http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0408348

Acceptance, I listed 3 papers, that's maybe 3 "bright summer students"?

Cheers.

One of the arguments that can be used against Arp et al's theory of close quasars is the finding of line of sight intervening gas clouds between a QSO and Earth. A recent study by CalTech in association with the U of C & Nasa has identified suchan event with a series of 5 intervening clouds representing a step-series out to the QSO PG0117+213 at z= >1.34.

Models of Five Absorption Line Systems Along the Line of Sight.

This is a 49 page paper in PDF format, so be prepared to spend some time reading.

An interesting exerpt:

Dispite the difficulty, the author were able to use the QSO's spectrum though the intervening gas clouds to give an accurate approximation of the distances of the intervening clouds. In Arp's world this could not occur.

I would take this as evidence which precludes Arp's model of the universe.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

I agree, this is a pretty important case against Arp et. al.
Curiously, JMB and the CREIL guys seem to think that all of these lines can be created in the magic gas around the quasar, but that's using their theory of redshift, which also seems to have some big holes in it.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

This is a very loose relationship, at least as set out in the paper you quoted. Russle used the Tully-Fisher relationship of galaxy mass to galaxy luminousity to determine the intrinsic redshift of distant galaxies. The problem is the Tully-Fisher relationship assumes that all galaxies of an equal mass are equally luminescient, such that the TFR relationship will be dependant on the calibration standard adopted by the author. The problem with that is that the mass of a galaxy is not necessarily all tied to the galaxy's luminousity, therefore the speed of the rotation of the galaxy may not be an accurate measure when tied to specific luminousity. As such, it seems to me that Russle's paper seems to show only that the Tully-Fisher relationship may be suspect.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Perhaps VanderL is taking a few days off (I haven't seen his answer to these questions). Not to worry, let me say a few quick words about at least some of the papers I've read reporting 'discordant redshifts'.

Bell (quantisation of redshifts) comes to quite different conclusions than Arp et al (periodicity of redshifts, a la Karlsson). However, when you read these papers you'll find their statistical analyses and treatment of systematics (e.g. selection effects) and errors (note that this is technical word, used in astrophysics - and all science? - with a specific meaning, which meaning is quite different from the ordinary meaning in everyday English) is, shall we say, weak (a Swede would no doubt be much blunter). While the chart at the bottom of this 2dF QSO Redshift Survey page isn't in the same format as those you'll find in Bell, Arp, etc, it illustrates nicely how important a good analysis of selection effects and errors can be (if any reader has difficulty understanding the chart, let us know; I'll be happy to walk you through it).

The Lopez-Corredoira & Gutierrez (2002, 2004) work on "[the] pair of high z HII galaxies [...] present in a luminous filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to the companion galaxy NGC 7603B which is previously known to have a discordant redshift" (from Russell's paper) is another example. Lopez-Corredoira & Gutierrez do an analysis of the probability of finding such a pair by chance, and conclude it's very low. However, their analysis assumes that distant objects are spread uniformly across the sky! As this APOD page shows, using data from the APM galaxy survey, their basic assumption is flawed. And by a curious coincidence, the HST image of Stephan's Quintet shows something just like what Lopez-Corredoira & Gutierrez (and no doubt Russell, Arp, and other followers) say is extremely improbable - a chance alignment of a foreground galaxy filament with a background cluster.

There are deeper problems than just these .... of the 'one in a hundred million chance' kind. First, if there are 100 million galaxies easily visible in the Palomar Schmidt survey plates, then you would expect to find one of these highly improbables! Second, if you've gone scouring the sky for unusual objects, and then try to extrapolate from the few you examined in detail, you will have a very difficult time trying to work out statistical measures of how confident a skeptical commentator should be in conclusions based on your extrapolations. Third, many of the 'one in a million' calculations are based on the assumption that the underlying distribution is Gaussian ... yet unless you check that it is, any conclusion you draw can be challenged. In my reading of the papers by the Arpians, I have yet to see any acknowledgement of these difficulties, let alone a decent treatment of them.

Finally, about mainstream cosmology. If you read the early papers (say, 1990s), you will quickly see that many have the same sorts of shortcomings I described in the previous para. In particular, you will see lots of "95% confidence limit" estimates of various cosmological parameters, sometimes in the same paper which lists >20 of these! However, in 21st century papers, I think you'll find more rigourous approaches being used, such as Bayesian analyses and information theory.

Hi Nereid,

No, it's the other way around, I've been working, UT forum is just fun.

What I meant was that we lack experimental verification of expansion. The redshift/distance relation is not an experimental verification of expansion.

I'm familiar with the scientific lingo, I think I know that Swede btw.

The observations are real, the explanation of what we see is a matter of interpretation, if you are not satisfied with their calculations, there's still the observations (and there are many examples) that need explaining. You could say that other evidence tells us the alignments are chance because we "know" redshift is a distance indicator, but that doesn't explain the observation. I think more detailed information is called for, and if mainstream scientists are happy to ignore these examples, I think that's bad science.
The Burbidge paper (astro-ph/0409215) showing a quasar in front of NGC 7319's core is the most dramatic example, how would you explain on observation like that?

Once the door of intrinsic redshift is open, all those papers could have 99.99% confidence limits, and still be 100% wrong.

Cheers.

I've discussed this with you on this forum before. The quasar is NOT in front of the galaxy, but is seen through the galaxy. Your contention that the galaxy is opaque was easily shown to be wrong.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Correct.

That's your idea, not the authors of the article's, nor mine.

So, what does that prove?
That's not my contention, and you're wrong in assuming that I accept your explanation. Only a more detailed study could convince me that this object is a background object. Even Tim Thompson thinks it is more likely a micro-quasar, than a background quasar.

Cheers.

Likewise, I assume, only a more detailed study could convince you it is a foreground object.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I think the study has shown there is every reason to think it is a foreground object (actually they say it is interacting, so a same-distance object), and only a detailed study showing it is NOT in front of NGC 7319 will convince me otherwise.

Cheers.

.

IE: "I have my head in the sand, and nothing you say will make me pull it out to look around".

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

That's the way I read it.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

A new paper which seems to have a bearing on this discussion:

DETECTION OF THE BARYON ACOUSTIC PEAK IN THE LARGE-SCALE CORRELATION FUNCTION OF SDSS LUMINOUS RED GALAXIES

ABSTRACT
We present the large-scale correlation function measured from a spectroscopic sample of 46,748 luminous red galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The survey region covers 0.72h−3Gpc3 over 3816 square degrees and 0.16 < z < 0.47, making it the best sample yet for the study of large-scale structure. We find a well-detected peak in the correlation function at 100h−1Mpc separation that is an excellent match to the predicted shape and location of the imprint of the recombination-epoch acoustic oscillations on the low-redshift clustering of matter. This detection demonstrates the linear growth of structure by gravitational instability between z ≈ 1000 and the present and confirms a firm prediction of the standard cosmological theory. The acoustic peak provides a standard ruler by which we can measure the ratio of the distances to z = 0.35 and z = 1089 to 4% fractional accuracy and the absolute distance to z = 0.35 to 5% accuracy. From the overall shape of the correlation function, we measure the matter density mh2 to 8% and find agreement with the value from cosmic microwave background (CMB) anisotropies. Independent of the constraints provided by the CMB acoustic scale, we find m = 0.273±0.025+0.123(1+w0)+0.137 K. Including the CMB acoustic scale, we find that the spatial curvature is K = −0.010± 0.009 if the dark energy is a cosmological constant. More generally, our results provide a measurement of cosmological distance, and hence an argument for dark energy, based on a geometric method with the same simple physics as the microwave background anisotropies. The standard cosmological model convincingly passes these new and robust tests of its fundamental properties.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

Hey you two sopranos, read the whole quote, my stance is that the authors made a convincing case and if it turns out to be different than the way they have interpreted the data, it will take some extra study. Why should I doubt the author's conclusions?

Cheers.

Don't know if all this quoting comes across but looking back I noticed this.

That's rich from somone who is convinced that:
Exactly the opposite of the author's claims. Who has it's head in the sand here.

Cheers.

Because:
- His conclusions are in conflict with the vast majority of all other astronomers
- In order to be correct would require most physics to be overturned
- His evidence does not present a solid case, but is based on impressions of photographs
- There is overwhelming evidence that quasars are at cosmological distances, and do NOT have an intrinsic redshift
- There has never been the least effort on Arp's part to explain a physical mechanism that causes "intrinsic redshift".

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Science is not done by consensus vote, so if his conclusions conflict with others, that's just science.

Most physics need not be overturned by this finding, that is nonsense. What physics do you think need to be overturned?

This is the only reason for me to doubt the conclusions, if the data are incorrect you have a point, but the conclusions are not reached "based on impressions of a photograph", and are solid based on the available data.

So what, again science is not like that.

If it was easy, you or I could probably have found this mechanism. Their work is observational science, empirical data pointing to an intrinsic redshift mechanism. There is nothing wrong with that.
Cheers.

Yes it does. You make observations, weigh the evidence, propose a model that explains the observations, make predictions, look for new results to confirm or refute.

So far this all points to quasars being very active galactic nuclei [super-massive black holes] with beams coming straight at us.

The Arp Group has come up with nothing that comes close to explaining as many details as this, and certainly nothing that explains the overall structure of the universe as seen through WMAP, SDSS, etc.

Instead, they have this idea that quasars pop out of active galactic nuclei [how? who knows, no mechanism can be conjured up to explain it], and these quasars have some miraculous quality that gives them a very high redshift, and somehow, these things violate the conservation of mass by turning into whole new galaxies, but these galaxies are special so they APPEAR to be VERY far away, even though they must be very close to the original active galaxy that spit them out. How do they do this? It's a mystery. What makes the AGN Active? It's busy giving birth to baby galaxies. How? It's a mystery. Their model when examined, is nothing but unexplained phenomena that violate the laws of physics, and common sense.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

This just out:
Seems to me there must be a hole in the galaxy, and the quasar is indeed way behind the galaxy. Or perhaps the galaxy is dark-lensing the redshift. Anyway, since this is a one-off, there is no correlation with other QSOs, and might just indicate a temporal warp field distortion.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

__________________
Ian Tresman
plasma-universe.com

That's basically it. Except no hole is needed. Galaxies are not solid objects, they are collections of stars. When seen the face on, the stars actual surface area make up less than one millionth the surface area of the galaxy. Light from behind shines right through unimpeded.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Maybe; and once electrons turn into green frogs, all that good experimental work on QM would turn out to be 100% wrong.

So what, to you, might some examples of 'experimental verification of expansion' be?
Since all we 'see' is the two-dimensional sky, working out the third dimension (distance from us) is a challenge, and chance alignment inevitable. IMHO, that's one reason why doing the stats - as rigourously as possible - on observations is essential. It's also partly why I asked you:
AFAIK, every 'solid case' in the Arp/Burbidge et al collection has become weaker on more detailed examination ... Stephan's Quintet, 3C273, the M87 jet, quasar periodicities, ... Further, even the 'empirical relationships' such as quasar ->BL Lacs -> high-z Seyferts -> "HII galaxies" -> 'normal' galaxies wilt when more good observations are in the pot. (BTW, I'm still waiting for someone to confirm that this is the Arp 'model').

IOW, finding something anomalous in the sky barely counts as the first step.

That being said, I've not yet read the Burbidge NGC 7319 paper, nor had a chance to "the large ScI’s in Virgo [which have Cepheid distances of] 14.9 Mpc (NGC 4536), 15.2 Mpc (NGC 4321) and 15.8 Mpc (NGC 4535)" (from the Russell paper you provided a link to).

Interesting article. The whole thing can be found at:

http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

It is the same galaxy that has been discussed here before. A member of Stephan's Quintet, NGC 7319. They're announcing this like they just discovered it.

Interesting.

Nice pictures, though they do look kind of familiar.

It also seems kind of old-fashioned to call something with a z=2.11 at the "edge of the universe". At this point we see that quasars are mostly from a particular time period with a few more recent ones from rare new or colliding spiral galaxies. Back when Geoffrey Burbidge was at the height of his carrier, z=2.11 was unbelievably far away.

I agree that it is funny that they are billing it as a new discovery. The article hints that the real point is that they got some time with the Keck Telescope to observe this thing. They will announce some findings next month.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Gee, you seem to think Burbidge is a dinosaur or something. Can't you leave out this sniping at respected scientists? It doesn't resolve the case.

Now this will be helpful, more data.

Cheers.

I liked Duane's "if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle" better.
But the point is the same, wasn't it Darwin who said something like "the most beautiful theory can be overturned by some ugly fact" ?

Cheers.

Don't flame me.

I am not sniping at the elder statesmen of astronomy. I am pointing out that this article contains a statement that was considered accurate thirty-five years ago, but today is far from accurate. This puts the whole paper's conclusions in jeopardy.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

VanderL: The original paper by Burbidge et al:

The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319

I find it interesting that the radio frequency map shows a strong separation between the QSO & the galactic centre.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

"Their model when examined, is nothing but unexplained phenomena that violate the laws of physics, and common sense."

The laws of physics as we know them are based on the visible parts of the matter. These unexplained phenomena are OK with the theory of interaction. You can see that the structure of reality contracts and expands and thus ejects smaller similar ones that do the same (Figs. 15-20 in Savov's Theory of Interaction). In the case of massive galaxies the smaller ones could be seen as quasars. They will evolve into new galaxies through the recurrent contraction and expansion of their structure, which is built from one basic matter. The theory of interaction views comic redshift as expanding structure of aging light. Then the light from the new born galaxies, i.e. the Arp's quasars, will age faster due to living denser regions of basic matter, which is just the case with these compact space bodies.

It is not that easy to say what comes from what in a self-consistent manner. One should know that the application of calculations is fundamentally limited and it is clearly justified in theory of terms. Some people consider calculations equal to science. Calculations are only by product of science where they are applicable. The lack of contradiction is what we should be after. Then we should dress our findings in numbers. That is what Savov theory of interaction is all about.

No, they are based on mathematical concepts that have been quantified through obseration.

Hogwash. We are not dicussing this here Paul21, you have a thread to discuss Savov's theory elsewhere and I would thank you to keep your musings on the subject there. I remind you that we prefer that posters stay on topic (well mostly) and while I can see you really want to argue for this theory, again, this is not the thread for that.

As this is your first warning, I will leave your last comment as is. In future, however, the comment will either be editted or removed.

__________________
All civilizations become either spacefaring or extinct.~ Carl Sagan ~

Humanity must rise above the Earth, to the top of the atmosphere and beyond, for only then will we fully understand the world in which we live.~Socrates, 500 B.C. ~

Let every man judge according to his own standards, by what he has himself read, not by what others tell him. ~Albert Einstein~

I will also be watching for this. Paul21, you are welcome to make on-topic comments in any thread you like, but you may NOT invoke Savov or the Theory of Interaction anywhere except the ToI thread in the Alternative Theories section.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak