One of the key aspect of many alternate cosmologies is a powerful desire to do away with the redshift distance relationship. This is prominent, for instance, in the Quasars Far Away thread.

But the redshift distance relationship does not exist in a "vacuum" (of the intellectual type). Why did Hubble come up with it in the first place? Because he realized that galaxies of the same type in the Hubble classification of galaxies showed brightness correlated with redshift; dimmer galaxies have larger redshift. If one makes the fairly benign assumption that galaxies of the same type are of approximately the same intrinsic brightness (say within a factor of 2 or so), then dimmer means farther away. And so redshift means farther away too. And so the redshift distance relationship was born.

But that's not the only correlation. There are several other indicators of distance. Aside from the well known Cepheid variable stars, there are also surface brightness fluctuations, the Tully-Fisher relation, type Ia supernovae, and a few others.

The relevance here is that they are all correlated together, and especially with redshift. If redshift does not correlate with distance, then how can it correlate so well to several other measured parameters, which also should correlate with distance in the same way?

One cannot speak of throwing out the redshift distance relationship, without also throwing out everything we know about cosmological distances. This point should be adressed, but almost never is addressed, by those who wish to eliminate the correlation between redshift & distance.

Reference: A Critical Review of Selected Techniques for Measuring Extragalactic Distances, G.h. Jacoby et al., Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 104: 599-662, August 1992.

I think it's especially strange that some people fight so hard against it, considering that a redshift/distance relationship is also the most logical and intuitively understandable explanation. It's a simple doppler-shift phenomenon showing motion away. What could be easier to grasp?

Every other means to explain it that I've heard has to postulate some unknown or incredibly complicated mechanism to explain what we see. This one is simple, uses a well-known phenomenon, and explains observations perfectly. Why can't people just accept the obvious?

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

You, guys, oversimplify the situation till absurdity. Existence of intrinsic redshifts does not rule out the redshift-distance relation, it simply adds some uncertainty to it. You cannot deny the intrinsic redshifts; after all, a black hole has an infinite intrinsic redshift, so all the intermediate values are necessarily present.
Furthermore, there's no need for a uniformly increasing distance (universal inflation) to account for the cosmological redshifts. Oscillatory motions in the space medium are more than enough for that. A signal sent from an orbiting satellite is both redshifted and extended in duration due to the orbital speed. But it's not necessary to have any specific direction in that motion to cause a redshift - random oscillatory motions of the source or medium have the same net average effect. The medium between the remote source and local observer is affected by the fields of the matter in between, moreover, those fields and matter are moving randomly. While the effect of longitudinal component of medium jitters averages out close to zero, the transverse one accumulates with time in travel. How can you deny such an obvious mechanism - it totally escapes my understanding.
I'm afraid your "holy scripture" says "Doppler only" - and you are out to defeat all the non-compliant heresies. If that's the case, you guys are no better than the worst of religious fanatics...

Emphasis added

Not so! There are two discontinuities. One between the maximun for stars and the minimum for neutron stars and the other between the maximum for neutron stars and the infinite redshift of black holes.

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

So stick some "quasars" in between, would you [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

I still don't get "intrinsic red-shift." Wouldn't that mess up the H-R diagram?

Silas

Escaping a heavy dense object means losing energy to it's gravity. This is an example of intrinsic redshift. As long as mass/density are not overly peculiar, the normal distance-redshift relations stand and the "mess" is moderate.

Pardon this question from someone who has a lesser theoretical foundation than some others in this forum, but...

If you're proposing that intrinsic redshift plays a significant role in the Hubble redshift-distance relationship, doesn't that imply that more distant objects are systematically more massive? What could possibly lead one to prefer that explanation to the more conventional Doppler interpretation?

Either that, or smaller objects are more massive?

A considerable intrinsic redshift must be a relatively infrequent peculiarity. The primary source of redshift is still the distance, intrinsic redshifts are just a "flavouring".

A/B - that seems reasonable enough, and I doubt that there's any controversy about it. Given your feisty posts in other threads, I was assuming you were challenging the redshift/distance correlation. So... never mind... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

We've had this discussion before.

Agora, your idea about oscillatory fields invalidates the cosmological distance ladder since the intermediary distance measures must be wrong as the oscillations in the field have no effect on distance. This means you have to explain how the high-end of the ladder doesn't offer good measurements for distance.

I'd also bring up gravitational lensing measurements that confirm the redshift distance relation in the current models, but seeing as you are something of a GR-denier as well, I shouldn't waste the space.

What is puzzling is that you still insist on using GR to allow for gravitational redshift; you need to explain where all the mass causing the enormous redshifts is. Intervening mass doesn't cut it as the light will be blueshifted entering the domain and redshifted upon exiting it. I encourage you to look at the literature available on the subject of gravitational redshifts in observations. Specifically, you should consider papers like the following which offer a huge constraint on your intrisic redshift idea:


Title: Detecting the Gravitational Redshift of Cluster Gas

Authors: Broadhurst, Tom; Scannapieco, Evan

Journal: The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 533, Issue 2, pp. L93-L97. (ApJ Homepage)

Publication Date: 04/2000

Abstract

We examine the gravitational redshift of radiation emitted from within the potential of a cluster. Spectral lines from the intracluster medium (ICM) are redshifted in proportion to the emission-weighted mean potential along the line of sight, amounting to ~50 km s-1 at a radius of 100 kpc h-1, for a cluster dispersion of 1200 km s-1. We show that the relative redshifts of different ionization states of metals in the ICM provide a unique probe of the three-dimensional matter distribution. An examination of the reported peculiar velocities of cD galaxies in well-studied Abell clusters reveals that they are typically redshifted by an average of ~200 km
s-1. This can be achieved by gravity with the addition of a steep central potential associated with the cD galaxy. Note that, in general, gravitational redshifts cause a small overestimate of the recessional velocities of clusters by an average of ~20 km s-1.

[quote]
On 2002-10-14 12:59, JS Princeton wrote:
you need to explain where all the mass causing the enormous redshifts is. Intervening mass doesn't cut it as the light will be blueshifted entering the domain and redshifted upon exiting it.

I find that speculative info.(I have not finishing the translation of the text but this part seem interesting.)
http://www.heretical.org/science/redshift.html
Whether gravitational fields result in collisions or perturbations which detract energy from photons or not, Arp postulates a "screen" between us and the object which removes, in discrete amounts, energy from the photons coming towards us. This leads to a model of shells of matter around redshifted objects, but he considers this a very artificial model.

What can be the cause of light from one object being redshifted relative to another, in the many cases of high redshift or otherwise peculiar galaxies interacting with normal, low redshift galaxies? The stars, gas and dust in one object emit light redshifted relative to the other with which it interacts.

This means that, for example, an atom of hydrogen in a high redshifted object, which makes a given transition from one energy state to the other, must emit or absorb a photon of lesser energy than the same atom would in a lower redshifted one. What determines the transition energy between the two atomic states? One factor is the relative charge between the electron and the nucleus. The other factor is the mass of the electron making the transition between two possible orbital states. Measurements of quasar spectra appear to rule out the possibility that the electric charges are different. This leaves only the mass of the electron.

Arp poses the question: Is the mass of the high redshifted object less than that of the low redshifted object?

The latest Scientific American, October, 2002, refers to recent discoveries about the webs or filaments and sheets of gas draped between the galaxies.

The article is entitled "The emptiest places," by Evan Scannapieco, Patrick Petitjean and Tom Broadhurst. On page 59 the authors refer to the spectral phemomenon (from Quasars)known as "the Lyman-alpha forest."

This indicates that the light is passing through hundreds of intergalactic gas clouds. But, until recently, measurements were not precise enough to determine what is now discovered.

"Ironically, although neutral hydrogen neatly accounts for the lines, it can constitute only a small fraction of the clouds. Ionized hydrogen and helium must make up the bulk."

Then the authors promote the theory that the gas clouds were re-ionized after the Quasar was formed.

*But one thing for sure, the IGM (inter-galactic medium) is ionized.*<<<

No, we never discussed this particular mechanism.I'm not sure you're talking of the mechanism I described. Essentially, this one boils down to the case of randomly deformed waveguide with fixed ends. Distance-redshift relation holds quite nicely.If you consider me a GR-denier, you're really wasting space. I simply think that GR is an approximate description built over the unknown deeper reality.If you simply calculated total gravitational redshift for uniform matter density of 1 proton per m^3 in flat uniform universe, you'd get about 10^26 meters for z=1...
But this time I only talked about the intrinsic redshifts of objects much denser than a cluster (if quasars are nearby, they must be denser than galaxies).Okay, let the light travel through matter-free vacuum, measure time in transit and zero redshift. Then repeat the same, but this time let a big mass traverse at high enough speed near the light path (3D) - the path becomes longer, use another mass - deform the path further, and so on. If interrupting masses and their fields travel in random directions, their effect does not average out to zero in transverse plane. In simple words - the light is dragged by the field, so escape takes longer than entrance.

This is completely tangential to the discussion. If quantum mechanics was changing over IGM scales it would manifest itself in different ways for different coupling constants. As it is, the reshifts are uniform across all species to an incredible precision.

How can quasars be nearby if there are absorption features seen in them for identified intergalactic and galactic clouds? The absorption lines in quasars are not simply broadened as you would expect for internal gas clouds that were gravitationally redshifted, they are actually at measured locations.

Title:

On Quasar Distances and Lifetimes in a Local Model
Authors:

Bell, M. B.
Affiliation:

AA(Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics, National Research Council of Canada, 100 Sussex Drive, Ottawa, ON K1A 0R6, Canada.)
Journal:

The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 567, Issue 2, pp. 801-810. (ApJ Homepage)
Publication Date:

03/2002
Origin:

UCP
ApJ Keywords:

galaxies: individual (NGC 1068), Galaxies: Seyfert, Galaxies: Quasars: General
Abstract Copyright:

(c) 2002: The American Astronomical Society
Bibliographic Code:

2002ApJ...567..801B


Abstract

It was shown previously from the redshifts and positions of the compact, high-redshift objects near the Seyfert galaxy NGC 1068 that they appear to have been ejected from the center of the galaxy in
four similarly structured triplets. In this local scenario, they lie at the distance of NGC 1068, a distance much closer than a cosmological interpretation of their redshifts would imply. A large portion of
their measured redshifts would then be intrinsic, and it was found that this intrinsic component decreases with increasing distance from the galaxy. Here some of the consequences of assuming such a
local model for quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) are examined. As has been found in several similar cases, the luminosity of the objects increases systematically with the decrease in redshift. The
luminosity change cannot be Doppler-related, and a model in which the luminosities and intrinsic redshifts vary with time is found to fit the data best. This local scenario thus appears to require a
model similar to the one suggested by Narlikar & Das, in which the creation of matter is ongoing throughout the life of the universe. In fact, the observed increase in luminosity with decreasing intrinsic
redshift found here is in reasonable agreement with their prediction. In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies. From the ages of the ejection events in NGC 1068, it is found that in a relatively short time (107-108 yr), the intrinsic redshift component in these objects disappears and their
luminosity approaches that of a normal galaxy. This period, which is much shorter than a Hubble time, may then determine the approximate lifetime of a QSO, and, in this model, QSOs may be the first,
short-lived stage in the life of a galaxy. Perhaps of even more interest is the result that when QSOs are assumed to be local, their generation rate is found to be constant throughout the age of the
universe. There is no need to invoke an epoch of enhanced, high-luminosity QSO production as is required in the cosmological redshift model to explain the apparent bunching-up of high-luminosity
QSOs with redshifts near z=2. Finally, because QSO lifetimes are relatively short (less than 108 yr), an initial event (big bang) is still required to explain the high-redshift galaxies whose intrinsic
redshift component will have long since disappeared. The Hubble expansion is therefore still expected to apply for normal galaxies.

JS Princeton
Quote:
The
luminosity change cannot be Doppler-related, and a model in which the luminosities and intrinsic redshifts vary with time is found to fit the data best. This local scenario thus appears to require a
model similar to the one suggested by Narlikar & Das, in which the creation of matter is ongoing throughout the life of the universe. In fact, the observed increase in luminosity with decreasing intrinsic
redshift found here is in reasonable agreement with their prediction. In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies. From the ages of the ejection events in NGC 1068, it is found that in a relatively short time (107-108 yr), the intrinsic redshift component in these objects disappears and their
luminosity approaches that of a normal galaxy. This period, which is much shorter than a Hubble time, may then determine the approximate lifetime of a QSO, and, in this model, QSOs may be the first,
short-lived stage in the life of a galaxy. Perhaps of even more interest is the result that when QSOs are assumed to be local, their generation rate is found to be constant throughout the age of the
universe. There is no need to invoke an epoch of enhanced, high-luminosity QSO production as is required in the cosmological redshift model to explain the apparent bunching-up of high- luminosity
QSOs with redshifts near z=2. Finally, because QSO lifetimes are relatively short (less than 108 yr), an initial event (big bang) is still required to explain the high-redshift galaxies whose intrinsic
redshift component will have long since disappeared. The Hubble expansion is therefore still expected to apply for normal galaxies.
_________________________

I agree totally with that description,

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
Arp suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent redshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of the object's total redshift.
Mathematically, an object's total redshift value is the product of the inherent factor times the velocity factor. (e.g., If an object's inherent redshift value is, say, 0.3, and its velocity redshift is 0.06, then the total redshift that will be measured in light coming from this object is given by (1+0.3)(1+0.06) = 1.378. Which is 1+z; making its total redshift value, z = 0.378. In other words, for this example, the object's light is redshifted 30% due to its youth and then that light is shifted another 6% due to its velocity. The total is not the sum (36%) but rather 37.8%.

The total multiplying factor (1+ zt) is, therefore, made up of two multiplicative factors. Mathematically:
(1+ zt) = (1+ zi) (1+ zv) (1)
where zi is called the "intrinsic red shift of the object" and zv is the "red shift due to velocity of the object".

Consider, as an example, a pair of quasars symmetrically placed on either side of their parent galaxy. Both have the same intrinsic redshift value and their velocity redshift values are equal in magnitude but opposite in sign (one is approaching us and one is receding). Let their measured values of total redshift be z1 and z2 respectively. From the above equation we have

(1+ zi) (1+ zv) = (1+ z1)
and (1+ zi) (1- zv) = (1+ z2)
Expanding each yields 1 + zi + zv + zi zv = (1+ z1)
and 1 + zi - zv - zi zv = (1+ z2)
Adding the last two gives 2 + 2 zi = 2+ z1 + z2
Or zi = (z1 + z2)/2 (2)
So the intrinsic redshift value of a pair of symmetrically placed quasars is simply the arithmetic mean of the individual raw measured values.



Example
On pages 15-17 in his book "Seeing Red...", Arp describes a pair of quasars surrounding galaxy NGC 4258. Their observed total red shifts are zt1 = 0.40 and zt2 = 0.65. Assuming they both have identical intrinsic red shift components, Arp calculates the arithmetical average
zi = (0.40+0.65)/2 = 0.525.

He then calculates the velocity red shift component for each via equation (1), above, as follows:
(1+zv1) = (1+zt1) / (1+zi1) = 1.40 / 1.525 = 0.918
or
zv1 = 0.918 – 1 = –0.082

and
(1+zv2) = (1+zt2) / (1+zi2) = 1.65 / 1.525 = 1.082
or
zv2 = 1.082 – 1 = +0.082

The quasar with the negative velocity red shift value is approaching us and the one with positive velocity red shift is receding.

Electromagnetics Volume 18, Number 4 July - August 1998 Generalized Telegraphist's Equations for Deformed Waveguides; Laurens Weiss and Wolfgang Mathis, pp. 353.

If you would be so kind as to show how your model fits with the theory, I would be appreciative. I can't understand what kind of nonsense you have in mind from your non-descriptive prose.

Absolutely wrong. http://hem.passagen.se/hav/ich7.htm

Have at it, Agora. Tell us what's wrong with that webpage.

No, the path is not longer at all because the mass is travelling 3.0*10^-10 cm/sec slower than the light beam that is going next to it. It averages out to zero because the geodesic is always the shortest distance unless your density is extraordinary and the coincidence of the path is just right. We do not have the case for this on average, in fact, we have just the opposite.

If the quasars are born charged, their interaction with IGM may have a lot of peculiarities. The IGM in the area next to them would also be primed by a strong EM pulse during their ejection. If quasars really are some kind of ejecta from parent structure, their chance of being positively electrically charged is close to 100%. If I'm allowed to hypothesize freely, I'd propose that quasars could be born from black holes once increased charge destroys the inner horizon.The "nearby quasars" must be somewhere between a density of a galaxy and a density of a star, i.e. relatively compact objects capable of internal spatially-coherent processes. Ideally, a plasma somewhat similar to that inside a gas laser, but with strong positive charge density, would work out best.

BTW, you've quoted a very nice abstract. Nice to see a serious approach to an alternative model. I only wish the authors added some electric charge into the picture.

Then Hubble-flow redshifts are still good for galaxies and clusters. The only problem remains for you to explain where those absorption features come in. While your at it, why is the Seyfert Galaxy comparison bad? Furthermore, one has to take into the account this point from this reference webpage:

NOw that I've given the local-quasar fans something to cheer about (note: I don't agree with Bell's formulation, but he has some interesting points). Here's another abstract:

Title:

Evidence consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar redshifts
Authors:

Liang, En-Wei; Qin, Yi-Ping
Journal:

Publications of the Yunnan Observatory (ISSN 1001-7526), 90, No. 2, p. 16 - 21 (2002)
Publication Date:

00/2002
Origin:

ARI
Keywords:

Quasars, Redshift, Cosmology
Bibliographic Code:

2002PYunO..90...16L


Abstract

We select a sample including 401 sources in which both absorption and emission redshifts are available from the table 1 in Hewitt and Burbidge (1993). The sample is the largest one for the
investigation of the quasar redshifts so far. It is found that most of the absorption redshifts (93.6%) are smaller than the corresponding emission redshifts, and the result is consistent with the
conclusion drawn from a small sample in 1970s. The result indicates that the redshifts of quasars are indeed distance indicators. That is consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar
redshifts.

Agora, please, write a paper proposing a mechanism and explain how the absorption redshifts can be created for the given publically available sample of quasars. Don't be shy, get yourself published if you think you have an unsung theory.

I suspect you may be full of hot air.

AgoraBasta
Quote:
If I'm allowed to hypothesize freely, I'd propose that quasars could be born from black holes once increased charge destroys the inner horizon.
_______________
Rather than a supermassive black hole at the center of galaxy i found this as a interesting and more probable alternative. (See below) "In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies"
This local scenario thus appears to require a
model similar to the one suggested by Narlikar & Das, in which the creation of matter is ongoing throughout the life of the universe
In their model, matter is created with a high intrinsic redshift in mini Big Bangs and is ejected in the form of QSOs from the centers
of active galaxies.

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Galactic.html

http://www.etheric.com/GalacticCenter/Gravity.html

http://www.etheric.com/LaVioletteBooks/ether.html
The luminous cosmic ray emitting source at the center of our Galaxy is not a "black hole" as some astronomers and the unwitting mass media would have you believe. Rather, it is a celestial orb that is over 2 million times the mass of our Sun and currently is seen, to radiate about 20 million times as much energy as our Sun. With a density of more than one ton per cubic centimeter, similar to a white dwarf, it would measure about one solar diameter. This Galactic core mass, known as Sagittarius A*, does not swallow matter to generate its energy. Rather, both energy and matter are spontaneously created within its depths seemingly in blatant violation of the First law of Thermodynamics (see below). The ensuing outward flux of radiation keeps this central "Mother Star" from collapsing.

The gravity potential field around this Galactic core decreases inversely with increasing radial distance (Gp ~ 1/ r), as shown above. Stars, gas, and dust orbit this body with velocities as high as 50% of the speed of light, but do not fall toward it. Gas and dust is instead seen to be moving radially outward from this source. After long intervals, the matter/energy generation process within the Sagittarius A* becomes unstable and it explodes with intense luminosity.

There's too many free parameters to make a decent paper upon the naked idea. The good way to do that would be by making a numerical simulation in a computer model. I don't think that I have time and resources to do that professionally, that's why I post here.Thanks for not calling me names, sir.

Don't you understand that a waveguide of variable length modulates the frequency or do you just choose to be offensive?That means that you never tried that primitive calculation or you don't know of how to approach the problem. A lot of unnecessary assumptions and uninventive straightforward calculation methods. Otherwise - could be workable.Try putting a laser gyro in rotational oscillations around its axis and get a phase shift growing linearly with time (with number of oscillations). (Don't you tell me you don't understand how it's related!)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2002-10-14 19:00 ]</font>

I was abundantly clear that all I need from you is a mathematical illustration of how this waveguide works and what its effects are. I even presented to you the model to use. All you need to do is fill in the pieces. It is a simple request and your offensive response makes me think you don't know what you're talking about.

Please be specific. I gave you my evaluation of your evidence, now you critique it. What could be more clear? (Sheesh! I feel like I'm talking to a creationist!)

Spurious. Unless you think that the geocentrists have a point and we're living in a universe that spins around a central earth.

This is kind of diverging from the main point. However, in order to be a decent amateur astronomer, one must be a Ptolemaic and think of the sky as revolving around the earth overhead. Can you imagine doing a Messier Marathon and simultaneously thinking like a Copernican? C'est impossible! Perhaps some of the Creationist thinking is like Ptolemaic thinking. Without a great amount of thought, reality gets lost because of mere appearances. Simplistic thought is the result and, voila! Creationism!

Sorry for breaking the cadence of the discussion, but I think that creationists have difficulty when it comes to observation of the night sky (or day sky, for that matter). It feeds misunderstanding of science.

Now to go back to the real topic. Sorry for sidetracking the discussion.

ljbrs [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img] [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

__________________
"There is in the universe neither center nor circumference." Giordano Bruno Born 1548. Torched 1600.

Yes, I believe I can. But only in the past ten years.