It has been explained in "More from Arp et al" thread (link to that thread was given in this thread earlier) many times that quasar host galaxies are not a problem for a local quasar model, at least for Arp's model anyway, first time it is explained in the first page of that thread, in post #7.

-------------------

Claim that Scranton et al. study shows Arp's work wrong has also been refuted in that same thread many times (for example in page 47 post #1410, page 49 post #1460, page 50 post #1494, page 51 posts #1504, #1514, and #1527, page 52 post #1553).

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

I don't believe that is an adequate explanation. Looking at the paper that is cited in that post #7 it doesn't talk about quasar host galaxies at all. It looks like he's talking about "companion" galaxies. What is meant by quasar "host" galaxies is that when you take an image of a quasar, you often see that is in fact in the center of a small (i.e, distant) galaxy.

But seeing that much of this ground has been covered in the other thread there's not much point in continuing to beat this dead horse.

That is what I meant by "host galaxies" as well. In Arp's model, the ejected matter from active galaxies is first in form of cloud of particles which then condenses to form a quasar. It is unlikely that all the ejected particles end up into the quasar, so you get a quasar that is surrounded by a cloud of particles. Later that quasar surrounded with particles will evolve into a galaxy having the quasar as nucleus and the surrounding cloud as the disk of matter.

Quasars with host galaxies are expected in Arp's model.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

I call to your attention a little known paper, which was eventually published in the Publications of the Yunnan Observatory 90(2): 16-21, 2002 (or so I assume since the titles are the same, although only Qin & Liang authored the Yunnan version): Evidence consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar redshifts, Qin, Xie, Zhen & Liang, 2000.

Abstract: In this letter, the old issue of whether redshifts of quasars are of cosmological origin is investigated. We make a plot of absorption redshifts versus emission redshifts for quasars with large amounts of data. Our study shows that, almost all absorption redshifts are smaller than the corresponding emission redshifts. The relation between the absorption and emission redshifts predicted by current cosmological models is well obeyed. The result confirms that redshifts of quasars are indeed distance indicators. It might be the most obvious evidence found so far to be consistent with the cosmological interpretation of quasar redshifts.

You can see from the paper that the higher redshift quasars, which are at larger distances in the standard models, have more Lyman-alpha absorption lines than to lower redshift (closer) quasars. Furthermore, it is very rare to find an absorption line at higher redshift than the quasar, and in all such cases, the difference is very small, consistent with the higher redshift absorber being associated with the host galaxy. If we simply assume that the absorber is somewhere between the quasar and us, surely a reasonable assumption, then it is indeed hard to avoid the conclusion that the quasar redshift is a valid indicator of cosmological distance, as opposed to being in any way intrinsic to the quasar.

You suggest that the redshift is always smaller because the absorber is influenced in some way by the quasar or the host galaxy. Do you have any specific mechanism(s) to suggest?

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

Thank you parejkoj, Cougar, Nereid and Amber Robot. I have been accessing all the references you mentioned and appreciate the leads.

I don't think that Arp thinks that quasars are anything other than young galaxies, so the idea of being at the centre of a galaxy does not seem strange.

OK, I went there and it referenced a page about 200,000 quasars can't be wrong. Unfortunately the article makes the claim that quasars will be brightened by gravitational lensing but doesn't really explain the method. According to my logic, if you make some part of the distant sky brighter by expanding it, you must make some other correspondingly part dimmer by contracting it. It is a simple fact that the totally area of the sky must be conserved by the lensing. So why would quasars be brighter on average?

If Arp is right that quasars have an "internal redshift" (in other words are much closer than expected) then you would not expect quasars to have intervening absorption at greater redshift. So that does not provide evidence in favour of the cosmological redshift at all. But I didn't start this thread to try and debate this, but to do my own analysis to test it because I want to be sure myself what is correct.

The very large scatter in the quasar redshift versus brightness diagram is a reason to suspect that redshift accurately measures distance. Of course it might be that they really have a huge range of brightnesses. One other thing that I would like to do with a quasar survey is to look at the various properties of quasars, particularly any parameters that might be indicative of their age, as that would be correlated with intrinsic redshift if Arp is right.

What survey would be best to use that has most other measurements of quasar properties (e.g. colour indices, other emissions, etc)? It does not matter if the sample size is not great as long as they are reasonably representative.

The idea is to see whether it is possible to make an estimate of their intrinsic redshift and produce a much tighter external redshift (being observed minus estimated internal) versus brightness diagram like for galaxies.

I think that if the scatter can be considerably reduced then that would be proof of a non-cosmological component to redshift.

Have you ever looked at an image of a quasar host galaxy? See, for example this link. If these are not at cosmological distances then there is a completely new type of galaxy that is very different than every other type. When you look at these images you can sometimes see fully-blown spiral galaxies, If these are not at cosmological distances, and are at local distances, then they are very, very small. And then you have to explain why the redshift-distance correlation should not apply to these galaxies like they do for other local galaxies.

(my bold)

Do you have some equations (maths, numbers, and stuff) to support this?

Specifically, what mechanism (or class of mechanisms) are you assuming is doing the brightening, expanding (and dimming, contracting)?

Would you please clarify something?

In this ATM thread, are you presenting (and defending) your own ATM idea, Arp's ideas, or something else?

One reason why I'm asking is that, as I pointed out earlier, there is an old ATM thread on Arp's ideas.

My own, Arp's and Narlikar's and some of Tifft's (his early observations but not his theory). I started this because the previous quantized redshift thread was closed.

Quite simply, the size of the sky is equal to the size of the sky. So if you have a complicated lens over it, whatever parts get magnified, some other part gets shrunk to exactly compensate.

But I think I got the answer thanks because although the popularized article is very weak, the journal article is not. It does explain that it is based on the nearness to the galaxies.

Yes, they are new type of objects, they are intermediates between quasars (which in Arp's model also are new type of objects) and galaxies. If there is a spiral galaxy in the making, then I don't see any problems in spiral structure being already visible, at least not in principle.

Redshift in Arp's model is "More from Arp et al" stuff but briefly, redshift decreases with age of objects and quasars are newly created objects in Arp's model. But, if one starts to argue against these local quasar models, one should already know these basic issues about them, no? (Similarily, if I would argue that Big Bang theory doesn't work because it puts Earth in the center of the universe, or some other clearly false argument, then surely you would suggest that I should learn about Big Bang theory before arguing against it.)

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

I'm aware that that my contribution to this discussion is absolutely insignificant, but I can't help noting that the (in)famous ATMers mantra "...look at the picture!" is well rooted amongst the mainstreamers too, and no one does complain about it.

I apologise to Amber Robot and Ari Jokimaki for my impolite break into their discussion.

My suggestion to "look at the picture" was to point out that the quasar host galaxies look like distant galaxies. And that there are no local analogues to these galaxies that don't contain quasars. After looking at the picture, you should look at the spectra, analyze their redshifts, metal contents, ionization structure, star-formation histories, and stellar populations. All of these will give you some clue as to whether these are local objects or not.

I am not explicitly stating that quasars aren't local objects spat out of galaxies and creating mini-spirals, I'm arguing that you can't make that the statement that are local based solely on their relative positions to nearby galaxies. There is a virtual cornucopia of spectral and photometric information about the quasars themselves and their host galaxies that need to be taken into account and formulated into a coherent picture of what these objects are.

Well, if you consider "redshift decreases with age of objects" as a "basic issue" of quasars then you're right that I don't know that, because that is also part of Arp's model and not an already established fact one must "learn about" before arguing against Arp's model.

When I said "basic issues about them", the "them" referred to models, not quasars. My point was simply that if one doesn't know about these models and one wants to discuss them, then one should start by asking questions about the models in order to learn about them. One should not start by claiming that the models don't work because of this and that if there's no actual knowledge how the this and that work under the models in question.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website] [Nimblebrain forums]

Fine. Then my question is this: How does Arp explain damped lyman alpha systems in his model?