NGC 7603

Yes folks, I'm being told that its all about "It looks that way." Here we have NGC 7603 and NGC 7603b with a luminous bridge between them. Are they interacting? They would be embraced as interacting were it not for the little detail that NGC 7603b has about twice the redshift of NGC 7603 - a cosmological no-no. So rather than consider that the one galaxy we can see that is at the end of the filament is actually interacting with NGC 7603, the mainstream would rather conclude that 100% dark matter galaxies must be the answer.

Um ... I've said repeatedly nobody has shown the paper is wrong. I thought that is what it was about? People come on BABB and they are told to provide evidence. There's evidence someone is claiming supports Arp's contention that quasars are local. Nobody has refuted the paper. Until someone refutes the paper, it stands as evidence in support of Arp. It was published in a major journal after all.

Really, you guys are quite a trip. Demand evidence and then dismiss it when its provided any way you can think of other than showing how its wrong. As I said before, there's not much new to talk about.

Here's a start:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0310533
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309551
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309274
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308443
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308177
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308041
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0307418
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305382
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305298
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305093

Now dgruss has decided the only unseen companions that exist to cause filamentary structure are 100% dark matter galaxies. Obviously, the poster has lost touch. There are filamentary galaxies we see that do not have obvious visible interaction pairs. That he does not recognize this is a feature of his lack of familiarity with galactic dynamics. Forgivable, perhaps, but why should we believe him?

Wholesale disregard for my critique notwithstanding. =D>

I checked through these papers and, while some could be interesting, they do not seem to address the issue specifically. None of them for instance cite any of Arp's papers. Your papers can hardly be 'smoking guns' if they fail to mention the 'deceased'.

Of course there are JS. Some have proposed that these features are because of 100% dark matter galaxies. I'm sure you've seen the papers. Much better than all those "reckless" speculations about ejection.

Its a pretty nice example of the difference in thinking. There's a filament coming out of a galaxy, but no visible companion. Hmmm what are we to conclude. Well it could be 100% dark matter galaxies. It could be the companion is behind the larger galaxy. It could be the companion hasn't been detected. It could be that the filament has been ejected. Which of those options makes the most sense and which of those options can be ruled out in the NGC 7603 case?

What I find funny is that you would prefer some unseen companion to the blatantly obvious candidate. The region has been sampled to deep enough magnitudes. Where is this unseen companion? Or is it one of those pesky 100% dark matter galaxies?

You tell me Arp is all about "It just looks that way." You're all about "But its not the right redshift."

"NGC 7603b can't be interacting with NGC 7603 because its not the right redshift."

"The z=0.39 and 0.24 objects aren't actually in the center of the filament because they have the wrong redshifts."

The only reason you've got for doubting the reality of this association is the differences in redshift. Nobody doubts that M-51 is an interacting pair because they have a small difference in redshift.

Well, Exp, these papers are all dealing with the redshift distribution and associations of quasars with other physical phenomena. They are directly the question of quasar origins which is what Arp contends with.

The onus is NOT on the mainstream to critique theories directly, the onus is on the challenger to show where the errors in the mainstream are. You tell ME where the errors are in those papers. That's your smoking gun.

Let me get this straight. I ask you to give papers where intrinsic redshifts are proved to be false. You come back with a bunch of mainstream-type papers where quasar redshifts are all assumed to be distance redshifts. Then you say it's up to me to show them wrong. Sorry, you're the one who called the whole intrinsic redshift argument a red herring of "Big Bang deniers". I think it's up to you to back up your words.

Tell me you didn't just write that. Nothing is proved in science like it is proved in mathematics. We have had this discussion many times before. Mainstream deniers (creationists come to mind ESPECIALLY) are fond of the "proof" argument. Thing is, it has absolutely nothing to do with science:

Science is based on evidence, observation, experimentation, and development of theories based on those observations. I have given you the observations that show problematic concordance with a Arp model. I have shown you papers that show the redshift distance relationship holds for quasars. I don't have any idea whether you understand the critique or not, all you want is something that "proves" intrinsic redshifts wrong?

Tell you what, you find me a mainstream paper that "proves" the idea that stars are actually eyeballs looking back at us and then we'll talk. Science doesn't work that way.

Nope, not assumed. They are actually shown to be associated with other phenomena. Did you actually read the papers?

Yes, that's right. That's the way the dialogue works.

And I stick by that. The reason I do is because there is SO MUCH DATA against that. I have demonstrated (HANDED TO YOU) that data. Now, what more do you want?

I think it's time for you to actually deal with the mainstream instead of posturing. You ask for papers and then get upset that they aren't of the right flavor. Do we really need to digest these in order to get you to understand their critiques?

Unless the rules have changed, science is about hypotheses and falsification of hypotheses. You have dismissed intrinsic redshifts as a red herring, in other words as a hypothesis that has been falsified, but fail to show where and when this supposed falsification took place. I'm deducting points.

Scanned a few. Will read some of them later.

Just that you answer the question. Have intrinsic redshifts been ruled out and if so where? Why not just concede that they're still on the table?

Thanks for the links Orion. This strikes me a rather slim finding that at least is consistent with the BB model, but hardly rules out static models. It seems to be based on a single quasar at z > 6. Looking at this from the static model side, the most economical interpretation would simply be that there is more neutral hydrogen around that particular quasar than normal.

I read through the first few pages of the related thread. AgoraBasta and John Kierein raised some other interesting possibilities. Will have to read further.

You seem to be implying that the Standard Model's independent calculations of the hydrogen, helium, and deuterium abundances and the very accurate correspondence of those calculations to the actual abundances of those elements in our universe is some simple sort of "circular reasoning." I would say you're mistaken, but you are invited to provide some sort of support (beyond insinuation) for your claim. I imagine if you carried out the calculations yourself, as dictated by the Standard Model, and compare your results to the actual observations, your thoughts about "circular reasoning" would be seen to be baseless.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

If we think of a single photon flying through expanding space, what is the actual mechanism that causes that single photon to loose energy (and get redshifted) according to Big Bang theory?

To consider single photons is often a recipe for analytical disaster. We don't normally see single photons. They typically come in bunches and trains - in prodigious quantities.

I could be wrong, but I don't think the standard model asserts that photons "lose energy" at all. Their wavelength gets expanded as they travel through expanding space, and this shifts their spectral components. Their energy is conserved.

Or the source of the photons is moving at some fraction of the speed of light relative to the observer (referred to as peculiar motion). This also causes a shift. There is no energy loss.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

You might be right. This single photon approach makes even that peculiar motion shift hard to understand, so it might be wrong to think about single photons in this relation. But I really would like to know what causes the wavelength to expand, so if someone has more accurate information about this, please tell me.

I believe the standard view is as I previously said:
A 2-dimensional analogy: Draw a sine wave on a rubber sheet. If you stretch the rubber sheet (expanding space), then the sine wave gets stretched as well.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

And I'm saying that that fact alone is not sufficient evidence to solidify any claim as to the accuracy of the paper's conclusion.
Actually, I believe I had put in some refutations about the subject claims. The authors were drawing conclusions based on a statistical analysis, there was a very real question about the randomness of the sample population, their conclusions are interpretive, etc. But personally I don't have the time nor the expertise to publish a serious refutation.

As JS has said, there may very well be a great body of literature that generally refutes Zhu&Chu's claims simply by establishing that the quasar distances are indeed cosmological. Authors of such papers may not want to give Zhu&Chu a cite (even a "refutation cite") because Zhu&Chu's conclusion is so, well... loony. The number of times an article is cited is often, if not typically, a very positive measure of the article's value. Why give a questionable and decidedly anti-mainstream assertion more publicity and credibility than you think it deserves?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Cougar wrote:

A 2-dimensional analogy: Draw a sine wave on a rubber sheet. If you stretch the rubber sheet (expanding space), then the sine wave gets stretched as well.


cyreks reply:

Lets cut out this false analogy by using two dimentional space to compare to three dimentional space.
As I have posted on other threads, all three dimentional bodies have a 'center' which is called 'the center of gravity'.
This is 'physics'.

__________________
aka Michael Cyrek

This is not that difficult. You are the one trying to say Arp is wrong. I present you a paper that finds supporting evidence that Arp is right. Is that analysis correct? If its not correct somebody needs to show what is wrong with that analysis. It was a very specific analysis of the galaxies in quasars in the direction of the Virgo cluster that concluded that the quasars in the Virgo direction are associated with the Virgo galaxies, but not the background galaxies. Papers analyzing other regions of the sky do not disprove the apparent association in the Virgo Cluster.

Nor have I said that the paper MUST be right because it has not been shown to be wrong. But ... the paper is not shown to be wrong until it is shown to be wrong. As long as its not shown to be wrong, it could be right. :-?

Newsflash, Cyrek: Every analogy is "false". That's why it's called an analogy - it helps people to understand a concept... but only up to a certain point. Beyond that point, it becomes false. So... do you have a problem with helping other people to understand certain concepts?
Is space a "body"? Is light a "body"? Does the universe have a center? What's your point?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Yes, I understand this. I quess my confusion in this subject arises from the definition of photon (E=hf), which tells me that even if you stretch a photon, it's energy remains the same and therefore there should be no change in frequency either. But same time I also know that peculiar motion causes redshift by a similar mechanism as in space expansion, this tells me that if space expands it really should cause redshifting.

After thinking about this for a while I think that my confusion cannot be solved until we know what photon really is. So I'm going to steer my thoughts back to earth now and conclude that photon is quite strange beast.

This I don't understand: c = λν (the speed of the photon is equal to the product of its wavelength and frequency). If the wavelength increases while the speed remains the same, the frequency must decrease. Then, by Planck's equation (e = hν), the energy of the photon decreases. I thought this was the whole point of the Cosmic Background Radiation being so cold: the CBR has to "catch up" with us as the expansion of space is carrying us away; so we see it redshifted just like the light from a receding star.

Of course, even energy is relative. The expansion of space does not do anything to change the intrinsic nature of the photon (whatever that is!).

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

My take on this is as follows. Nothing happens to the photon itself. If you could hitch a ride on the photon as it flies through space, you would not see it undergo any change as space expanded.

The energy of the photon, its wavelength, and its frequency are all relative to the observer. They can appear different to different observers.

Example: three observers are observing our Sun. One observer is at rest relative to the Sun; one is flying towards the Sun at close to the speed of light; and one is flying away from it at close to c. They are observing the very same stream of photons, but the first observer will see a typical G-type Main Sequence star; the second observer will see a gamma-ray source; and the third observer will see a radio source similar to the CBR.

The CBR which we detect today was created in regions of the universe that are about 13 billion light-years away. The expansion of space means that we are now receding from those regions at a very high speed. So those photons have less energy relative to us than they would if space was not expanding.

The inescapable corollary of all this is that there is one and only one type of photon. There is no such thing as a photon of visible light, as opposed to a photon of gamma radiation or a photon of UV light. Any photon can be of any frequency you like, provided you're going fast enough in the right direction!

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

This is an interesting point of view. But if I have understood expansion of space correctly, it doesn't give us true velocity in any direction, there is just more space between us and other places (?).

Here another treatment of the Redshift made by Marmet who seem interesting.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/HUBBLE/Hubble.html

Turns out my disclaimer was very well placed. I should have noticed this Q&A provided by the BA five years ago! ops:

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

dgruss--

There is a general oversight of associating Virgo Cluster galaxies with quasars in that direction of the sky and that is the higher-z absorbers. If those features don't come from absorption from intervening atoms between the Virgo cluster and the distant quasar than what is the explanation for those features?

In other words, why do quasars have absorption features from the Milky Way and the Virgo cluster at the proper redshifts, but once we go beyond those redshifts the absorption explanation changes? This fails a simple Ockham's razor test and is a major thorn in the side of any analysis that claims the quasars in the direction of Virgo are associated with the cluster. Where is the higher-z absorption coming from?

And if you do come up with an explanation, it's going to have to be so conveniently crafted as to be between the Ly-alpha of the quasar and the Ly-alpha of the Virgo Cluster.

Good luck.

That explanation says that light loses energy, but doesn't actually say how it loses it or where the lost energy goes. I didn't know that this was so controversial subject.

I see your point. I always thought that the cosmological redshift (due, supposedly, to the expansion of space) was indistinguishable from a Doppler redshift due to a "true" recessional velocity; but I may be wrong. Does it make any difference whether you are receding from a light source because of your true velocity through space or because the expansion of space is carrying you away?

Hopefully, someone can clarify this point.

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.

I don't agree with this wording. The light doesn't have to overcome the expansion. It just has further to go to reach us, and is redshifted because we are receding from the source. As I said before, nothing happens intrinsically to the light. The loss of energy is entirely relative to the observer.

Right? :-k

__________________
- Learn a lot teaching others.