|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Mark Forums Read |
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|||
|
Maybe this quasar isn't really that far away and bright; maybe it has an intrinsic red shift.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2868149.stm |
|
|||
|
Then again, maybe this quasar is really that far away and bright; maybe the red shift logically indicates distance. Hmmmm?
__________________
~~ ><>><> ~~ ><,,> ><,,> ...`;=;p d;=;' /\/\^/\ ^^ ^/\/\_ Democracy Now! - The lost art of investigative news reporting. |
|
|||
|
Four "maybe's" in this thread so far...
That's a refreshing and accurate reflection on the real state of our knowledge [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Atko on 2003-03-20 19:22 ]</font> |
|
|||
|
Care to propose an intrinsic mechanism, Atko?
Didn't think so. The fact of the matter is, science is prefaced by one big maybe. Putting them in every sentence I've found only serves to make the crackpots think more highly of themselves. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Mechanism and phenomenon are not the same thing. You can develop evidence for a phenomenon without knowing why it happens. To use a different example: Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift, had solid evidence that it had happened, but had no mechanism. So he was largely ignored. Fine … but he turned out to be right. This has not been explained in standard views. Really quite an oddball. http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203466 And how does labeling people "crackpots" help promote honest, useful discussion anyway? Do you want to have a dialogue with these people or just continue to take shots at them? Frankly, I'm a bit fed up with the demeaning comments you slip into a great many of your posts. It doesn't do the good science you are presenting any service. |
|
|||
|
Copyrighted text deleted by The Bad Astronomer
READ THE FAQ! Copying copyrighted text is against the rules here. Do it again and you will be banned. The link is in the next post below. <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2003-03-22 01:22 ]</font> |
|
||||
|
N.B. The previous post appears to be a verbatim copy of this web page.
I have some issues with CSICOP, but most of your argument appears to be based on a single, unverifiable quote by one of its members. I find CSICOP irritatingly smug at times, quick to criticize "argument from authority" in general but just as quick to accept what organizations like NASA say as gospel. But your extended complaints about Kurtz defining what is considered science is unsupported at best.
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling. |
|
|||
|
dgruss --
The fact that there are crackpots in the world is really not up for debate in my mind. I don't claim that every "against the mainstream" idealist is a crackpot. I only claim that there is a fallacious argument out there that because science is built on induction that "anything goes". "I can believe in whatever I desire becuase science cannot do anybetter than provide 'maybes'." This completely disregards lessons from statistical science and paradigmatic development. If someone wants to challenge the mainstream, they have to realize what they're up against. Your example, dgruss, of dark matter is very apt in this case. The mechanism there was simply an added mass term that wasn't seen in the most generous mass-to-light ratios. A very straightforward and clear proposal. Vera Rubin was almost laughed off-stage, and well she should have been because the proposal was so contrary to what was paradigmatic. However, in the end, truthful investigations win out in science always. Rubin was vindicated and stands as an icon in astronomy. No one said that science was going to be a painless process of people who just say, "maybe, maybe, maybe". Science, if anything, is robust. In the back of the mind of all scientists is the assurance that some observation could be made that would cause a total reworking of the paradigm. However, the scientific endeavor would never progress if people simply gnawed on their fingernails all day worrying about such contingencies. That's why there is a peer-review process and an academic aspect to astronomy: it's to insure that we don't start from scratch for everything that we do. Of course, every person born on this Earth starts from scratch, and so there has to be people along the way who help them out. It's simply a shame that so many of them are so militantly ignorant of science. And when I say militantly ignorant, know that I mean that one can be ignorant of science and still be a fine guide into the world of scientific investigation. There are plenty of school teachers I have met over the years who didn't know much about science but understood the scientific method and had the yearning for learning in them that led them to be great teachers. I'm sure there are even people who are militantly ignorant in one area of science but could certainly teach well in another area. I am appalled by much of what comes out of the media passing as "science". Creationism, in my mind, is a horrendous joke. That the majority of Americans "doubt" the observational fact of evolution never ceases to amaze me and I can only assume it's because there is a consistent disinformation campaign going on by means of the militantly ignorant. Now, there are those who are militantly informed. Perhaps I fall into that category. Perhaps you think I take "potshots" at those who disagree with me. I don't think that's true. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Atko--
As someone who addresses the physical interpretation of spectral shifts in my work on a daily basis, I wonder what the intent is when you post "Shhhh" and "That's a refreshing and accurate reflection on the real state of our knowledge". This seems to indicate to me that you possess some "accurate reflection" on the "real state" of our knowledge that hasn't been forthcoming on this board. How am I supposed to take such a statement? So I point out that the MOST CONSISTENT theory is the mainstream's and go on to describe why it's problematic to talk in wishy-washy 'maybes'. That's the sum total of my comments. I, frankly, am tired of defending a consistent measurement in astronomy as being dependent on velocity. There's a point where this "Arp-like" discussion over extreme objects is missing the forest for the trees. We have literally millions of redshifts that are taken and independent corroboration of a redshift distance relation by simple sclaing arguments if nothing else. Spectral shifts are proportional in the way we expect due to doppler velocities, and I have yet to see alternative proposal that is supported by this observational evidence. We've gone over other proposals in the past and found them lacking, and I just don't think that this argument that we "don't understand the redshift-distance relationship" has any teeth to it at all. There are errors on H<sub>0</sub>, true. There is at least one other mechanism that causes local redshifts independent of velocities, and there are distant-independent peculiar velocities. Other than that, what is left? That is the accurate reflection of the real state of knowledge that I can see. The rest is just grandstanding, idle speculation, or philosophical argumentation. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img] (that smiley, btw, means I'm joking) |
|
||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
This is an “Against the Mainstream” forum – not an “I worship the mainstream with every fiber of my being” forum. People should be allowed to post here without the responses to the science (good or bad) being combined with qualitative insinuations about the people that are posting the alternative views and the assigning of rude labels such as “crank” or “bizarre” or whatever. Quote:
I would hold up the exchange that Tim Thompson and I have recently had on the “Expanding Universe” thread as a model for how these discussions can be politely pursued. Quote:
There are people out there with a genuine interest in Halton Arp’s work. They should be able to discuss those ideas on this board without dismissive harassment and intellectual clubbings. Are you prepared to go on record as saying that not a single one of Arp’s redshift anomalies will turn out to be a real anomaly - period? Despite your protests, it IS still possible that Arp is right. That is why people continue to take an interest. For example, on the other thread, we disagree on the interpretation of the Virgo cluster peculiar velocity anomaly. You asked why I would think that is anything other than a statistical fluke. So we agree that it is unusual. Well, if I think there might be other examples, why shouldn’t I pursue that? Maybe it will turn out it’s the only example of that phenomenon and maybe it won’t. But what harm is done in pursuing the possibility? Don’t give me a lecture about the poor ignorant public that will be misled. That’s elitist. In the meantime you have not explained the NGC 7603 case http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203466 Nor have you explained the NGC 1068 case: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0111123 And note that both these examples are provided by researchers not connected to Arp. So its not just Arp saying these things. You often say to people on this board something to the effect of “Submit it to a Journal”. Well these people did that – and got it published. Arp has published hundreds of journal articles. Does this mean they are definitely right? – or course not. Does this mean they could be right? – Yes it does. That is why it is not ridiculous to discuss Arp on this board. Not to mention Morley Bell advocates that Arp’s phenomenon happen within the context of an expanding universe. There are lots of variations out there among these people. You demanded a mechanism earlier on this thread and on another threads a while back suggested Arp hasn’t even tried to explain his intrinsic redshifts. He has and this is the reference: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...e5c03c80a11903 And here is their answer for the question about Time dilation in supernova light curves: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...e5c03c80a11948 And if you can find something wrong with these papers that the referees missed, then take a look at the Quasi Steady State Cosmology – because that model is compatible with Arp’s examples too. No harm to science will be done in exploring the fringes and alternate possibilities – as long as the presentation of the possibility is honestly done. I have no problem with dishonest people being called on the carpet. But not every “against the mainstream” view is dishonest. JS, I'm sorry if this is harsh. That is not my intent, but I'm trying to defend the right of people to feel comfortable posting alternate views on this board. I think there is enough evidence in this thread alone to justify the discussion. |
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/sc...ewanted=2&8isc <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-03-22 01:25 ]</font> |
|
||||
|
Quote:
You have taken an article which makes it very clear that the results are at best marginal, and stated your opinion like it's fact. |
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Arp is, frankly, arguing from the perspective of one who has lost a debate. He's been around for ages and is an amazing observer. There's no question of that. But frankly, the theory he supports is no longer tenable, and he's holding on the last strands of a steady-state universe that has become little more than pie-in-the-sky. The WMAP results could have come out contradicting all of this. That would have been exciting and we might have taken an interest in Arp. As it is, there doesn't seem to be a decent motivation behind his curmudgeonry other than to continue to fight the wipper-snapper Big Bangers. This is a bit opionated, I know, but a lot of science comes through the dying out of the old breed. Arp represents one of the last of the old-breed in many ways. He's an iconic figure, but it doesn't look like he's right. Quote:
Frankly, dgruss, I'm a bit surprised you're so upset with me. I don't have a problem with your presentation of observations. That's actually a much more interesting thing to deal with than some of the other things (plasma universe, for example). What I do have a problem with is people just jocularly posting about how "maybe science is wrong". I don't think things are that cavalier. Maybe science is wrong, I admit to that, but what I will not do is say that this is gives free-reign to be dismissive. It seems that Atko has an idea that "theoretical" science is somehow not as robust as other types of knowledge. This is an unfounded philosophical stance, in my humble opinion, and that's why I feel justified in writing in this thread. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe Atko doesn't believe that at all. I hope I'm wrong, in fact. Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, the absorption features of the quasars around 1068 are completely ignored. If it was an intrinsic redshift, there shouldn't be high-z absorption clouds, but a quick check of Simbad reveals that there are for at least two of these quasars. What are the origins of these if they aren't distant? I'm actually surprised you bring up this case since they claim to give peculiar velocities of upwards of 10,000 km/sec. Weren't you arguing against having such high peculiar velocities for cluster and field galaxies in the other thread? As for the emission filaments to NGC 7603, that one is a bit harder to dismiss. My general feeling is that the measurement isn't very high signal-to-noise and isn't very robust. Seyferts are unusual things and so there are usually jets associated with them. What isn't clear to me at all is how the authors decide that there is a "connection" existing via the filaments. If you look at the redshifts of the filaments, they are far different from both the galaxies, but why does that indicate anything more than jets? I am actually very interested in follow-up observations because the ids of these redshifts and the filaments themselves are still in question. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Granted, Arp and co. may not advocate that ALL quasars are truly distant and certainly there are cataclysmic "microquasars" that appear in our own galaxy, but there's a tendency in the crowd to discount the distant quasar hypothesis simply because it doesn't sit well with the ideas of the universe. Then they return to such bizarro ideas as helium lines and other completely incorrect spectra interpretations of what the emission lines are due to. Intrinsic redshifts make due with the idea that there is something causing these lines to be shifted, but why is the velocity-distance relationship of Hubble simply dismissed? ESPECIALLY now that we've resolved and taken spectra of the galaxies around quasars... this advocacy just seems to be too fingers-in-the-ears. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-03-22 02:18 ]</font> |
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Btw, Websters entry for "maybe" is - Maybe - May"be, a. Possible; probable, but not sure. [R.] I think that about sums it up. <font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Atko on 2003-03-22 08:23 ]</font> |
|
|||
|
Atko---
The VAST MAJORITY of professional astronomers do not consider the observational fact of the Big Bang up for debate: That observational fact being: the universe is expanding and it was smaller, denser, and hotter in the past. That's really the gist of the Big Bang. We're going through it right now. And we have observational evidence to show for it in the form of the three prongs of nucleosynthesis, CMB, and the Hubble relation. A scientific theory, by the way, Atko, is the strongest statement science can make. It is akin to the statement that the universe exists (which is observational, indeed)... that is a theory has never had a consistent observation that has been made to contradict it. That's what a theory is paradigmatically. I realize you never said "speculation", but what you are describing a theory to be is closer to speculation. You seem to think there is only 'interpretation' of the data that leads to the Big Bang. This isn't true unless you think that empirical data is necessarily interpreted in which case all science has the MAYBE attached to it (including the existence of the universe itself). |
|
||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
![]() |
|
|||
|
Atko,
My most sincere congrats to you upon delivering such a detailed post which, is not only technically correct, but also is ideologically demystifying the matters "scientific". A very good №100 from you, and glad to see you back! |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
Even the steady-staters admitted that the universe was "expanding"... they just believed that it was infinite and so wasn't expanding in size. Of course, they couldn't explain the CMB or nucleosynthesis which is something you have cavalierly dismissed as well. As Ricky Ricardo says, 'You've got some 'splainin' to do!' Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now the details of the Big Bang are up for debate. The specific models that you employ are things that can be tweaked and debated and weighed. We've been doing that in other threads on, for example, dark matter. That's a mighty different area, though, from a scientific theory. That's the details. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
||||
|
Quote:
If the intrinsic redshifts do exist(observationally), then they are not outside the realm of science - even if an explanation is lacking? It also would seem that dark matter - being that no one has yet identified what it is - is skirting awful close to an unobserved "mechanism that provides an explanation out of science". There is not a satisfactory explanation as to what dark matter actually is – despite dynamical evidence for its existence. Intrinsic redshifts may be in the same situation. Quote:
In order to put an end to discussion of intrinsic redshifts, it is not enough to point to all the ways the Big Bang model appears consistent with the observed universe. It must be demonstrated that the apparent connections between object with discordant redshifts (such as NGC 7603) are not real. For example, last fall a big deal was made about NGC 4319 and Markian 205 - the Hubble Picture that apparently shows the connection is not real and the apparent evidence for absorption in the spectrum of Markian 205. But others argue that the connection is still there if the image is looked at more closely: http://home.earthlink.net/~dascott2/NGC4319.html Has anybody published yet on the absorption that was detected. Arp has indicated that the absorption is much smaller than is expected. |
|
||||
|
Quote:
There is no conflict with the quasar velocities and the cluster peculiar velocities - they are not the same phenomenon. What I was saying on the other thread is that there are LIMITS on the size that peculiar motions can be as induced by cluster gravitational effects. I was pointing out that at some point an apparent discrepancy between the measured redshift - and the redshift predicted from the Hubble relation could be so large that peculiar motions and even distance errors cannot be the explanation. As a hypothetical lets say you have a galaxy with a distance from Fundamental Plane, Surface Brightness fluctuation, Supernova, or Tully-Fisher that has a distance of 50 Mpc. If H0=70, then this galaxy should have a redshift of 3500 km sec-1. If the galaxy is in a cluster and the largest peculiar motions that are possible in clusters are 1500 km sec-1, then theoretically the galaxy could have a measured redshift from 2000 to 5000 km sec-1. But what if the measured redshift is 6500 km sec-1. That is a 3000 km sec-1 excess which is larger than the largest allowable peculiar motions. The "peculiar motions" mentioned for the quasars would actually be ejectional velocities. One of the criticisms of Arp's ejectional model is that there are no blueshifted quasars - quasars ejected toward us. That's not true. Arp&Hazard (1980) identified quasar triplets which show redshifting and blueshifting due to ejectional velocities - but the measured redshifts are still redshifts. One other point/question to ponder. If intrinsic redshifts exist within galaxies in a cluster - wouldn't those intrinsic redshifts drive up the apparent velocity dispersion (because the intrinsic redshift component is not an actual motion) and lead to an overestimated mass estimate? |
|
||||||||
|
Quote:
Now you might say this isn't due to expansion, that's some hypothesis that JK and AB have proposed. However, then we have to have something that BEHAVES like the universe expanding but isn't so. It becomes an Ockham's razor. Sometimes you have to call a duck a duck. We know that velocities cause redshifts. We don't know of anything else other than gravitational redshifts, and we know that's not the mechanism. So what does that leave us in terms of explanation? Now, if the Big Bang didn't work beyond this, then we might have a problem. The thing is, this model of a universe expanding also explains the abundance of light elements. It explains the microwave background. It explains all sorts of things that it could have easily failed on. There is some point where the evidence points to the solution. The same thing can be said of the heliocentric vs. geocentric model. There was evidence that the heliocentric model explained things. However, we can't empirically prove that it's not the way the solar system has chosen to set itself up since there could be arbitrary explanations for Foucault's Pendulum or for retrograde motions. There just comes a point where Ockham's razor trumps these machinations. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Arp's models are absolutely absurd because they are totally arbitrary in their formulation. What he does is create a geometrical model that attempts to mimic the effects of an expansion without actually expanding. Then a whole lot of the rest of the evidence for the Big Bang is completely ignored and observations such as dark matter and supernovae are assumed to be incorrect or at least misinterpreted. There's a lot of assumptions packed into that idea. Could he be right? I give it a slim chance just because it is all too convenient. There is no motivation behind his model simply because there exists no consistent formulation that drives the shape and type of the universe. Rather than being descriptive the model is strictly proscriptive. It is a hollow counter that has no teeth because all it can do is try to pick up where the Big Bang has been successful. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||||
|
Quote:
1. NGC 7603 - identified by Arp (1980 - ApJ 239, 469) as an example of a low redshift Seyfert connected to a high redshift companion with a luminous bridge. Now as noted earlier in this thread, it has been shown that two quasars are present in the filament reaching between the two galaxies. But look at the redshifts - the quasar closer to the ejecting galaxy has a redshift of Z=.39 and the quasar that is farther along the filament is z=0.24. Then there is the companion at z=0.057. So this fits exactly with Arp's model - redshift decreasing as distance from parent galaxy increases. 2. NGC 1068 - Morley Bell has identified quasars which he claims are ejected from NGC 1068 in triplets. It turns out that the triplets as you move outward among the four triplets, redshift decreases - exactly as predicted by Arp's model. So at the very minimum it can be said that Arp's model makes predictions about the associations that matches the characteristics of the newest associations that have been uncovered. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|
|||
|
dgruss --
Here's what intrinsic redshifts have going for them: 1) Two examples (you named them). 2) An incomplete model by Arp and a superimposed idea by Bell. 3) That's it. Arp's predictions about redshift quantization have been roundly disproven by redshift surveys and there is not a peep heard out of him as to why. If I understand correctly, Arp says the highest redshift quasars should be the youngest? Is that correct? The problem with this is threefold: 1) The Gunn-Peterson trough (how on Earth does that get explained? 2) Interevening absorption features at different redshifts. That is, there are clouds of absorbers at different redshifts between us and the quasar. Why are they at different redshifts if the redshift is intrinisc? That can't be right... and there's no explanation for this. 3) Higher redshift quasars should be seen preferentially associated with their ejected galaxies. They are not. So those three problems lead me to believe that Arp is completely wrong. You are really keen as well not to address the other evidence for the Big Bang, but I have to say (and you should also be aware) that the evidence for the Big Bang is not simply based on redshift/distance relationships. It is also based on the other evidence. You have to deal with the entire package, you cannot just say that intrinsic redshifts are all we care about. To do this would be like saying you didn't believe the Earth was old because its magnetic field is decaying and then refuse to address any of the other evidence that shows us the Earth is some 5 billion years old. In isolation, one can nitpick all one wants to on the details... we realize that. But you can't come to "big picture" conclusions by focusing on simply one detail and not explaining the rest. Also, if I understand you correctly, Arp expects the scatter on the redshift distance relationship to change for galaxies. Of course, as you go to higher redshift, the scatter decreases. Is this in line with his ideas? |
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|