Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Orion38
dgruss23 what is your opinion about that .I know than you have more knowledge than me about the growing mass theory and intrinsic redshift from Narkilar and Arp.
 |
I'm not sure if you mean the same thing when you say "growing mass" as Narlikar&Arp. The article you've linked to is referring to the supermassive black holes accumulating mass and in that sense "growing". The Narlikar&Arp model is a "variable mass hypothesis". It is a more general solution to the normal field equations in which mass is allowed to vary over time. In their model electrons (for example) created in ejection events from active galaxies actually have less mass than electrons here on Earth. As the quasar ages and evolves into a normal galaxy the masses of all its particles grow and the intrinsic redshift decays.
This model is of course not accepted by the mainstream with the subtle irony that the mainstream believes that all matter - everything - was created in an instant in a singularity - yet they reject the possibility that matter creation in the universe is an ongoing process. |
Thanks for the the clarification about the Narlikar&Arp model.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Figure 2 of that article was interesting Orion. Notice the four hot spots around the double nucleus. Arp would probably say that those are likely to be quasars, but you'd have to get their spectra to know for sure.
|
Can you find their spectra that could be interesting.They don`t give the name of that system we see on the image.
That is all the subtility in the choosing of the terminology used by the mainstream - "A spectacular multiple- merger- imaged by the NICMOS instrument on board the Hubble space telescope." -
Compare to Arp`s interpretation.
"Arp would probably say that those are likely to be quasars"...
