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

Shhhhhh.....

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.

Here's the research article on this quasar.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p...03/0303062.pdf

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.

And after decades of searching the dark matter would be composed of ….. well they still really don't know. Sounds like a phenomenon without an explanation to me.

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.

JS - Stop being so confrontational - it was just a light hearted observation (hence the smiley). One of the reasons I've avoided this board recently is the amount of vitriol and sarcasm that pepper the posts - for the record, I'm open-minded on the subject; theories are fine, and a lot of people far brighter than you or I have put a great deal of time, effort and research into developing them. But the incessant "them and us" coupled with the unshakable belief that one is always correct, and the other completely wrong, on both sides of the fence, is very disheartening.

I think CSICOP would be the first to agree with these two ideas, and everybody on this board too... Although the last one seems a bit narrow-minded.

The reason CSICOP is 'smug' is because they have to deal with these ridiculous ideas over and over and over and over ad naseum.

Kind of like how we treat a HB poster here about no stars in the Apollo pictures, or a creationist saying the dust on the moon isn't deep enough.

We don't mean to do it, but it does get tiresome.

I also don't see what CSICOP has to do with this thread.

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2003-03-21 14:21 ]</font>

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 H₀, 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.

Good grief - it was a simple, light-hearted observation of fact; all theoretical science is simply that - theoretical, hence the maybe. The maybe applied to all theoretical models - BB, steady state or rubber band - It would be wonderful if I did have some "accurate reflection" on the "real state" of our knowledge, but I don't. I'm not a crank, conspiracy theorist or visitor from the planet Zog, just some poor sod who's obviously inadvertently said the wrong thing - I abase myself before you, beg forgiveness, and promise not to do it again.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
(that smiley, btw, means I'm joking)

Very likely here’s your answer:

Does this not give you pause? Is this what this board is supposed to be about? Should people be afraid to post here because of the way some people insist on making rude posts? I too often stop and decide if its worth getting involved in some of these discussions for the exact reason that Atko is indicating.

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.


If the against the mainstream views presented here are so stressful and tiresome to you that you cannot be polite but must insist on throwing in rude comments such as your earlier “Didn’t think so.” on this thread, then maybe you need to take a vacation from it.

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.


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.

There's a difference between "theory" and "speculation", Atko. It's a very important difference. For example, the Big Bang is a theory based on observation and cannot be simply said it is a "maybe" the way the universe is. It's the way we have observed the universe to be. Now "Bubble universes" are speculative, we have no observational evidence right now to say whether that works or not. The Big Bang as a theory isn't a "maybe", it's an observational fact that would take some pretty hefty evidence to overthrow. The BA posted a good article by Jeff Bennet to explaining why that is (especially now with WMAP results).

Further analysis from WMAP leads to amazing results incompatible with the BB theory.

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>

Orion, this is just plain wrong. Read that link again. They have found a very tentative piece of evidence, which is said several times to be quite possibly noise, or a fluke; in other words, not real.

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.

See, that's what gets me. The "Against the Mainstream" folk think "I worship the mainstream with every fiber of my being." I have made my position on the matter clear time and again. Are Arp objects weird? Sure they are! Do they represent a challenge for the existing model? You bet. Are they explained adequately? Probably not. Are there explanations from the mainstream available: absolutely.

Perhaps you've missed, dgruss, the conversations we've had with various members of this board over intrinsic redshifts. Specifically, there's a basic problem of people not admitting that the redshift-distance relationship exists. Arp has a problem doing that, in fact. I got into some fairly extensive discussions six months ago about this very issue. They're all in the archive for you to look at. The fact of the matter is that Arp's proposal has been effectively disproven by some very simple considerations of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Quasi-steady state is just unable to explain the stuff. Nor does it offer a nucleosynthesis model that makes any sense. The Big Bang does.

It's the truth, ain't it?

If my style bugs, you, dgruss, we have a discussion section for it. Please take it up in Against the Mainstream Netiquette thread.

I don't see myself as doing that at all. People should be able to stand up for themselve, I think. This is the way I interact. I'm sorry if you think it gruff. Have you read Phil's book by the way? I'd be interested to hear what you think of his style.

What is a "real anomaly"? They are anomalous by virtue of being anomalous.

Some things he may be right on, there is a large amount of things he is just wrong about. Take the quantization of redshift idea (blown out of the water, but he won't admit it... even though he agreed to the criteria for the test of the idea).

Never said Arp's stuff wasn't unusual. That's not the issue. The issue is if it warrants throwing away the paradigm. Your case needs to be extremely strong to do that.

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.

Pursuit is great. Some people love the pursuit. I don't begrudge them that and I don't begrudge you the right to bring them up. I don't think you should begrudge me the right to criticize the issues you have or to analyze them.

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.

What possibility do you want to pursue? Mention the idea: "MAYBE this quasar isn't so far away." I say, "What do you base this on?" Other person says, "Intrinsic redshifts." I say, "and what are those due to?"

Actually, I dealt with both of these a few months back, but I'm happy to fool around with them again. First of all, the quasar-association models of Arp and his followers just don't cut the statistical cheese. All one needs to do is look at the over-all distribution of quasars across the sky and the over-all distribution of galaxies to see that there is no overt corelation. I haven't seen Arp admit this, maybe because he's not so interested in survey data. For example, why don't quasars cluster near clusters of galaxies if they are intrinisic objects? Moreover, since the motiviation for thinking that quasars are nearby is to try to demonstrate that the universe isn't the size/age we thought it was, there's a bit of a problem trying to explain high redshift galaxies that we have found through lensing. It's one thing to think quasars are not galaxy cores (even though we have OBSERVED the galaxies around some of them now), it's quite another to argue that entire galaxies are intrinsically redshifted.

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.

Bell isn't connected with Arp? Hmm, I don't know about that one.

I do? I think maybe I've written that twice.

I'm happy to deal with journal articles. That's why I think it reasonable to discuss Arp on this board. I also think it reasonable to discuss the reasons I don't buy Arp's arguments. There are plenty of threads devoted to this.

Yeah, I made the mistake of equating Bell's ideas with Arp's earlier. Did I ever get an earful from the Arpists. Well, M. B. Bell I might be able to get along with better, but I still don't know how these folk explain absorption features in the quasar spectra. If you look at these quasars, sometimes you can even see absorption features at the wavelengths due to the galaxy they were supposedly ejected from and OTHER absorption features behind them! I just don't know how this could be the case if quasars weren't truly distant.

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.

This is a great old reference that has been roundly shown to be inconsistent with both the CMB and with nucleosynthesis.

Great, but why are their anisotropies in the CMB that correspond to the power-spectrum of galaxy corelation functions? Also, why the cosmic abundance of deuterium? Also, what about time-dilation in gravitational lenses? The Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect? Oh, gee, there are so many things that are NOT dealt with in these articles!

This is even worse, for the models I mentioned and the time-dilation of supernovae to boot. More than that, it has direct observational consequences for survey data (I believe it relies on quantization of redshifts) that is not observed.

No, not necessarily. What needs to be stressed, however, is the absolute remoteness of these possibilities.

Mmm, no... some are just uninformed.

I think the evidence is there. I don't think that I was too harsh, neither do I think that you were too harsh. Frankly, I find it ironic that you are apologizing. I have never been offended by people posting on this board. I've been taken aback and shocked by some of the comments, but my feelings aren't going to be hurt by people's comments.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: JS Princeton on 2003-03-22 02:18 ]</font>

I never mentioned speculation.

The Universe is actually a fact, rather than a maybe, if it were the latter then the Big Bang, as "creator" of this "maybe" would most definitely be a "maybe" (twice removed). [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

No sir, it's the way you interpret your observations. As you yourself stated in your post above, "As someone who addresses the physical interpretation of spectral shifts in my work on a daily basis…"

No - it is not an observational fact. It is a theory, based on interpretation of the observational data. A very good theory, but a theory nonetheless.

I've seen that article - Jeff Bennet strikes me as an energetic, dedicated and honest individual and his statement of a 99% confidence level in the interpretation of the data doesn't surprise me. The point is, to a significant number of professional scientists the underpinning ideas of Big Bang Theory are still open to debate. If and/or when these issues have been resolved to the level that anti-Big Bang interpretations reside in the domain of the Conspiracists and "cranks", that will be the time to close the books. Until then, I reserve the right to keep an open view.

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).

Irrelevant - we're talking facts - not popular belief, no matter how that belief is arrived at.

It is not an observational fact - it is an interpretation of observational data.

Yes - the gist of the Big Bang is that the universe is expanding; whether we are actually going through it right now depends on whether the theory is correct or not. The three "prongs" you cite, when taken within the context of the theory, support it, but do not prove it (and please note that I must underline this point lest it continually be ignored - I am not against Big Bang Theory; I simply have an open mind to other interpretations of the data, which was the gist of my initial post).

No - Scientific Facts are the strongest statement that science can make - a scientific theory is, as all theories are, a "… doctrine, or scheme of things, which terminates in speculation or contemplation, without a view to practice…" to quote Webster's. This is a little harsh, and I would grant (as would the majority, I daresay) that theory should go some way towards making testable predictions about observable phenomena. However, the fact remains that any number of theories can co-exist within the same field, each vying for dominance until one emerges which eventually explains and predicts all the variables. Then, and only then, does it make the transition from "theory" to "fact". Big Bang has yet to do this.

Most theories meet this requirement - it is not a defining quality of "fact". The observation of the universe is a "fact", at this level of consideration. You could entertain the concept that all observation is theory anyway, at which point this discussion would cease to have meaning.

No - all theory is based on interpretation of observational evidence - or "facts". Until all relevant facts are known, the theory fills the gaps and enables us to make predictions . Intelligent development of theory, allied to experimental and improved observational data enables a greater ratio of interpretation versus "observational fact". My description has nothing to do with speculation - that was your interpretation, or "theory"!

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!

It's not irrelevant since I would assume most of those astronomers are more familiar with the observational evidence than you are.

Explain to me how the Hubble relation is not an observational fact. If you want intrinsic redshifts then there has to be a mechanism, otherwise you are simply saying that you believe in an unobservable mechanism that provides an explanation outside of science. It is an observable fact that the universe is expanding, and it can be seen through other techniques as well. For example, a measurement of the fiducial expansion through the CMB can be done through analysis of the Sunyaev-Zeldovich effect and it has been found that the expansion is indeed happening. If you have an alternative to this explanation, please share. Moreover, measurements of the ambient temperature of the universe by analyzing gas dynamics of distant systems have also shown that the CMB temperature is changing (getting hotter) with distant epoch. If you can explain this without evoking expansion, please do so.

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!'

This is a tautology. Please try to put some content in your statements. If you don't think there is evidence for the Big Bang or there is COUNTER-evidence, tell us what it is!

This is just plain wrong. First of all, there is no such thing as deductive proof in science. The only thing we've got is inductive proof which the Big Bang has passed with flying colors.

100% incorrect. You are in some desperate need of some philosophy of science, Atko. I recommend starting with Bacon, moving on to Hume, and maybe some Karl Popper. Also, you can read Gillies' explication of the subject. Then you should check out Kuhn's The Nature of Scientific Revolutions. All of these sources contradict you, namely science is about objective data and objective data leads you to the paradigm. The paradigm is whatever is left that isn't falsified: that is you cannot have some things which are "facts" devoid of interpretation. If I say "74% of the sun's nuclei are hydrogen", that's just as much an observational fact as "the universe is expanding". Each are predicated on assumptions that we make about the way we understand the universe, but they are both equally valid. Either you throw away science altogether or you accept the fact that paradigmatic science is the best we can do. We could be wrong about the Big Bang, sure. We could also be wrong about the composition of the sun. I wouldn't bet against either one, though. The fact of the matter is that induction has the possibility for error worked right into it (check out Bayesian statistics if you don't believe me). That's where you can fudge around if you're a philosopher, but the scientist accepts the paradigm because there is NOTHING ELSE TO RUN WITH!

That's not the definition of a scientific theory. This is the definition of a scientific theory:

Webster's includes a similar definition as definition #2. See, the problem is language. In science, though, a theory is well-defined. It's the formulation by which all observations fit. EVERY OBSERVATION EVER MADE conforms to the theory otherwise it is thrown out.

Or as Karl Popper would have, falsifiable predictions. That's up for debate, of course.

WRONG! Only inasmuch as the theory is not scientific can more than one theory coexist. This is where Thomas Kuhn makes his mark. The pseudoscience that proceeds science have the feature you are talking about. However, science decides on a theory based on the paradigm that is not successfully disproven.

It's the ONE that emerges that is representative of science and not vice-versa.

This is wrong. "Theory" in scientific parlance is exactly what you describe as "fact". End of story. And the Big Bang does explain better than all other competing ideas. If you can name an alternative that can explain what the Big Bang explains, I'm listening.

How so? You could lapse into solipsism if you want to and say the universe doesn't exist. The "fact" as you have described it is not empirical but rather arbitrary. Rather, science relies on observations (that are accepted, I will admit, because some wacko is bound to find enlightenment by peering into a bologna sadwhich) to come to conclusions. The observations point to theories. For example, one theory is the methodology: the scientific method. We assume that the scientific method works because we observe that it worked in the past. Likewise we assume that the Big Bang is true because we see all the evidence point to it. Wait, did I say "all"? Yep, I meant all.

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.

No, the conversation has meaning as long as you accept that science is valid.

What "gaps" does the Big Bang fill? The Big Bang simply explains observations. It doesn't fill any "gaps". This "gaps" argument is a lot like what the creationists say about evolution and it's hogwash. The fact of the matter is that the gaps are not filled in by the theory, they are either paradigm-stopping or they are model-dependent.

Speculation is important in development of models and providing opportunities for revolutions in science. It is not, however, paradigmatic science in Kuhn's sense of the concept. You should really get down and dirty with some of the philosophy of science because right now it reads like you haven't really dealt with the subject. Just a friendly observation.

I agree and disagree on this one. Yes there must be a mechanism if intrinsic redshifts exist, but no - it is not necessary that we identified it in order to discuss evidence for their existence(Recall the plate tectonics example earlier in the thread). I see this as the difference between straight observational science and theoretical science. Take the NGC 7603 example - if it is demonstrated that those quasars are in fact in the filament connecting to NGC 7603 to NGC 7603B, then intrinsic redshifts exist - regardless of whether or not we know what is causing them. They could exist within the context of an expanding universe or not.

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.

It is an observational fact that the universe is expanding IF the bulk of galaxy redshifts result from motion. However, if the intrinsic redshifts exist then you may have them superimposed upon expansion as Morley Bell advocates or you may have no expansion as Halton Arp advocates.

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.

First, it must be understood that what Arp argues is that quasars are ejected from galaxies - but not just quasars. He proposes that other matter is ejected as well. So the high z absorption could (admittedly speculation at this point - but Arp could probably give you his examples) be from material ejected from the galaxy as well. But that explanation can only be considered if you accept that the quasar ejection is possible.

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?

I see your point, dgruss, but there's a glaring problem: the range of redshifts. We have similar objects seen at all sorts of redshifts, objects that have similar masses, objects that have similar sizes, objects that are observed with similar abundances. They all exist from nearby to far away. This is the "microquasar" problem. If quasars have an "intrinsic" redshift associated with them why is there an ensemble of redshifts? Of course, one could have a mechanism that was arbitrary, but then we wouldn't have these very clear indications of different objects at different redshifts being at farther distances. How do you explain the redshift-distance relation if there are intrinsic redshifts? I don't understand if Arp really deals with this issue. I mean, does he deny that Cepheids represent a distance scale? Does he deny that we have a Tully-Fisher relationship? Even if the details can get muddy, the GENERAL EFFECT is the same. We have a statistically significant redshift that is related to distance.

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.

Intrinsic redshifts could exist and we'd still have the Big Bang. It could be phenomenological. It could be observational error. It could be a special case that will never be solved. Those are all possibilities, but although falsification is in principle done with a single observation you need to provide an explanation (a revolutionary paradigm) for science to continue. Otherwise you will end up in pseudoscience again. So, we might not understand the NGC 7603 example right now, but that's not a falsification. Expansion is based on more than simply examples.

We know a lot about dark matter from examining its profiles through lensing (by the way, lensing is a problem for intrinsic redshift folks since sources always have more distant redshifts than their lenses) and through cluster gas analysis. Just because we don't have the stuff in a jar doesn't mean we haven't observed it.

There's a big difference. Intrinsic redshifts have spot-checked evidence. Dark matter is ubiquituous. Consistent observations that are statistically significant matter. Single examples are troubling and should be pursued tenaciously, but are not in and of themselves enough to push theories over. That's the difference between dark matter and intrinsic redshifts.

If it wasn't, then why isn't there an ensemble redshift for a galaxy? After all, a galaxy is just a bunch of stuff all emitting in all sorts of different ways. We have emission and absorption that is characteristic, and so we identify a single redshift. If different compact sources had different redshift mechanisms, what are you going to do?

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.

Superimposed on the expansion is perhaps reasonable, but there are major problems with the simple fact that we have parameter degeneracy that is overdetermined in the cosmic triangle. That is not addressed by Bell as far as I've seen.

I agree. But even if a few oddball examples remain (the specific quasar or galaxy redshifts might be anamolous for all we know) that doesn't show us a consistent critique of the Big Bang theory. Rather it is simply sticking to nitpicking which is a useful thing to focus on, but losing sight of the big picture will generally cause you to slip ever-so-slowly into crankdom.

You should try a SIMBAD search on the object. I'd do it, but it's getting late.

In Arp's model intrinsic redshifts are not static, but evolve as the object ages. Here is his picture: Some quasars are ejected from active Seyfert galaxies as high redshift objects. Over time they evolve to lower redshift objects and eventually normal companion galaxies with a slight excess redshift. You can refer to Arp's writings if you want to see the specific cases from which he built up this empirical model. But in his model you would expect to have quasars with a wide range of redshifts - because those redshifts will evolve over time. This schematically represented in is 1998 paper ApJ 496, 661. And the model makes testable predictions about associations between quasars and galaxies which are thought to have ejected them. When such associations are found, the higher redshift quasars should be closer to the parent galaxy than the lower redshift quasars (prediction). Here is what has recently been published independent of Arp:

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.



In Narlikar&Arp (1993) a redshift distance relation results for galaxies all the same age. In Arp's model, the excess redshifts he claims to have identified are the result of those objects containing the excess redshifts being younger than objects that do not have the excess. So these excesses are superimposed upon a redshift-distance relation which is expected as explained in their paper. Therefore I would expect to see a redshift-distance relationship - but one with scatter that varies as the age spread of the galaxies involved varies.

There is one thing to keep in mind here. Fundamentally, Arp's observations are about galaxy behavior (ejection of quasars with subsequent decrease in the size of intrinsic redshifts as the object ages). Since some people interpret this within the Big Bang context and others do not, the evidence for the Big Bang is not really that important when discussing the question of whether or not the intrinsic redshifts exist. So on this thread I'd prefer for my part to discuss the intrinsic redshift evidence from a "yes, no, or maybe" perspective rather than worry about all the observations that seem to verify the Big Bang. We have the expanding universe thread for the latter.

Since Arp likes his Nalikar&Arp 1993 model which proposes ONE mechanism for intrinsic redshifts, I doubt that this is a problem for him.

This assessment may or may not be accurate. I think its too early to say. But you must keep in mind that he's had few people helping him. How many researchers has it taken to build up the entire Big Bang framework? I don't think we can ask a single person to answer all that by himself. What I consider the most important thing at this point is to determine whether or not Arp's examples can be verified - and whether or not the existence of intrinsic redshifts can be demonstrated to be certainly real. If they are verified then you have to establish the scope of the intrinsic redshifts as well as theoretical explanation. But I don't think you can ask Arp to do it all. If his phenomenon are real than others need to join in the effort to explain it. You've noted in other places that Arp may have sour grapes etc. I would suggest that the "sour" grapes is simply that he would like some people to take cases like NGC 7603 - and make an honest effort to verify or refute. He keeps finding new examples - and a few others do to. Maybe it can be fit within the context of an expanding universe. But the model that explains it will not be uncovered if most people just ignore the possibility.

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?

That's something of an exaggeration: I seem to recall a time not that long ago when globular clusters seemed to be older than the universe, but only the Arps and Van Flanderns of the world talked about throwing out the Big Bang Theory. Likewise, the Sun's "missing" neutrinos were a big issue for a while. A well-established theory supported by the available observations is not immediately thrown out when some new observations come along that seem to contradict it.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.