It is consistent with Arps model. Possible, but not expected using the standard model (according to the authors). Both models could be wrong.

If this is a 'blending' of a distant and local magnetic field, it would mean the standard model assumption that galactic electromagnetic fields are 'late arrivals' is wrong. This requires a major revision in models often used in the development of galactic clusters. It has never made sense to me that complex models have ignored electric field effects for so long: It is much easier to explain structure like the great wall and spidery clusters with polar field effects in the models, rather than relying upon gravity and 'an inflationary bounce'.

Another victum of this lastest observation is the Cosmic Microwave Background. When you put strong electromagnetic fields about much more distant galactic structure, these major emf potentials can and likely will extend KZ ripples from a greatly extended range of galaxies, polluting the background. It is analogus to the visible 'glow' you can see in the general area of Chicago for hundreds of miles approaching the city - you can't separate individual cities from the general glow.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Interesting point.

Basically your saying that the ripples in the CMB could have been there from the start, and mirror the original clustering (as currently thought) or that the magnetic fields of the Clusters alter the CMB, and that there is no way to really distinguish between the causes.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

That you've grossly over-interpreted the findings of this study and that this thread is quickly heading toward the ATM section.

If you don't want to read the journal paper, get the "lite" version of the findings from NPR's Science Friday.

Observations that cannot be explained by the standard model are not ATM.

Arp's theory and mechanism is not correct as noted in the forum. (See Arp thread in ATM.) If Arp was on the right track there are a number of changes required in that hypothesized mechanism, to explain for example observations such as the alpha forest observations or high redshift galaxies that have quasars associated with them.

The anomalous galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields may or may not be a hint to the underlying mechanism.

This review article notes there is no standard accepted mechanism that explains how galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields are created. (The magnetohydrodynamical (MHD) mechanisms, where plasma kinetic energy is converted over time to magnetic energy appears to be theoretically flawed.) This review paper includes some possible primordial hypothesized mechanisms that could create galactic and extra-galactic magnetic fields.


http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0009061

How so? I didn't see any mention of ejections.

If you say so.

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

How does this possibly have anything to do with "Arp's ejection model?"

Because it's "not even wrong."

I can has citation?

As to the your (and Jerry's and William's) comments on the results themselves, I'll just go with Spaceman Spiff's answer...

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Even with the various source documents to hand (well, some of them; I'm still tracking down one or two), I cannot see the point you are trying to make, Arther Dent.

Would you mind writing down the steps in the logic, one by one, with direct reference to the primary sources (not press releases)?

I get this feeling: "Something surprising to mainstream science popped up + it somehow involves quasars ==> Halton Arp is correct and redshift != distance..."

But maybe I am just paranoid.

__________________
David Alexander Kann
PhD student
Thueringer Landessternwarte Tautenburg

Ignite our minds and let's burn brighter
These are the wonders at your feet
- Dark Tranquillity, The Wonders At Your Feet

Naah. I'd say you're spot on.

I'm not going to get into all of Arp's arguments as there is the thread Cougar indexed many moons ago, and it seemed that several points were indefensible, even though others had some merit. Not caving on indefensible points never carries much weight anywhere, as is the scientific norm.
There is however, evidence from the growing body of pulsar data, that high redshift objects with large gravitational redshifts, not just velocity derived redshifts, can reach escape velocity and more from any galaxy, whether nearby, or distant. Typical escape velocity from a galaxy runs in the hundreds of kilometers per second, depending upon the location of the the core collapse supernova relative to the central bulge....somewhere between ~250 km/sec on the periphery and 600 km/sec closer to the bulge depending on whose model you choose. The largest transverse velocities observed in pulsar surveys, and incidental measurements far exceed these values. pete


see;http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_...mb/node12.html

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

And what does a velocity kick of ~1000 km/s (which have been observed for neutron stars) or ~600 km/s (for "ordinary" high velocity stars in the SDSS SEGUE) have to do with redshifts >> 0.01? There is no solid measurement for the gravitational redshift on neutron stars either: not a lot of emission-lines to be found on that surface! So I'm not sure how this is relevant to either the OP, or to Arp's ideas.

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

parejkoj. Doppler broadening of iron emission lines has been seen,here:http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Ne..._Time_999.html
That anything can be ejected from a galaxy, AGN, pulsar, etc...still seems lost to lots of folks out there. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

It does?

I am not aware of any papers which explain the Subaru observations of the Coma cluster in terms of "electricity and magnetism".

Would you be kind enough to provide a reference please?

Alternatively, if you are talking in general terms, would you be kind enough to provide some references (to papers published in relevant peer-reviewed journals) that model inter-galactic environments and include "electricity and magnetism"?

Oh, and would you at least acknowledge the question I asked you in an earlier post? And if you intend to have a go at answering it, please say so?

Although an interesting set of observations (related papers here and here), that is not gravitational redshift from the gravity at the surface of the neutron star, but rather line broadening due to the inner structure of the accretion disk. The second paper claims that they are able to put lower limits on the gravitational redshift given certain assumptions, but that is all.

So, again, what relevance does this have to objects with z >> 0.01? Particularly since those redshifts are from measurements that would not apply in the case of strong gravitational fields?

Ummm... What? AGN and pulsars eject gas all the time, supernova remnants are known to gain large kicks from the explosion, black hole mergers can gain large kicks from asymmetric gravitational radiation... But none of these have anything to do with Arp's ideas...

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

AD kicked this off on 4 Oct, and clarified a point or two on 5 Oct.

No response to any posts on the points in the OP since, and since I'm selfish, specifically no response to my request (on 5 Oct).

AD added a new item on 7 Oct, but hasn't posted since; specifically, no response to my request (on 7 Oct).

What is it reasonable to infer from this?

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak