03:53 PM
Nice hand-waving.
The irony.


You really do think everything unusual that happens in the world and universe is just coincidence. :D
Nope. But I do think coincidences do happen and I am aware of the dangers of using statistics after the event. I'm still waiting for the numbers to show you're not simply arguing from incredulity.


You wouldn't make a very good homicide detective. ;)

Good job I'm a scientist then.


Nice attempt to associate Arp and others with creationists and avoid debating the actual facts. Creationists have nothing to do with the basis of Arp's theories.
I wasn't talking about Arp's use of statistics here, I was talking about your "statistics".


This reminds me of the mainstreams attempt to associate allegations surrounding the death of Ron Brown with UFOologists. It's a dishonest tactic.
Does it. I have no idea what you are insinuating because I don't know who Ron Brown is.


Actually it's not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_evolution "This timeline of the evolution of life outlines the major events in the development of life on the planet Earth. ... snip ... Note that Ma means "million years ago". ... sinp ... 3000 Ma Photosynthesizing cyanobacteria evolve; they use water as a reducing agent, thereby producing oxygen as waste product. The oxygen initially oxidizes dissolved iron in the oceans, creating iron ore. The oxygen concentration in the atmosphere subsequently rises, acting as a poison for many bacteria. The moon is still very close to the earth and causes tides 1000 feet high. The earth is continually wracked by hurricane force winds. These extreme mixing influences are thought to stimulate evolutionary processes."

Even on other planets, large tides are thought to be important:

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0202/08europa/ "Tides of Jovian moon Europa might support life, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA NEWS RELEASE, February 8, 2002 ... snip ... Richard Greenberg, a professor of planetary sciences and member of the Imaging Team for NASA's Galileo Jupiter-orbiter spacecraft, reported in the February issue of American Scientist that a combination of several factors could create habitable niches. ... snip ... The combination of tidal processes, warm waters and periodic surface exposure may be enough to not only warrant life but also encourage evolution, Greenberg said."

And the position of blackholes isn't necessarily independent of the position of all other blackholes.

Tubbythin
27th March 2008, 03:55 PM
Double post

Tubbythin
27th March 2008, 03:56 PM
Treble post. Stupid computer.

Reality Check
27th March 2008, 06:08 PM
Nice links.

Are we ever going to get back to the Bullet Cluster?

BeAChooser: Back to the Bullet Cluster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullet_cluster) yet again.

The paper that I cited before (A direct empirical proof of the existence of dark matter (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0608407)) has the following paragraph
In this paper, we measure distances at the redshift of the cluster, z = 0.296, by assuming an Omegam = 0.3, λ =0.7, H0 = 70km/s/Mpc cosmology which results in 4.413kpc/′′ plate-scale. None of the results of this paper are dependent on this assumption; changing the assumed cosmology will result in a change of the distances and absolute masses measured, but the relative masses of the various structures in each measurement remain unchanged.
Note the emphisis that I added. This means that the distance to the cluster does not matter. So the question of whether the distance can be measured by redshift does not matter.

Next gnome?

Tubbythin
28th March 2008, 03:13 AM
As far as I'm aware, the fact that the moon and Sun as viewed from Earth have almost identical angular sizes is complete fluke. But without this we wouldn't have solar eclipses.


Oops. This isn't true. What I meant was without the near identical angular sizes we wouldn't have the "perfect" occultation (where the moon appears to sit perfectly "over the top of" the Sun).