Cyrek1 reply

Taibak

About NGC 7603, click below:

http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm


Gullible jones
Nonsense.
How can you explain a galaxy with one arm with uniform star distribution?

Also, if the quasar has that arm in deeper space, how do you explain the curvature?

If that arm belonged to either object, it would be more tightly wrapped rather than being a bridge between the two objects.


Jim
Answer my question first about NGC 7603 before I answer any more.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

But you haven't finished answering mine. You gave either partial, contradictory, or both responses to many of them. Surely you didn't mean to do this.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

I don't belive he intends to do anything of the sort. Confuse the issue, respond to it or otherwise.
The chance alignment sits fine with me. Infact, I would have agreed with the prior crowd if not for the red shift data diferentiating these galaxies.

Sci-Wreck-One: What do you think about expansion vs. explosion? Where did your explosion take place? Where was the 'room' for it? What blew up? What temperature were you comparing it to before and after to diferentiate between hot and cold? What were you measuring? Not literally, of course, all the questions are hypothetical... thought problems...

[I plumb forgot about the expansion part of this thread. I think I was 2 years younger when it was posed... :wink: ]

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

So to be clear, are you saying that the measured redshift data is all that needs to be looked at in order to determine if two galaxies are at the same distance or not? The other evidence that actually supports the objects being at the same distance despite the differing redshifts can be ignored?

Cyrek1 reply

TravisM
Those questions you are asking apply to the BB. Since you are a supporter of the BB, you should answer them yourself.

I believe in a SSU with the expansion of the lightwaves as the cause of the redshift so that automatically negates the BB universe.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Wrong-o. You believe that that negates the BB universe. Unfortunately, what you believe will have no impact whatsoever on this discussion until you can produce some evidence for it. :roll:

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

cyrek1 reply

Gullible Jones
I predicted that at the time of the Hubble Space Telescope launch that the deeper they probe into the Universe, all they will find is more galaxies. So far, this prediction is true.
The HDF's followed by the UHDF, have shown that their are many more galaxies to explore. Those tiny specs at magnitudes of above 30 will have to eventually be resolved.
The sad thing is that we will have to wait until the Next Generation Space Telescope is launched and that date is set for 2011. So now, we all will have to have patience until that date.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

Well, pardon me, but DUH... I mean, what would you expect, giant space chickens? Of course the Hubble would find more galaxies! ](*,)

And I do not see what this has to do with the steady-state universe...

__________________
If ignorance is bliss, why is the world so full of misery?

Cyrek1 pulls 'supporting' evidence from where ever he can force the jig-saw pieces to fit. He never answered my question on cold explosions, or why he thought that the current big bang theory can be equated to an explosion...
I refuse to ask him anymore questions; except this one:

Is there such a thing, in practice (i.e.: reality), that is Steady State?

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

Speaking of questions not answered, did you miss these questions from the previous page?

Also Gullible Jones, I had asked you for your thoughts on the dark matter thread you started.

If you guys need some time that's fine, but I wanted to remind you before too many pages pass by the questions.

Sorry... haven't had the time to look at the papers dgruss linked (thanks!) until recently. Anyway, I would agree that the redshift evidence is pretty strong evidence that the two objects aren't linked. It could be coincidence and we just don't know what's behind the closer object. Even so, it's worth looking at these objects more to be certain, one way or the other.

cyrek1 reply

TravisM
About cold explosions, you mean canned explosions like COsub2 or concocted lab experiments that are so far removed from BB physics that its ludicrous to even answer? To me, this has nothing to do with BB physics.

About steady state, the laws of ohysics say matter is conserved so therefore matter will always exist. This is SS.

Gullible
I really do not see any evoltion in these photos. The Hubble has probed to see a galaxy with a redshift of 6+. There are other specs that cannot be redshifted at present because they do not radiate enough light for spectroscopic evaluation.
This to me, does not give support to the BBU.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

No need for any of you to apologize Taibak. I was just offering a reminder that the questions were out there. I know that it often takes time to look into and evaluate things - or sometimes people don't see the questions.

Ok, now I want you to think about what you've just said because in order to see my point you have to step back from what is normally taken for granted. The redshift is only strong evidence that the two objects are not linked if it is assumed that there could be no other cause for redshift besides expansion, peculiar motions and gravitational redshifts.

But that assumption is the point Arp contends and so conclusions drawn from that assumption are not strong evidence against Arp's hypothesis. What must be examined is evidence completely independent of the redshifts. That evidence supports the possibility that these objects are interacting.

Look again at the image of NGC 1232 I linked to in this post . According to the redshifts the small companion should be ~4x farther than the main galaxy, but all the other evidence indicates they are at the same distance - including what is quite evident in the image - the features of both galaxies show the same resolution.

Now that's a healthy approach - Thank You!

Yeah, I see what you're saying and I agree it's a strange set of objects. However, to me the redshift evidence is simply more convincing than the other evidence. Since I haven't seen any convincing alternative cause for the redshifts, I have to stand by what I said.

Taibak

Hmmm ... interesting. This is essentially the position I was asking TravisM to clarify for me.

Ok, so if I can restate for certainty, what you're saying is that because you have yet to see an alternative explanation for redshift that you think is plausible, you will grant supremacy to the interpretation that redshift is an indication of distance regardless of what any other observational evidence might indicate.

I suspect many feel this way and its probably the major reason why Arp does not have greater support. It's actually very similar to the ~50 years of resistance to the hypothesis that continents moved that occurred after Wegener proposed it. How do you move continents? How do you create intrinsic redshifts?

It's an interesting position with regard to the scientific process. An explanation for a phenomenon is developed after the phenomenon is discovered. In other words, observation must precede theory. Of course once a theory is developed it will lead to predictions that can be tested by additional observations.

But what you're suggesting (and others I suspect) is that Arp must offer a satisfactory theory, before the observations are to be accepted. That is not how science is supposed to work - although perhaps that is how it does work when ATM observations and hypotheses are at hand.

If you might pause for a moment and think about this from my (and Arp's) point of view, perhaps you can see where we would find frustration in these discussions. Dark energy observations are accepted readily even though there is no satisfactory explanation as to what dark energy is. Same with dark matter - which is yet to be identified after 20 years of searching.

Yet when Arp and others present observational results consistent with the existence of intrinsic redshifts, those observations are doubted because the explanation is unknown. This really is a double standard in practice even if it is not intentional.

Interesting! Thanks again Taibak!

Yes, and the further one goes away from the observation point (Earth) the greater the red shift because either the sphere is expanding or C isn't as constant as we thought, and varies with distance travelled.

Question - can we then see around the far edge back to ourselves? Would we even recognize a 30 Billion year young MilkyWay Galaxy? (or however long it is to the beginning of time and back...)

Isn't it true that a theory (some'll disagree about whether it is satisfactory or not) that explains the observations has come from the mainstream camp?

I'll assume you're referring to Arp's intrinsic redshifts. Of course, there is a problem with defining mainstream camp. Is a researcher like Bell who thinks the BBT is correct and that the universe is expanding, but also thinks Arp is correct that quasars are local, in the mainstream camp? Or how about Gutierrez who has investigated the CMB (one of quite a few articles he's written/co-authored on the subject) but has recently been presenting evidence supporting Arp such as his observations of NGC 7603 and NEQ3?

I'm not sure how to answer your question because it is too vague.

With most of Arp's examples, the mainstream response is that the associations are accidental not real. They then dispute Arp's statistics which show that the odds that the alignments are accidental are quite small and do not respond to the non-statistical arguments such as the ones I've noted in this thread. There is no mainstream theory that I'm aware of on this issue. By that I mean nobody is really trying to incorporate Arp's findings into mainstream theory.

I would be referring to whatever "observations" you were talking about in the passage that I quoted from you.
I was talking about the folks that you are criticizing--the ones who are participating in a version of science that is "not how science is supposed to work"
So, you're saying mainstream science has already accepted it? I'm surprised that that would be your definition of "mainstream science," in this context. What is it then that is "not how science is supposed to work"?
Because I was responding in kind to your charge, I suspect.
You just presented one there!
You mean, incorporate his theory into the mainstream--but I guess you're using two different definitions of "mainstream" then?

That point was a general point about how science is supposed to work with the current topic as an illustration. Do you disagree with the point - regardless of whether we're talking about Arp or any other scientific model? Must theory be developed before observations be accepted?

I think I was pretty clear about what I said and its pretty clear that mainstream science does not accept it. My question for you which you did not answer - was how do you define the "mainstream camp"? I was pointing out quite plainly that people with overall mainstream views where the BBT is concerned are convinced that Arp is right about the existence of intrinsic redshifts. Do you consider those people part of the mainstream camp? It was relevevant to what you asked me because you wanted to know if there were any mainstream theories about the observations? If you think supporting the BBT makes someone mainstream then what Bell &amp; Gutierrez propose would be coming from the mainstream camp. If you think mainstream in this instance is reserved only for those that do not think there are intrinsic redshifts, then Bell &amp; Gutierrez do not provide examples of theories from the mainstream camp.

Now you're being vague about what you think I said that was vague which you then responded in kind with vagueness of your own!

Seriously, so I can clarify, what was I being too vague about? I try to be as specific as warranted.

Really, that was a theory? What predictions does it make? What phenomenon does it explain? I'd say if that's a theory, then you're offering a new definition of theory. It really only musters as a hypothesis in my opinion.

How can you say that when I made it clear much depends upon what you think the definition of "mainstream camp" is. I've tried to respond to your question, but you'll need to set forward your definition of mainstream if were going to quibble over this point.

No, but apparently that's irrelevant to this particular case. The observations are accepted, the interpretation is not.
You never asked it of me. Going back, I see that you asked if a particular researcher was in the mainstream. I did not see that as relevant.
Any mainstream theories that opposed Arp's interpretations.
In this context, the mainstream would oppose Arp's interpretations.
I just did a search--the last time I used "vague" was in February, referring to the outline of Jupiter. My question, which you said was vague, was "Isn't it true that a theory that explains the observations has come from the mainstream camp?" I'm not sure yet why you think that is vague. Later you say that "the mainstream response is that the associations are accidental not real" -- which certainly answers the question.
"The mainstream response is that the associations are accidental not real" may not count as a "theory" but it certainly is an aspect of a theory. It's another interpretation of the observations--which does *not* ignore the observations. Who is right, or wrong, I withhold my personal judgement. I'm going to wait and see.

I'm not so sure that the observations are being accepted. I'll use NGC 1232 to illustrate:

Observations supporting interpretation that NGC 1232A and NGC 1232B are behind NGC 1232:

~ They have larger redshifts

Observations supporting the interpretation that NGC 1232A and NGC 1232B are at the same distance as NGC 1232:

~ NGC 1232A has the same resolution into stars and HII regions as NGC 1232.
~ NGC 1232A is an SBm (Magellanic Type) dwarf spiral -which are observed as companions to larger spirals. There is no candidate galaxy observed as the larger spiral with the same redshift as NGC 1232A.
~ NGC 1232A's observed angular diameter gives a diameter typical of diameters observed for SBm spirals at the NGC 1232 distance but too large at its redshift distance.
~ NGC 1232B is not observed to show the reddening that is expected if it is a background object to NGC 1232.
~ NGC 1232B has an interacting tail oriented toward the NGC 1232 arm.

Notice that all these observations that indicate interaction were described without referring to intrinsic redshifts. In other words, using mainstream interpretations of observations, all observations except the redshift indicate that NGC 1232A and NGC 1232B are at the same distance as NGC 1232.

So are the observations being accepted? You could probably argue that they are not being disputed, but it appears they are being ignored in order to preserve the interpretation that redshift indicates distance. This is what I was referring to when I said this:

The observational evidence indicates NGC 1232A and B are at the same distance as NGC 1232 - according to the normal mainstream interpretations of those specific observations. To simply say that the redshift evidence is stronger does not cut it.

But it was also suggested that a theory to explain the redshifts if the objects are all at the same distance is needed before the evidence and mainstream interpretations which indicate that they are at the same distance is to be accepted. This is a convenient way to sweep the problem under the rug and it is not how science is supposed to work.

In addition, it sets up the mainstream interpretation to not be tested by observation - but rather to be tested by the presence or absence of a new theory. What I mean by this is that the issue is the mainstream (redshift = distance) vs. Arp's interpretation of redshift (redshift does not have to equal distance). Everybody agrees that the redshifts are not the same, so other tests must be brought out. The measured redshifts do not constitute a test when their interpretation is what is being disputed. So, as I've pointed out, the other observational tests give the nod to Arp. Yet the response is that the redshift evidence is too strong when in fact for the question at hand, the redshifts do not constitute evidence. So the evidence that allows one to distinguish which interpretation is right is being subjugated to the very interpretation that evidence is supposed to be testing. Again, that is not how science is supposed to work.

Now you've dispute this statement:

I think we could quibble for some time over that phrasing to no avail. I could argue that the observational implications are being ignored and therefore the observations themselves are being ignored and thus are not being accepted. However to save us both the hastle of scemantics, how about if I admit a lack of sufficient clarity in that wording and modify the statement to say this:

And I still maintain that is not how science is supposed to work.

I considered it relevant because you were asking if the mainstream camp had offered a theory. Where you consider that researcher to belong directly affects the answer to your question.

No but when I said your question was vague, you stated you were responding in kind to my statement - which implies my statement was somehow vague - right?

Several reasons. First, as we've already discussed, what is meant by "mainstream camp"? Second, your use of the word "theory". I generally can take your use of words to be right on the money, but in this case it seemed that you might have been referring to hypotheses to explain Arp's work rather than an entire theoretical structure - which of course makes a difference in how I answer the question.

If the observations are not disputed, then they are accepted. Your example refutes your claim that they are not being accepted. It is the interpretation of the results that is not being accepted, yet. There may be other examples, but I suspect the situation is similar.
Supposed to work? There is a large preponderance of evidence supporting the mainstream--that is how the model was developed. Modifications to mainstream ideas occur all the time, contradictory results arise and the theories adjust. That is exactly how science is supposed to work. If what Arp is saying is true, it will out.
Therefore? your logic broke down there.
Rather than a sufficient lack of clarity, I would call it "wrong."
No, my question was about mainstream scientists that offered theories opposed to Arp's. As near as I can tell, that's not true of that researcher.
Wrong. When I said "in kind" I meant that when I used the word "observations" it was in reference to your use of the word "observations." I just used the same terminology that you did.
As we've already discussed, in this context, it means those opposed to Arp's viewpoint.
We were just talking about the responses of Arp's opponents, and how they have managed to explain away his interpretations. Rightly or wrongly, they have done so.

Next time, instead of calling my posts "vague," let's focus on what it is that you don't understand. It's an imperfect communication medium in an even more imperfect world--and I am an imperfect being. I make a lot of mistakes. Please don't hold it against me.

Unless they are ignored.

We're not talking about the BBT here and the preponderance of evidence behind it. We're talking about a simple question - Are NGC 1232, NGC 1232A, and NGC 1232B at the same distance? If they are then the interpretation that redshift = distance is wrong in this example. The observational evidence along with standard mainstream interpretations indicates they are at the same distance.

At this point it is the job of the mainstream to either provide explanation as to why the traditional interpretations of galaxy resolution, diameters and so on don't work in this example, or acknowledge that in this instance, it appears that the available evidence supports that the objects are associated. The mainstream is not supposed to ignore all the additional observational tests and declare the redshift "evidence" all that matters. That is not how science is supposed to work.

Really? So are you saying both the original and the revised version which has "observations" changed to "observationsal tests" is wrong or just the original is wrong. If you say "both" then could you make your case. The statement again was this:

That's not what was being said when it was stated that the redshift evidence is stronger than the other observational tests and that a satisfactory theory for intrinsic redshifts is needed before those observational tests are to considered important?:

I'm trying to follow you on this.

I said this:

To which your response was:

The phrase "in kind" is traditionally used to mean "after the same fashion". So if I say your question was "too vague" and you say its because you were responding "in kind" what else should I conclude but that you were saying your question was vague because my "charge" was vague.

However, it appears that after further explanation on your part you are saying my use of "observation" was vague.

Using NGC 1232, I'd say I have shown that "wrongly" is the answer in that instance where proper scientific reasoning is concerned.

I don't know what it is you think I'm holding against you. We have debates over nuances of words all the time here. It is not normally held against someone over the long haul, but is pointed out during the debate to seek clarity. It was a statement not intended as an offense, but apparently taken as an offense. So for that I apologize.

Your version of "ignored" though is that you feel that Arp's interpretation should be accepted. That's unfair.
Really? I thought we were talking about observations being ignored.
It appears that the available evidence is contradictory, but I am no expert at this. I'd have to look into it farther, in this particular example. But even one example that was a clearcut exception is often not enough.
The second version completely changes the meaning.
I didn't think so at first. I thought we both knew what we were talking about at that time.
You haven't shown any of the responses--or is this a case of it being ignored? How has it been ignored?
You're apologizing for my taking offense? Thanks.

No, actually, my point is that the mainstream is ignoring their own standard interpretations of what constitutes observational evidence for the objects in question being at the same distance. I'm not saying they have to accept that Arp is right that intrinsic redshifts exist. What I'm saying is that by their own standards there are several clear examples -such as NGC 1232 - where the evidence is in Arp's favor.

Accepting Arp is not their only choice. Here are their choices:

1. Provide an explanation that addresses and refutes the evidence in Arp's favor.
2. Acknowledge at this time they have no explanation and that the current evidence supports Arp in that example.
3. Ignore the evidence.

In the case of NGC 1232 the third option is what is being chosen and if were talking about fair, then that is not fair! Arp claims there are intrinsic redshifts. The mainstream says they need more evidence than statistics. Arp provides that evidence. So then the mainstream response is to ignore that evidence, offering neither a valid scientific rebuttal nor an acknowledgement that the current evidence supports the association being real. The redshifts themselves are not evidence at all because the validity of how they are interpreted is what is being tested. The third choice is not the way science should work.

Whenever a woo-woo comes on here and adopts a scientific position that weak they are lambasted.

What is ridiculous is that if I came on this board and said that M-51 is not a genuine galaxy pair but that the smaller galaxy is in the background, then the very same obsevational tests that support NGC 1232A being at the same distance as NGC 1232 could be used to show that the M-51 companion is at the same distance as M-51. But when there is a redshift discrepancy all of the sudden those tests are ignored.

I have no problem with that. There are plenty of examples and if the phenomenon is real then many more that could be discovered. But you have to go at it one example at a time. Fifty examples will do no good if the mainstream response is to ignore the observational tests that support the most clear cut examples: NGC 1232, NGC 7603, and NEQ3. They will just as easily ignore NGC 1347, VV172, AM 2006-295 .....

I agree. Its the point I was trying to make. I'm not trying to re-define the issue. I'm just striving to get it stated in the most correct terms.

I've tried to explain that in the early part of this post. Let me know if that is not sufficient. We actually started this with the responses of TravisM and Taibak.

Hopefully we don't need to get hung up on the word "ignored". My dictionary gives as definitions:

"refrain from noticing or recognizing" and "to reject as without sufficient evidence".

Now if observational tests supporting Arp are presented and they are left un-responded to, then IMO that is an example of those tests being ignored.

No, I was apologizing that I worded a statement or made a point in a way that was offensive to you. My intent was not to offend.

I don't see it as such a clear example--but I may not understand all the arguments either. Why couldn't it be a coincidence?
You're throwing out the redshift evidence? The redshift evidence has more support than just NGC 1232. And you say that Arp's opponents are unfair?
I have never even called someone a woo-woo.
There are not even fifty examples?
Well, that's why I said the first one was wrong, not just "a sufficient lack of clarity"
Huh? If you're using that second definition, then ignore might be an appropriate response, in some cases.
That's what I said.

If its a coincidence, then the mainstream needs to be able to explain why these observational tests that I noted earlier support them being at the same distance:

I'm not being unfair. I'm properly addressing the way the issue is to be resolved. You have to go case by case. You can make general conclusions from redshift evidence, but in the specific cases were talking about the question is whether or not the mainstream redshift interpretation works for those cases. Since the interpretation of the redshift evidence is what is being disputed the redshifts are not the evidence that resolves the matter.

Taking a totally different example, if two people are sitting in a restaurant looking at a red rose on the table and one person thinks it is a true red rose and the other person thinks it is a white rose that has been colored red, then the fact that the rose is red cannot be used to support one persons interpretation over the others. Other evidence must be sought.

That was what I meant about the redshifts not being evidence in this case. The redshifts are like the fact that the rose is red. Other evidence is needed - and the other observational tests indicate what is expected if the galaxies are at the same distance as I've noted above.

One other reason why these examples are so important. It has been argued that there are small intrinsic redshift components present in most galaxies too. But since those would be small intrinsic redshifts, it's harder to confirm that they are not just a result of peculiar motions or data errors. So to establish a solid case that the phenomenon of intrinsic redshifts exists it is necessary to find examples where the redshift discrepancy is too large to be a result of peculiar motions and/or data errors.

In the case of NGC 1232 the two anomalous companions have excess redshifts of 4600 km/sec and ~ 27000 km/sec. For NGC 7603 the companion has an excess of ~8000 km/sec.

Of course there are, but the mainstream denies that the phenomenon is real. If they won't address the issues of examples like NGC 1232, then it doesn't matter how many examples are brought forward. That's why I'm staying focused on a few key examples rather than listing every example that has been published.

Personally, I can't tell whether they do or not. I don't know enough about it. I tried to find what the classification scheme was for assigning SBm to a feature, and all I could find was classifications, not explanations.

I hadn't wanted to go that route, because I'm certain that I cannot really contribute to the discussion. But now I'm curious about it.

That's your opinion.
Hold it. That's not really that fair of an analogy. To make it more like what we are discussing, I think we should be sitting in a barn at a table, surrounded by ten thousand real red roses. Then, you say, "I think that one is fake."
I don't need a list. A summary would do.

But I do want to hear less of the "unfair" accusations.

But you leveled that accusation first:

to which I then responded using "unfair" for the first time:

My initial point that brought you into this discussion had nothing to do with fair. I was pointing out that the mainstream reaction to the evidence was not scientifically valid when I said:

And we subsequently agreed that "observations" was the incorrect word there but rather "observational tests".

I personally could care less about assessing fairness, but I am going to keep pointing out inconsistencies and flaws in the mainstream scientific arguments where Arp is concerned.

Just as your statement that I was being unfair was your opinion. I clarified that point with the specifics of the evidence and with the rose analogy. Whether you prefer the single rose or the 10,000 rose analogy, the point is the same. The interpretation of the measured redshifts and not the values of the redshifts are what is in dispute. Therefore other tests than the redshift values are needed to determine which view is most probably correct. My opinion is backed up with specific arguments.