The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215

Do I understand this paper correctly? Galaxies eject ultra-luminous X-ray (ULX) quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) whose red shift is anomalously high compared to its parent galaxy.

In which case, since the red shift of the QSO does not match that of its parent galaxy, then red shift is not necessary a measure of distance, but age?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Well, that's what the authors are trying to support. However, as the paper's title states, what they have found is a (probable) quasar that is highly luminous in x-rays and is aligned within 8" of NGC 7319. The argument in the paper's section 5.1 that attempts to show that the QSO is NOT at a great distance behind the foreground galaxy is interesting but not absolutely convincing. Beyond that, the paper uses the same probabilistic arguments that have been used before in an attempt to prove that quasars are not distant background objects but actually associated with the galaxies that have been found near them "on the sky." This statistical argument has been the subject of much discussion here on the BABB.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Does anyone have a link that has decent info on QSOs, including maps if possible? I am really interested in them, but don't have the expertise yet to wade through some of the more technical aspects and don't want to waste time or end up accepting some junk as truth. Thanks for any replies.

__________________
Calvin: Sometimes when I'm talking, my words can't keep up with my thoughts. I wonder why we think faster than we speak.
Hobbes: Probably so we can think twice.

~Calvin & Hobbes~

I go the impression that statistics is not the primary argument, and taken together with other examples provided by Arp, it is the semi-visible "bridge" between the galaxy and quasar that links the two together.

If this was the only example, I'd be the first to admit that a "bridge" was co-incidence. But with several examples, the CHANCE of this being coincidental diminishes.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

The other "examples" include many supposed ejected QSO that fall well outside the supposed limit for ejection angles. This has been explained as "precession" and "multple jets" - but these explanations refute the original assertion for appointing QSO to galaxies in the first place: the close association and precise angles. In the first place, these claims are used to assert; then, when QSO are found outside this range, the explanation is not questioned, but revised to say the pattern could be anything at all, as long as they are "nearby." It's like saying all cars are blue because I've seen four blue cars; but then, when a red car is seen saying "all cars are blue except for the red ones"- the second rule refutes the first, but the first is never questioned.

I'm not sure what the primary argument is.
The paper you cite does give a little historical background, but it is really just about the single quasar. Certainly the so-called bridge in this example is pretty tenuous, as shown in the image below, (reproduced for educational purposes only!) Now, is this wispy extension from the galaxy adequate proof that the quasar is definitely "connected" to/ejected from the galaxy?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

This is wrong. I've explained here . You have invented a problem that isn't a problem.

Gritmonger - here again you're inventing a problem that isn't a problem. The parent galaxies have a variety of inclinations and in some cases do have multiple jets (eg NGC 1097). Why would we expect every example to be exactly the same? There is a clear pattern of the QSO's appearing along minor axis ejection lines. But you seem to think a face on galaxy like NGC 6212 violates Arp's model when its exactly what is expected for a face on galaxy!

Meanwhile your lensing explanation was shown to be completely wrong and I'd still be glad to discuss any explanations you and Cougar have that explain why these examples keep "accidentally" popping up with Seyfert galaxies - hmmm Iantresman's example is yet another Seyfert isn't it!

This is another example in a continuing pattern. Here are the important points from the article:

1. Parent Galaxy is a Seyfert - again!
2. Evidence of outflow from the Seyfert nucleus in the direction of the quasar.
3. The jet leads out toward the quasar.
4. Look at the images - the quasar is in the disk of the galaxy. As they point out you can't see background galaxies through the dense part of spiral galaxies - and none are seen in NGC 7319, but there is the quasar.

And yet we have people that keep saying the evidence is only statistical! :roll:

Not in the radio image (Fig. 2). If a line is drawn through the bulk of the outflow, it doesn't come near the quasar... unless it takes a hard right turn after a distance corresponding to about 2 arc seconds. Is there a proposed explanation for that?

Pardon my imaging skills, but since it's not identified, I cannot tell which dot is the quasar in Fig. 1. The features in the close-up (Fig. 4) don't seem to correspond....

By the way, how does this quasar's redshift fit into the suggested age dependence theory, given the associated galaxy's redshift and the quasar's 8" distance from the galaxy's nucleus? Aren't there similar redshift "differentials" for quasars that are significantly further from their associated nuclei?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

No, go back to the thread. You never answered the question of simple geometry: either they do fall in the 15 degree angle, and are far in front of or behind the galaxy, or they do not, and can't be associated. You never responded, so I'm sorry if I don't see how you explained it, nor how it is wrong.

We do not- but we expect every example to be within the specified tolerances of 15 degrees of the "minor axis." This conjecture appears to have been thrown out once proven, and is now considered ancillary; so I question how the association was made in the first place. Essentially, conjecture is proven in case 'A', unless it looks like case 'B' which precludes 'A' - but we won't go back to that.

No, what I expected was an answer to why the distance of the QSO could be considered anywhere near the "parent" galaxy (in this face on instance) when simple geometry based on their distance in arcseconds from the galaxy precluded this if the 15 degree scenario is established and not ignored. The angle of the triangle has to be 7.5 degrees or less from "face on" between the face-on galaxy and the QSO- which leaves a very obtuse triangle, and immense in-front or behind distances to achieve even the moderately shown arcsecond separations, which precludes any measurement of any "pattern" in the redshifts of the QSO in relation to the parent galaxy.
I didn't see that at all, especially for those which are presumed to have "jets" associating them with the "parent" galaxy, nor do I presume to account for disparate QSO which Arp's original conjecture wouldn't link with the "Parent" galaxy either.


They don't. They pop up with all sorts of galaxies. If it was only Seyfert, I might be inclined to give it more weight; but there isn't even a concrete association in this regard.

This was my response:

When you're talking about a face on galaxy it changes the pattern you expect to see. You're trying to set some requirement based upon a 15 deg ejection cone that doesn't apply to a face on galaxy. You have to look at it from the perspective of how far from the parent would the quasar be.

But that requirement doesn't work when its face on as with NGC 6212 because the quasars are coming at the observer. Nor when you have multiple jets such as NGC 1097 because each jet has its own ejection cone.

I explained this very clearly and repeatedly. Your lensing proposal doesn't work because the angular separations are too large to be accounted for by lensing. Lenses have at most ~ 15 arc second separations and Arp's examples have angular separations of hundreds of arc seconds or more. Lensing doesn't work.

You're quite mistaken here. I pointed out on another thread that of 40 proposed parent galaxies for quasars, 26 were Seyfert/Starburst, and all but 4 of the rest were other types of AGN or disturbed morphologically. I'd say having only 4 out of 40 proposed parents be normal galaxies qualifies as a very concrete evidence for a strong trend - especially when you consider that only about 3% of galaxies are Seyferts!!!!!

But that's just it. All of these responses: multiple jets, odd angles, disparate and marginal results, all go against the original Arp conjecture for association.

Allow me to demonstrate:
Conjecture: QSO are ejected by Seyfert galaxies. We assume this because of
1) close association
2) 15 degree angle from the minor axis
3) filaments
4) Seyfert galaxy

I find a non-Seyfert with QSO around it, not in the pattern stipulated, and without any filaments.

A logical conclusion to draw is that perhaps the original assumption was incorrect and in need of revision. Or instead, I can throw out all of the criteria I established as creating the association by adding on new ones.

The Conjecture now stands at:
1) close association
2) 15 degree angle from the minor axis
3) filaments
4) Seyfert galaxy
5) not-so-close association, in the picture frame
6) Multiple angles, or any angle
7) No filaments
8) Non-Seyfert galaxies.

Now, can you see why I can't swallow that at one go? The findings are contradictory to the original reason for drawing the associations. The later criteria invalidate the initial ones on which the presumption was based. It would be like Henry Ford's old "You can have any color as long as it's black." Initial statement is invalidated by later statements.

The theory needs revision, more data, less selection bias.

First, Arp never said that all examples met all these criteria. You know what a trend is – right? Your problem here is you’re trying to say the trends identified by Arp are actually “laws” that he claimed there were no variations upon. That is not the case at all. More about this below.

Please provide an example.

There is no original “assumption”, there has been a steadily growing attempt to catalog the phenomenon so that it might be better understood – in its full scope of arrangements.

I’m not asking you to swallow anything gritmonger. I’d like to see you do quite a bit more chewing first. But at any rate you've incorrectly characterized the situation as you'll see below.


You’ve failed to establish any contradictions. Let me try to explain what is wrong with your arguments. What you’re doing is taking the overall tends gleaned from nearly 40 years of study – and saying that you think those trends must be set in stone laws – and then claiming Arp is contradictory because there are variations and scatter on those trends. In some cases, what you’re claiming are contradictions, were actually known examples, before the overall trends were established!

Try stepping back and taking a look at the big picture. About 90% of the proposed parent galaxies are Seyfert/Starburst/AGN or morphologically disturbed. Given that less than 10% of the population of galaxies are of those morphological types it is a remarkable result!!! I cannot stress that enough! It only underscores the need to study the ~10% of proposed parent galaxies that seem “normal” in detail. I wouldn’t be surprised if with more detailed analysis, those 10% turn out to have evidence for activity too.

Lets look at your objections from your numbered list:

Multiple jets: I’m quite amazed at your objection here. NGC 1097 has multiple jets. The jets are not “invoked” – they are observed and there is evidence for ejection of quasars along all jets. What exactly is the contradiction here?

Multiple angles: You’re going to need to be more specific. Assuming you’re talking about the varied inclination angles of the galaxies, I again fail to see what your beef is. Galaxies are inclined from edge on to face on relative to our line of sight. You’re not going to see the linear arrangements when they approach face on. You’re going to see exactly what you see with NGC 6212.

No filaments: Arp never said every example had an observed filament pointing in the proposed ejection direction. Here you are again imposing “laws” that were never “laws” and then claiming there has been a contradiction. What Arp has pointed out quite correctly is that the examples where the filaments are plainly visible support his interpretation – and there are quite a few of those!

Not so close association: Wrong again – if anything, over time Arp has focused more and more on closer associations. He’s certainly not making claims at increasingly larger angular separations. Case in point, NGC 7319 is one of the closest pairings yet!

Non-Seyfert galaxies: addressed above, but I’m still waiting for you to explain why – if this is all accidental - the examples that have been identified are mostly Seyfert galaxies. Why is it that the great majority (~90%) of proposed parents come from AGN and disrupted galaxies that are < 10% of the galaxy population?

There's no hard right turn there. It is difficult to see in the image, but if you trace the filament back toward the nucleus - its source - its not that dramatic. There's often some curving of the ejection path - as seen with NGC 7603.

Well, the angular diameter of the galaxy is about 80 arc seconds, so if you take a look at the first image of the galaxy, you can see that it must fall in the highest surface brightness part of the disk. It certainly would help if they labelled its position in the image. The 4th image gives a better indication.

Ok, looking at it, note how the quasar is the upper right corner of 4 "stellar" objects that form a rectangle (4th image). Now that rectangle can be seen below and slightly left of the nucleus in the first image. So when you look at the upper right "star" in that image, you can see just how dense an environment its found in.

Yes, sometimes the high z quasars are farther away. In this case note that the quasar - much like what is seen in NGC 7603 is apparently in the plane of the disk rather than along the minor axis. Arp has described the ejections as orthagonal for quite a while now - some along the minor axis some in the plane of the disk. When the ejection is in the disk it naturally makes sense that it interaction with the disk would slow its outward progress.

Not really. These conjectures are the established trends he observed. However, there doesn't appear to be any predictive value to his observed trend, as every new observation alters the trend by varying from it. The trend is now a broad indistinct alley wide enough to accomodate almost any observation of QSO within an angle of one degree of a supposed candidate at any angle relative to the "minor axis" of the galaxy. There is very little predictive value remaining, and less evidence to establish a cause-effect between QSO and galaxies, Seyfert or no. Very few samples have been taken, those rather selectively. Given the number of galactic images that exist, I'm tempted to take X-ray and visible spectrum data of various areas of the night sky and test this myself.



I could also say only 60% were Seyfert, and the rest were not. Given that active galaxies are more interesting targets than dwarf ellipticals or irregulars, I'm not surprised at the selection bias. I also don't find it particularly remarkable, especially given the tenuous associations esablished in NGC 6121, which displays no filaments or "jets."

The jets are inferred from assuming an association between a visible spectrum smudge or blur and a QSO candidate. Given the energy one would suspect is involved, I would be more convinced by X-ray visible plasma jets (high temperature/high acceleration) associated with QSO and galaxies.

The "multiple angles" are the angles of the "multiple jets." There doesn't appear to be an axis of material ejection, such as one would expect from active radio galaxies and their "jets."


"examples where the filaments are plainly visible support his interpretation" - but what about those where there is no filament? How does he establish the association without a filament? By the fifteen degree angle with the minor axis? But what if that isn't present? What then?

The establishment is tenuous, and not a foregone conclusion. Counterexamples are quite numerous; enough to call the original interpretation into question.

Then I am free to interpret disparate associations like those of the NGC 6121 paper as not supportive of Arp?

Seyfert are 60% of the examples. The examples; not randomly sampled galaxies, and given the selection bias of galaxy portraits slanting towards interesting targets ... I'm still waiting for a larger sample than 40 out of several hundred billion. If I sampled the human population (only 6 billion) by 40 random people, I would not have a very representative sample. I certainly couldn't say that 24 males being mostly white meant all males were white.

Really? So it wasn't predictive when Arp identified X-ray objects surrounding 24 Seyferts and proposed that they would turn out to be quasars and later observations of those objects that have been observed confirmed that they were quasars? Your problem here is that you're looking for a level of predictiveness that is impossible without understanding the mechanism for ejection of quasars. This is primarily an empirical exercise at this point. First you catalog, then you develop a theory. Empirical models can predict expected trends, theoretical models make more specific predictions.

Could you point to an example that illustrates this?

Cause-effect requires a specific theory for mechanism. As for samples, stop and think about it - Arp is arguing that active galaxies are ejecting quasars, but do you think he's avoiding "normal" galaxies? Of course not. Normal galaxies rarely show evidence for ejections. He noted early on that not all galaxies in his atlas of peculiar galaxies were indicating evidence for association with quasars - they were found predominately among specific categories of peculiar galaxies #'s 100 to 160 in his catalog if I'm remembering right.

Here's a good example of the predictive aspect. Arp predicts that very few normal galaxies will show evidence for quasar associations. As I said yesterday - study the handful of "normal" galaxies that have quasar associations. I'd bet it turns out there is evidence they've been active too.

Make sure you're correcting factoring in distance of the parent galaxies, magnitudes of the quasars, angular separations of the quasars at the parent galaxy distance, and so on. Reading as many of Arp's papers as you can will help.

Actually 65%, and even that is remarkable because only about 3% of galaxies are Seyferts. But the other 25% are other types of AGN and morphologically disturbed. That's the empirical pattern.

So that's your answer to the reason why most of his examples are Seyferts - selection bias? He's looked at all types and it is mostly with Seyferts that the associations show up.

Why exactly do you think there must always be filaments? Arp never said such - again you're imposing restrictions that nobody ever claimed were requirements. I explained this yesterday.

He's provided examples of x-ray, visible light, radio waves, IR jets and connections between these objects.

Yes, there does. When you have multiple jets you have multiple directions - eg NGC 1097. And plenty of these examples involve quasars in the directions of observed jets. I've already stated this.

Again - why do you think there must always be a filament? What's your obsession? Its not like you've had an answer to the examples where the filament is plainly there such as NGC 7603, NEQ3. If cases that compelling are of little interest to you, then what do you expect these other examples to offer.

Here I'll give you another basis that nobody has yet to offer a mainstream explanation for: The visibility and lack of reddening of these ejected objects that are in the disk of spiral galaxies. Look at my response to Cougar above. How exactly does a "background" quasar show through NGC 7319 with little if any reddening? Same thing with NGC 1232B!

I've never said it was a foregone conclusion, but its not as tenuous as you would like.

I've asked you to provide the specific counterexamples and you haven't.

Gritmonger, I've already explained to you that NGC 6212 is a face on galaxy and exhibits exactly the pattern Arp would expect for a face on galaxy. You have not shown that its contradictory! The reason I brought it up in the first place is that you were asking for face on examples!

You do understand that in Arp's interpretation there are not billions of galaxies close enough for their ejected quasars to be within the detection limits? If the quasars are local, they are low luminosity - which means at very large distances any ejected quasars are too faint to have been detected in current surveys. Haven't you noticed that these examples are most prevalent in very local galaxies?

If you're right, then you ought to be able to find numerous examples of "Arpian" associations in normal, non-active galaxies. The reason Arp hasn't found such associations is not because he hasn't looked. That's a misconception on your part.

How about this then: a QSO that, when resolved, is an active spiral galaxy?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960824.html

Or multiple examples of this?

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020309.html

Why, if these were instead recently ejected QSO's superimposed over the parent, would they be at the same redshift as the supposed parent galaxy?

Or this: a QSO lensed into an "Einstein's Cross" around the center of a low-luminosity galaxy?
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap001010.html

The QSO is not at the same redshift as the galaxy, but the QSO is still apparent through the galaxy. In other words, the same explanation for the previous examples and this example would not apply.

Apparently dim reddish ellipticals are capable of this as well:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap990331.html

Or this:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap020208.html
An example of a jet all right- but the jet appears in X-rays only, and is associated with the Quasar, and not with any nearby galaxies - to the extent of pointing precisely between them; added to which neither appears in X-rays.

Or even this: where a Quasar, in an early (nearly ten-year-old) interpretation appears to be colliding with a galaxy:
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951022.html

I only did a tiny tiny amount of research to find these variances and outliers - and I'm stunned these are not mentioned in Arp's papers. They seem like obvious examples of close QSO-galaxy associations.

That’s not a contradiction – another misconception. Arp’s hypothesis is that quasars eventually evolve into normal galaxies! This is exactly what you would expect – a quasar showing the early stages of becoming a galaxy.

Have you looked at NEQ3? You have plenty of examples of quasars AND galaxies at the same redshifts and Arp has proposed that all of these objects have intrinsic redshifts – another misconception. There is this fantasy belief out there that quasars and galaxies cannot be associated and have the same redshift in Arp’s model – not true. In these cases you’ve pointed to the associated galaxies with the same redshift are not the parent – see NEQ3.

Arp has discussed Einstein’s cross in Seeing Red, and his processed images suggested connections between the quasar images and the lensing galaxy. Gerbil94 cast some serious doubt on Arp’s interpretation of this one. However, notice that the images are about 0.3 arc seconds from the nucleus of the lensing galaxy. This is exactly what I was talking about before. Lensing doesn’t work for most of Arp’s examples. In this case the lensing interpretation may be exactly right, but that doesn’t mean intrinsic redshifts aren’t present because we don’t know the distance of the lensing galaxy.

Yep, see above.

Of course the jet is associated with the quasar in this case. Arp has proposed that when quasars have evolved – they can eject other quasars. See the Arp/Hazard triplets . Quasars are themselves AGN, why wouldn’t Arp expect them to have jets and be ejecting additional objects themselves? This is discussed in his books and articles. Again – not a contradiction.

See above. This is not a contradiction – Arp expects to see quasars and galaxies with the same redshifts interacting. See NEQ3 as an example. Both the quasars and the galaxies have intrinsic redshifts.

Well, as I’ve noted some of them have been mentioned in Arp’s papers. The second APOD image I’ve seen on a website arguing for Arp’s case. I think what you really need to do is read more of Arp’s work because your contradictions are not contradictions as I’ve explained above. You’ll understand what I’m talking about if you read the papers. That’s not a criticism. It takes time – I’m in no hurry here.

But what does concern me is earlier on this thread you said this:

- when apparently you had to just go and do some “tiny tiny amount” of research on it this afternoon. And then you came to the conclusion that Arp is contradicted with examples that don’t contradict Arp!

No, what I continually see is additions when new examples do not fit previous conjecture. It has evolved from the original example to painfully fitting almost any model to his conjecture; in other words, rather than looking for true proof (a condition that would, say, falsify the postulate) any newcomers are instead inculcated into the theory as new examples of why it is true. Redshift is useless, as it is apparently arbitrary. Relative brightness: arbitrary. Angle: arbitrary. Galactic type: arbitrary (but mostly "Seyfert and AGN" except for all of the other exceptions like red dwarf ellipticals). Filaments: arbitrary.

So, essentially, there is not an example that would show up or even that could be postulated to "refute" Arp's hypothesis; not because his hypothesis is true, but because any divergence would be explained away.

As an example: say I came up with a high redshift galaxy with no QSO associated. Doesn't matter: Not All Galaxies Have QSO's. What if I found a Seyfert with no QSO? Still doesn't matter: Seyferts don't have to have QSO's. What if I found a non-Seyfert with no QSO? That's normal. What if I found a non-Seyfert with a QSO? More proof that Arp is correct. What if I found a QSO with other QSO's? Well since QSO turn into galaxies, more proof. What if I found no filaments? You've told me again and again absence of filaments don't matter, but filaments are automatic proof. What if I found a lone filament with a QSO? Well, the galaxy is probably too dim. What if I found a filament alone? Well, the galaxy and the QSO now turned into a galaxy are both too dim. What if there is no X-ray association? Still fits. What if I find a pattern outside the predicted redshift pattern? Still fits.

Essentially, this theory truly is not falsifiable. There is no condition under which it is false.

Additionally, I think this issue falls under a "confusion of correlation and causation" - confusing association of QSO and galaxies with a cause-effect relationship.

Well, as shown below, tracing through the quasar through the filament that is pointing at the quasar, one misses the galaxy nucleus by quite a wide margin.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

[quote="gritmonger"]Sounds like you're describing mainstream cosmology there.

Not true - the redshift of the parent object must be lower than the redshift of the younger ejected object. Over time it is expected that the redshift differential decreases.

Wrong again. If you read Arp's books/papers you'll note that more distant parent galaxies are associated with fainter quasars.

What angle? Angle relative to minor axis, angle relative to jets? You ought to look at Bell's paper in which the angles are used to show that the ejected quasars can be utilized to predict the rotational velocity of the nucleus - a rotational velocity that independent kinematic measurements confirm.

Continuation of your "wrongness". I've explained this in very clear terms. Let me try once more. 90% of the proposed parents are AGN or morphologically disrupted with most of the AGN being specifically Seyfert and Starburst. You continue to avoid offering an explanation as to why a type of galaxy that makes up less than 10% of the total galaxy population accounts for 90% of Arp's examples.

Not arbitrary - certainly they're expected to lead out toward the proposed ejected quasars. And no, they are not observed in every case but you've yet to offer a reason why every example should show a filament!

Gritmonger, please think about what you're saying here. NGC 7603 has a high z galaxy and two higher z HII galaxies all connected by a filament. The evidence for this association being a genuine Arpian redshift anomaly is strong. If I tell you that NGC 5194 shows no evidence of similar associated objects, what does that have to do with NGC 7603? Nothing! You don't disprove the validity of one example, by searching out an example that does not show the same phenomenon.

Filaments certainly strengthen the case. I'm still waiting for YOU to tell me why YOU think that EVERY example MUST have a filament.

[quote] What if I found a lone filament with a QSO? Well, the galaxy is probably too dim. What if I found a filament alone? Well, the galaxy and the QSO now turned into a galaxy are both too dim. [quote]

See, Now you're getting ridiculous. This is absolutely laughable - let me tell you why. NGC 7603 is an example of a galaxy with a filament that clearly looks to be due to interaction. But there is no companion with the appropriate redshift. However, the obvious candidate is NGC 7603B. I pointed this out to JS Princeton and he came back with a claim that I was ignoring the science of dark galaxies - meaning the hypothesis of some astronomers that there are 100% dark matter galaxies pulling out these filaments.

But now you're telling me Arp would make such a claim when it is in fact the mainstream that resorts to that tactic. In fact rather than going "what if ... what if ... what if ...", how about if you try offering some specific examples and we'll discuss them. I'm sorry that your attempt yesterday failed, but you brought up cases similar to what Arp had already discussed.

Yes it is falsifiable. If Arp is right quasars should not show time dilation - and as we've discussed on other threads - they don't. If Arp is right quasars will show proper motions. If they don't Arp is wrong. Such studies are underway. If his objects are behind others they should be reddened - in cases where that can be tested, they are not. And so on...

You're focusing on a method that isn't really a correct way of refuting Arp - namely finding examples that aren't Arpian in nature. Arp is falsifiable.

There is no confusion here. That's the point of debate. As I said yesterday, you will understand these issues better if you start studying Arp's papers.

[quote="dgruss23"]Except in the cases of the Einstein's crosses in which both "parent" galaxies are substantially fainter than the quasars. Arbitrary.
Ah, now the 15 degree angle relative to the minor axis no longer applies. So it is now not only arbitrary, but moot. Better still.
However, falling outside this 90%/10% ratio is not proof (as in the reddened dwarf elliptical above), because the QSO's either belong to 'unseen' galaxies, or don't refute Arp because the QSO's can't be shown to be associated with normal galaxies, or if they are, they are probably now inactive but formerly active galaxies. Aribitrary.
Like I said: arbitrary. Witness the line drawn through the filament by Cougar. A present filament doesn't have to be straight, a present filament doesnt' have to point to a visible galaxy, and filaments don't have to be present. Arbitrary. There is not a condition in which filaments of any orientation or lack thereof are proof against Arp.
But you just said filaments don't count. Is that don't count against, but always count for?
Actually, yes you do. If you make a statement that "x in configuration y always means z" and find x out of that configuration, you have to explain why, not simply say "x in configuration y, or not in configuration y, always means z"
I'm just waiting for an explanation why filaments are "proof" for Arp. They aren't always present: why? They aren't always straight: why? They aren't always at the 15 degree angle to the minor axis: why? Too many unanswered questions for me to accept filaments as proof.
[quote]

[quote] What if I found a lone filament with a QSO? Well, the galaxy is probably too dim. What if I found a filament alone? Well, the galaxy and the QSO now turned into a galaxy are both too dim. Laughable how? I'm trying to come up with a testable condition for Arp beyond surveying the entire sky and/or visiting the galaxies physically. The 65%-35% test is not convincing, especially given the other arbitrary conditions.
My "attempt' has been to understand what is and is not proof of Arp. I have been told that everything is, and nothing, even anything that could be remotely speculated, is not. Claiming the "mainstream" resorts to this is not true; I explained in another thread the difference between the observations of unusual velocities within the galactic plane that lead to the inference of "Dark Matter." That observation is not refutable, as it is simply data and observation. The interpretations are; one can look for MACHOs through microlensing; WIMPs through rare particle interactions; MOND through large surveys of multiple hundreds of galaxies and their apparent rotational velocities, and all of these with simulations.

Arp has thrown out the primary argument against his theory by declaring redshift arbitrary with no proof other than his arguments that QSOs are next to galaxies, near filaments, and within angles, which now apparently have also been declared arbitrary: no mechanism (repeatable or no) for QSO ejection, no law for finding relationships other than those postulated on the previously declared aribitrary redshifts.

There is no science here. Only speculation.
No, what was discussed was supernova time dilation to peak brightness within galaxies, not QSO's. And even then, the data against time dilation was tenuous, and didn't say there was no time dilation, just that there was less than expected- not none- in one case, and that was taking into account that finding supernovae is hit or miss, so catching the rise and peak brightness times is chance at best, and ancillary to redshift data.

How long will we have to wait for Quasars to show proper motions? Just a few billion years, right? Oh, and "in cases where that can be tested" - what exactly does that mean? Reddened- do you mean "redder" than normal, or actually with the peak frequency shifted towards the "red" end of the spectrum: redshifted? It seems like whenever one is found, it is discounted as not associated with the supposed parent for that very reason. Again, and again, arbitrary. Not conditional. Not proof against in any circumstance. Not falsifiable.
So- the scientific method (establishing criteria that would falsify a postulate, and testing for those) is not a correct way of refuting Arp? Oh, now I see where I was confused.

I thought we were discussing the scientific method.

The galaxy has a B-magnitude of 15.6 and the quasar’s B-mag is 16.8. The lensing galaxy is brighter. See this paper that I linked to above.

The sarcasm isn’t helping you when you consistently make inaccurate declarations and do not demonstrate a willingness to evaluate the details of my explanation. As I’ve explained, the NGC 1068 case shows a number of interesting phenomenon that suggests interaction of the Seyfert with the QSO’s. First, Bell has shown that the ejection pattern derives a rotational velocity close to the kinematically measured rotational velocity. Second, there appears to be some precession of the ejection axis. Do you have a reason to object to precession? Don’t rotation axes precess? Third, the galaxy has a low inclination of ~29-30 degrees which means we’re looking much more face on to this galaxy than many of the other galaxies. So this 15 degree requirement you seem set on establishing cannot be expected in this case.

Certainly as we go toward edge on, there is reason to expect the quasars to be more aligned with the ejection axis – as is the trend. But there are factors that will induce scatter into that pattern. Let me try to explain since you asked earlier for the criteria.

Lets take three ejected quasars A,B, and C where A is the youngest and C is the oldest. Now without question Arp expects that A should have a larger redshift than C. Lets for the sake of discussion assign them redshifts as follows: A  z=2.00 B  z=1.40 C  z=0.60. One of the trends Arp has found is that quasars closer to the parent galaxies generally have larger redshifts. So in the simplest model, you should see that A is closer than B which is closer than C relative to the parent galaxy. But there are other aspects to this. As they proceed outward, the outward velocity of the QSO’s will slow and eventually the quasars may begin to fall back toward the parent galaxy.

If that happens eventually quasar C – falling toward the parent galaxy – will be closer to the parent than quasar B which is still moving outward. So if we observe that example we will see A, then C, then B and what is observed is not what might be expected from the overly simplified model. So reality gets in the way of the simple model.

Now you keep implying that every example must show Arp’s trends in form, but what I’ve been trying to explain to you is that the trends are just that – trends. The complications of reality will create variations on the trends. But if there was nothing to what Arp is suggesting, these trends should not even be visible. If the associations were truly random coincidences, we shouldn’t even see a trend of decreasing redshift with increasing distance. But look at the contradictions this scenario would create with the simple model:

1. The quasars might not increase in redshift with distance from the parent galaxy.
2. The quasars might drift outside the ejection cone as they fall back – creating scatter around the 15 degrees you’re so concerned about.
3. The quasars might not increase in brightness with increasing distance from the parent anymore.

Now you also have stated that this is all arbitrary and unfalsifiable. That’s not true either. As I pointed out earlier, if Arp is right, quasars should show proper motions. So in the above scenario, quasar C should show proper motion toward the parent galaxy and quasars A and B should show proper motion away from the parent galaxy. In fact – in general terms any verified proper motions implies the quasars are local.
This whole “unseen galaxies” scenario is not something Arp has ever advocated. That’s a mainstream position. You’re trying to interpret what you think Arp would say and failing to hit the mark. I’m still waiting for your explanation as to why 90% of the parents are drawn from a very specific few categories of active and disturbed galaxies.

As to the “inactive” scenario, I’d think that they should show hints of activity with closer study, but there can be no doubt that the ejection process is intermittent – otherwise we’d see continuous streams of quasars.

Cougar’s line doesn’t even point back toward the nucleus of the Seyfert! If his line was accurate, it would mean the jet was coming from intergalactic space. If you consider the origin must be the nucleus you have an arcing path between the nucleus and the quasar quite similar to NGC 7603’s.

And your obsession with the filaments is demonstrating a very simple logical error:

Arp: Phenomenon A (filament) supports that event B (ejection of quasar/object) happened.

Gritmonger: Therefore whenever event B happens, phenomenon A must be present.

Arp’s interpretation is correct, your reversal of it is not. I’ll give you a simple illustration. Having 4 children I have had quite a bit of opportunity to observe signs of various ailments. For example, if you have a baby that is tugging at its ears, cries and cannot be consoled, and suddenly has trouble sleeping at night, you almost certainly have a baby with an ear infection.

So Phenomenon A (ear tugging …) supports event B (ear infection) – and you call the doctor.

But the reverse is absolutely not universally true! Our third daughter had a severe ear infection once that was noticed at a routine check-up. The doctor was amazed she wasn’t crying. She’d shown none of the signs noted above.

I’m sure someone like soupdragon could put a name on this logical error your making, but it most certainly is incorrect reasoning on your part.

First, see above. Second – obviously the filament should be in the direction of the ejected object.

See above again – your logical error not mine.

“Always” – your word not mine. “Proof” - your word, not mine. As I’ve said, the filaments support Arp’s interpretation. Expecting them to always be there is your logical error, not mine.

Its laughable in an ironic sense because YOU are making some claim that Arp will propose faint/invisible galaxies in these situations, when Arp never has mad such proposals but mainstream proponents have!!! See the tadpole galaxy – Arp discusses it in his 1987 book as an example of ejection of a filament. Then a few years ago some researchers proposed it was possibly being pulled out by a 100% dark matter galaxy. You seemed to indicate such interpretations are distasteful. I agree, but I find it ironically funny that you propose that as a criticism of Arp when it’s the mainstream that has resorted to it in at least these two of Arp’s examples that I’ve noted. And how do you falsify 100% dark matter galaxies gritmonger?

You’ve been told nothing of the sort – I gave you specific criteria in this post and the earlier that could refute Arp’s interpretation  Proper motions, time dilation, reddening of objects when Arp would expect its not. Your problems are two-fold:

First, you haven’t demonstrated that you are willing to grasp the complicated nature of it. I tried to describe above what I mean. But what you’ve shown me so far is you want to derive a simple law from Arp’s trends and then consider everything that doesn’t exactly fit that “law” as a violation of Arp’s model. I illustrated above with the A,B,C example why that simplified approach doesn’t work.

Second, you’re looking to identify individual examples that can refute ALL of Arp’s other examples. It doesn’t work that way. Each example must be examined and tested on its own merits. What do the proper motions, magnitudes, redshifts … of this example say about this example. And what do the same say about that example …

However, for me personally, if you can tackle examples like NGC 7603, NEQ3, and NGC 1232 and show that Arp’s interpretation is wrong, I’d have to conclude that he is very likely wrong about all of his examples.

Completely wrong - see above.

There was that conversation too, but I was talking about this one which was about QSO’s.

Sarcasm really doesn’t help you when you’re that far off the mark. Try this . For M-82 Arp proposed that 10 years would be enough time to detect the proper motion.

What that means gritmonger is that the most local examples will be the most realistic to test for it because at greater distances the proper motion will cover increasingly small angular distances which would fall below current detection capabilities.

I’ve proposed numerous tests throughout this and other threads. But funny thing is that when the tests that have already been made turn out to support Arp the silence can be deafening. I’ve yet to see anybody explain why NGC 1232B is not reddened. I’ve yet to see anybody offer an explanation why the interaction filament in NGC 7603 is present if there is no galaxy besides NGC 7603B capable of creating it – oh wait we did have the 100% dark matter galaxies for that one.

That’s the hypocrisy in all this. You say its not falsifiable (not true) and then don’t respond to the tests that could falsify it which it has passed.
You have yet to acknowledge that your lensing explanation is inadequate. Are we done with that one, or are you going to bring it up again down the road.

dgruss23:

There is no "test" to be done. Any example I could find would be explained away. I'm not making a logical error here: I am expecting testable statements and predictions.

I am getting nothing but oh-yeah-look-at-this-one.
One.

Out of forty examples.

Out of a potential field of several hundred billion.

No prediction about what I will find should I look elsewhere. Nothing but "probably most galaxies that are in association - which can be with or without filaments, at any angle, and at any redshift, will be Seyferts."

Any explanation why that could be tested by selecting galaxies based on criteria? Any explanation for why other galaxies vastly different in type would show this as well? Any predictive element at all more specific than these statements?

Now, allow me to illustrate the confusion of correlation and causation (a logical error, an indeterminate one of which I'm being currently accused without any examples provided) at work here:

Say, I pick up a Milky Way bar, and I notice it has chocolate and nougat. Then I pick up a Hershy bar. And I don't find nougat.

Why, it's clear that chocolate causes nougat. And in those cases where there is no nougat, it isn't the right kind of chocolate bar. And a Toblerone is a proto-Milkyway. And a Three Musketeers is more proof.

That's what's being stated here: Correlation = Causation.

Find two things together, and the assumption that one causes the other is this logical fallacy. I find crabgrass and fire-ants in my yard. Almost constantly. But there are times when I find only crabgrass. Should I assume crabgrass causes fire-ants?

This was also at work back in the days of Pasteur, when "spontaneous generation" was the accepted cause of maggots and flies in meat. Meat left out always developed flies; ergo, meat causes flies.

Until Pasteur put a cut of meat in a jar that precluded flies and other elements getting in. Then, no flies.

I'm done. It is apparent that there are no falsifiable conditions to Arp's conjecture that won't be explained away. None. Not even movement- because these specific examples will be explained away as not really associated with that particular galaxy, and belonging to "another" galaxy. You watch. Arp's theory will not be "tested" until every single galaxy and QSO is observed and measured for motion.

Even then I have my doubts about whether anyone will admit this is a definitive test.

Of course there are tests to be done. I've explained several of them. I specifically illustrated with the quasars A,B,C example how proper motions could be a test. Proper motions are a test in all examples! And contrary to your sarcasm, its testable in reasonable time frams. In some examples you have objects close enough to the parent that we should see reddening if they are background (eg ngc 1232b).

But your logical error was specifically in the case of the filaments. As I explained in my previous post. Take a look at what I wrote there and explain how its not a logical error on your part if you want.

Not true. You're getting specific appropriately referenced explanations and you're giving general replies.

Here's a good example of a short memory on your part. I explained above that you do not have several hundred billion examples to test Arp's model. Let me re-state it for you. If local as Arp proposes, the quasars are intrinsically faint. That means that as you increase distance, the quasars fall below the survey detection limits. There may be hundreds of billions of galaxies, but the numbers of galaxies that are close enough to have detectable quasars is in the thousands.

And speaking of these numbers - you must work object by object. How many objects do you think Arp can observe by himself? These studies aren't a simple mass scale point and shoot. Each quasar's photometry and spectra must be gathered - and studies like NEQ3 and NGC 7603 that provide the most compelling evidence require the most detailed study. The fact that you've got dozens of examples studies is an excellent accumulation of success for a small group of researchers.

That's a prediction gritmonger. Here you illustrate another problem you're having. There is not even theory on the specific mechanism for ejection of quasars. You can't make specific predictions without the mechanism. But the model allows some general predictions. Its an important distinction you refuse to acknowledge.

And some phenomenon in nature do not allow easy regular prediction. Look at earthquake prediction!

See above. I'd love to have a theoretical mechanism, but without it you're not going to get predictions that specific. Learn to work with what we do have - Arp's empirical model and trends.

I gave you a very specific detailed explanation of your logical error in my last post - filaments! Child earache example. Try responding to it.


Anybody who reads this can see I've provided tests that you have not acknowledged or responded too. If you're done that is fine with me because you've failed to acknowledge where you've been shown to be wrong. I'm getting tired of re-explaining your errors in logic and argument.

Well you'd certainly understand that mindset since that's what you've been demonstrating!

Spontaneous Generation.

Note the excuse that spontaneous generation of life needs air.

I'd be glad to discuss the relevance you think this has to our current discussion when you provide your view on the connection. I'm not going to guess what you think the relevance is.

And I'll also be willing to consider your responses to the following questions you've left unanswered:

1. Your lensing explanation doesn't work. Do you agree?
2. Your claim that Arp is untestable and unfalsifiable is wrong. I've provided you with tests. Yet you've continued to make the claim.
3. Your claim that filaments must always be present if filaments are evidence for Arp's interpretation is an error in logic on your part. You have not yet offered a counter argument. Nor have you explained why you think every Arp example must show such filaments.
4. Your claim that Arp's model makes no predictions - wrong. You've yet to successfully defend that claim.
5. Your claim that Arp would invoke invisible galaxies is wrong. The mainstream does that. You've not responded to that point.
6. Your claim that all ejections must occur within a 15 degree angle and therefore be Observed in a 15 degree angle does not account for near face on orientations. Yet you continue to claim that this 15 degree thing is a "contradiction" or "arbitrary".
7. You said that the quasar in Einstein's cross are brighter than the lensing galaxy - wrong.
8. You've yet to offer an explanation why if this is all accidental 90% of proposed parents turn out to be Seyfert/AGN/Disrupted.
9. You claimed that the jet angles are a problem. I pointed out that Cougar's jet line doesn't even point back to the nucleus. You've offered no response.
10. You've said that I've claimed filaments are "proof" - your word not mine - right?

And so on...

This argument of yours is not comparable. First, sometimes correlations are because of causation. Babies frequently tug at their ears when they have ear infections. Correlation=causation. Second, if correlation is because of a real causation, you should be able to see patterns and trends. You should be able to provide tests and make some predictions. Arp allows all of that - We see trends - the trends that you have essentially treated as laws that you think every one of Arp's examples must follow without variation. Arp's model has tests that could falsify it:

If quasars did not show proper motions (They might, but further studies will test it).
If quasars do show time dilation. (They don't)
If no new examples among local active galaxies were too pop up - essentially the phenomenon drying up (it hasn't).

Well when are you going to acknowledge your mistaken points? You have little credibility making this last statement if you don't. How am I to know that an incorrect argument on your part will not be recycled if you do not let me know you've conceded the point? The discussion cannot progress if such acknowledgements are not made. Its not about one-upsmanship, its about progressing through what is understood to find the areas where future resolutions can be made. Do you have the courage to say..."ok, I'm not convinced Arp is right, but that piece of evidence supports his interpretation over the mainstream interpretation."

For example quasars do not show time dilation. That supports Arp's interpretation. There is no mainstream explanation at this time. Is there anyone not compelled by Arp's evidence willing to acknowledge this adds support to his position.

The presence of the NGC 7603 filament supports the association is real doesn't it. It certainly doesn't help the mainstream interpretation. Can this be admitted?

NGC 1232B should be reddened if its background - it is not. This is a clear test that ends up supporting Arp. When I point this out I get silence. You don't have to say you think Arp is right to acknowledge a piece of evidence supports his view.

Whoops. You actually demonstrated the same error again, unknowingly. Babies tug at their ears because of the pain from increased pressure in the ears, not because of the infection. Babies also tug at their ears when pressure changes in an airplane, though no infection is detectable at the time or later. So we can't say that infection causes ear-tugging, because a baby could also have an ear infection with no pain.

Correlation != Causation.

Thank you, you demonstrated that quite nicely.

That's correct. I do. That would imply some predictive utility. Like the spontaneous generation question. I boil broth, sometimes "life" forms, sometimes it does not. Saying "sometimes life forms" is not predictive. I will not be able to tell from that information what will happen, or why, or what tests I could do. Just that "sometimes it happens." No method proposed leaves no testable conditions. See what I mean?

I've simply been told to leave some broth out. What kind of test is that?

What exactly does this mean? Why would a Quasar show time dilation, other than redshift? What event is there to test against time dilation? What duration? I'm curious.

But that's just it. The mainstream is proposing that spontaneous generation does not exist. And yet, I'm being asked to buy it in this case specifically because a guy shows me a bowl of broth.

Analogy, yes: but QSO and foreground galaxies will overlap; it's statistical, and the same reason folks look for microlensing events. Eventually it will happen. Showing me a statistical event (overlapping) does not prove redshift is arbitrary/intrinsic. That is another error: the non-sequitur of overlapping elements somehow invalidating redshift interpretation. It does not follow.

Rather than concentrating on finding events to support his theory, Arp should concentrate on collecting more data before broaching his hypothesis. A truly predictive mechanism ("You will always find QSO in association with galaxies of these features, and here's why") would go a long way towards "proof."

As soon as you explain how this association is proof, and absence is somehow not-not-proof. There is no predictive element at all to this. It's some broth gets cloudy. It's a statement, not a predictive element.
You still have not explained the term "reddened" compared to "redshifted" - one implies normal blackbody radiation having most other frequencies removed besides red, the other implies a shift of the blackbody radiation curve in toto.

That's my point. The line goes through the quasar and the bulk of the filament that is closest to the quasar. If the quasar is associated with the filament, then it's unlikely to have been ejected from the galaxy nucleus.
The line goes through the extended section of the filament that is closest to the quasar, the section that was presumably affected by the quasar as it was ejected from the galaxy nucleus. I note there is no significant filament between the quasar and the galaxy nucleus. So something's not adding up in the suggestion that the quasar was ejected from the nucleus.
You're trying to prove that the quasar's origin was the nucleus, so assuming that point proves nothing. And to curve the path of a quasar would require a very significant mass (that is not the nucleus) to do the bending. Is there a candidate for this?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.