Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P 95 Replies latest watchtower bible

Elsewhere

Ok, I'll bite. I just have one question: The people who are proposing this theory, are they saying that the red-shift is not proportional to distance?
Rod P

Hi Danny,
O.K. I think you have raised some useful questions.
First of all there is no effidence that it is in front of the galaxy. Most probable it is inside it, interacting. Just a detail, but it shows a big how this article is trying to make things more sexy as they are.
Second and this is most important in this article, that "this proves the big bang theory" to be wrong. It does not. This kind of logic does not give a lot credit to the authors. The second paragraph here (quoted above) do oversimplify the things so much, that it is not very scientific.
Quasars or (QSO's) are not needed for the big bang theory. It could be very well possible that for some other reason this quasar has a huge redshift, and yet the big bang theory is still true. There quick conclusion is so invalid.
1) How can you say that there is no evidence that the quasar is in front of the galaxy? As I told Elsewhere, these astronomers have access to some of the best astronomical instruments in the world, and are right there with the original photographs.They and their fellow astronomers are the ones who get to examine these things "up close and personal". When they point out the physical observation that a certain quasar is in front of a certain galaxy, then I do not think they would make such a public statement lightly, or without compelling evidence. I also don't think their fellow astronomers are disputing their observations, but that the debate is over their interpretation of the meaning of the Redshift measurements. Since most scientists accept the Big Bang theory as the "truth", and one of the pillars of that theory is Redshift = Distance (and Velocity), therefore these "maverick" astronomers must be interpreting the data wrongly when they observe a quasar in front of a galaxy, with the quasar having a much higher Redshift than that of the Galaxy.
So then, you go on to say that "Most probable it is inside it." Well, that's fine, but then I think you must now provide some basis for stating that as an alternative. For example, can you find somewhere some statement or testimony by an astronomer who supports that idea as an alternative to the observation of these astronomers that the quasar IS in front of the galaxy? That, IMO, would be much more useful than "this article is trying to make things more sexy as they are."
2) When it comes to the statement "This proves the big bang theory to be wrong", I wish to put things into better context here, since you feel that this kind of logic does not give much credit to the authors, and, as well, you feel that they have oversimplified things, which is not very scientific.
The article came from a website known as "Thunderbolts, which traces back to www.rense.com, which appears to me to be the main site. Amy Acheson, as Managing Editor for "Thunderbolts", seems to be leading the charge here, as she opened this up with the lead article "Big Bang Broken and Can't Be Fixed". From here, the article provides the six links which are included above. The first link "Quasar in Front of Galaxy" is an article I believe was penned by Amy, not the scientist-astronomers themselves. Within that link they feature a book entitled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. I believe that the six astronomers who wrote the paper on their discovery of the galaxy NGC 7319 with the associated quasar being in front of said galaxy, was written up in Halton Arp's book. Therefore, the article/link by Amy Acheson is giving her editorial opinion that "This proves the big bang theory to be wrong". She has based this opinion on the content of the Halton Arp book. Therefore, I would not be in too much haste to blame the astronomers for the statement(s) Amy Acheson makes. At the same time, IF what these astronomers and Halton Arp are saying is true, then Big Bang must be wrong, based on the evidence that contradicts it. Therefore, I can understand why Amy Acheson would say what she does, even though it is less than scientific.
But I do take your point, that such a statement is not scientific. At the same time, I do not discount or discredit the scientists for the reasons above.
3) "It could be very well possible that for some other reason this quasar has a huge redshift, and yet the big bang theory is still true. Their quick conclusion is so invalid." Here again, Danny, I don't see how it is even logically possible that you can have a Quasar in front of a Galaxy, and at the same time the Quasar have a Redshift much greater than the Galaxy. According to Big Bang theory, RedShift = Distance (and Velocity). Therefore this means or implies that the Quasar HAS TO BE much farther away than the Galaxy. Yet, here it is in front ot the Galaxy. To prove the position of Halton Arp and his colleagues wrong, we have to establish that their observational data is wrong. We have to prove that the Quasar is definitely NOT in front of the Galaxy. It is not enough just to say "No, they are wrong." Even if we go along with what you state, namely that the Quasar might not be in front of the galaxy, but may be inside the galaxy, interacting with the galaxy, this still can't work. The difference in the Redshifts under Big Bang theory MEANS that the Quasar has to be BILLONS of light years further away from us than the Galaxy is. Observation is saying that that is simply not the case here.
Therefore, if the Quasar and the Galaxy are much closer together than heretofore thought, then the RedShift readings must mean something OTHER THAN Redshift = Distance (and Velocity). By extension of logic, then, this is not an expanding universe, which is a theory that absolutely depends on the Redshift premise of the Big Bang theory.
Rod P.
potleg

My big bang theory: It's better pushin' when you've got a cushion.
Elsewhere

As I told Elsewhere, these astronomers have access to some of the best astronomical instruments in the world, and are right there with the original photographs.

This is not true. Aside from being able to measure the spectrum produced by these objects, there is absolutely nothing the astronomers have beyond what anyone can observe in a visible light photograph as are being shown in those articles.
Please answer my question:
The people who are proposing this theory, are they saying that the red-shift is not proportional to distance?
Rod P

Elsewhere,
Firstly, I wish to correct or clarify what I stated to you earlier about the fact that I was quoting from what the authors were saying. Please read my comments to Danny Bloem about this very point. The thing I was quoting was from a website rense.com which links to another site "thunderbolts" where we find the articles. It appears to me that I was quoting the words of one Amy Acheson, Managing Editor.
The people who are proposing this theory, are they saying that the red-shift is not proportional to distance?
That is basically correct. However, I think that it goes more like this:
One of the pillars of the Big Bang theory is that "Red-shift is proportional to distance." And now these astonomers are saying that they have observed certain Galaxies and Quasars associated with each other (some 20 of them so far) that do not conform to the purported distances on a basis consistent with Redshift = Distance. Because if that were true, then you could not possibly find ANY Quasar in front of a Galaxy, with the Quasar having a much greater Redshift than the Galaxy. That is why they call this premise into question.
Now, it does seem to me that IF the thing that is apparently contradicting the axiom that Redshift = Distance is the evidence of a Quasar being in front of a Galaxy, then the way to blow that thing out of the water is to PROVE the astronomers wrong and demonstrate that the Quasar IS NOT in front of the Galaxy.
So, in our little debate here, can you show me any astronomer or scientist (who supports the Big Bang theory) who unequivocally states that these guys are absolutely wrong about these particular Quasars associated with certain specified Galaxies (i.e the 20 they have observed), with the Quasars having far greater Redshifts than the Galaxies, and yet these Quasars are in front of said Galaxies? Do they, to the contrary, state or show that these Quasars ARE much farther away from us than the Galaxies (i.e. by billions of light years). That, of course, is what they must do.You can't have it both ways!
To my mind, that would settle the debate.
On the other hand, if what these astronomers have observed is correct, and the rest of the scientific community has not disputed their physical observations, but rather simply are challenging their interpretation of what the Redshift means in those instances, then that is a horse of a different colour. They would be, and are, implying that the theoretical must outway the observational. There is a heavy dependence on some very complex mathematical formulae in this regard. Because their mathematics produce formulae that interact with various other formulae, and they fit together into a beautiful kaleidoscopic symbiotic array of representations of reality, they cannot afford to let some mere physical observations get in the way of that. And so we see comments from scientists of the Big Bang persuasion make statements like "That's impossible!" or ""He must be interpreting his data incorrectly." What is strangely absent from these assertions is the presence of any observational evidence that demonstrates what the other scientists have been observing, are not, in fact, really there. That, to me, is how to disprove one theory over another.
What has happened with Scientific Method? Why does observation seem to be playing second fiddle to the theoretical these days? Why is there such an over-reliance on the theoretical mathematics and philosophical gymnastics these days? It feels an awful lot like "Religion" to me, which is what most of us on this forum have gone thru, having experienced so much pain and angst while removing ourselves from such an environment and influence. Are we simply exchanging one belief system for another? God, I hope not! If so, then in the words of Groucho Marx, "Include me out!" And in the famous words of Yogi Berra "It feels like deja vu all over again." (Sigh! I guess I'm being a little rhetorically dramatic here. Please forgive me.)
Again Elsewhere, I am willing to be shown that this is all hogwash. I am all ears IF you can show reasonable evidence that these quasars are not in front of the galaxies. Or if they are in front of the galaxies, then please explain to me the Redshift principle in the light of this observational data.
Rod P.
Elsewhere

The people who are proposing this theory, are they saying that the red-shift is not proportional to distance?

That is basically correct. However

Ok, then what is this object and how far away is it? Also, what are those points of light surrounding the primary object and how far away are they?

(Let me know if the image does not appear)
AlanF

While I think that "big bang" ideas still have a long way to go to be complete, as do many other ideas in cosmology and in physics "theories of everything", and there may well be major changes in them, whoever wrote these articles appears to have an extremely poor grasp of all this.
When reading stuff that smacks of conspiracy theories and quack science, I usually skim it looking for things that stand out as nonsense. One thing that stands out as nonsense is the material listed under point 5: "Fingers of God: By placing galaxies according to redshift, today's cosmologists have produced a map of the universe in which galaxies stretch out in radial lines across billions of light years, improbably pointing at the earth." In the later section "10. DOPPLER RED SHIFT?" an author states:
But perhaps even in greater conflict with Big Bang Theory, the clumping of distant quasars in all directions would appear to put us at the center of the universe. That situation, known as the Copernican Problem, is in direct conflict with the basic Big Bang Theory tenet of smoothness; that is, isotropy and homogeneity.
This notion -- that we appear to be at the center of the universe because young quasars are all at roughly the same distance in all directions -- shows that the author grossly misunderstands the basic concept of the expansion of the universe. The basic misunderstanding is that what we on earth see today as being extremely distant in time and space (i.e., quasars) has undergone the same amount of physical evolution as our local region of space. Thus, an observer located wherever a specific quasar has traveled to by today -- "today" in the sense of our having the ability to travel instantaneously to any part of the universe -- is not going to see the quasar we see (which is what it was billions of years ago) but what it is after having undergone billions of years of change. In the same way, such an observer might turn his telescope in our direction and see a quasar -- yet we don't, because our local region of space is billions of years further along in time than what he can observe.
This is all carefully explained in any introductory text on cosmology and the expansion of the universe.
Given the author's gross misunderstanding of one of the basic concepts of modern cosmology, and the fact that others in his group haven't pointed it out and corrected it, strongly points to these people being yet another bunch of quacks. They may well point out a number of serious problems with present day cosmology, but if they can't get basic concepts right, no good cosmologist is going to take them seriously.
AlanF
DannyBloem

1) How can you say that there is no evidence that the quasar is in front of the galaxy? As I told Elsewhere, these astronomers have access to some of the best astronomical instruments in the world, and are right there with the original photographs.They and their fellow astronomers are the ones who get to examine these things "up close and personal". When they point out the physical observation that a certain quasar is in front of a certain galaxy, then I do not think they would make such a public statement lightly, or without compelling evidence. I also don't think their fellow astronomers are disputing their observations, but that the debate is over their interpretation of the meaning of the Redshift measurements. Since most scientists accept the Big Bang theory as the "truth", and one of the pillars of that theory is Redshift = Distance (and Velocity), therefore these "maverick" astronomers must be interpreting the data wrongly when they observe a quasar in front of a galaxy, with the quasar having a much higher Redshift than that of the Galaxy.

So then, you go on to say that "Most probable it is inside it." Well, that's fine, but then I think you must now provide some basis for stating that as an alternative. For example, can you find somewhere some statement or testimony by an astronomer who supports that idea as an alternative to the observation of these astronomers that the quasar IS in front of the galaxy? That, IMO, would be much more useful than "this article is trying to make things more sexy as they are."

This in front of or inside is actually not important at all for their case. Both give a problem with the red shift. I do not say it is probably behind it. I was objecting to the word 'in front' here. It sounds as it is maybe half way between here and the galaxy. It is much more reasonable to conclude it is related to this galaxy and interacts with this galaxy, then to say in front of it.
Maybe you say it is just a matter of words. Maybe, but it sounds they want to make it better then in actually is.
I gave a link to two acticles about this galaxy. They both place it at the same distance.
Who has written this article, I guess not the astromers that discovered this red shift of this QSO. (have to look into it, I do not know the backgroud of the people who wrote it).
2) When it comes to the statement "This proves the big bang theory to be wrong", I wish to put things into better context here, since you feel that this kind of logic does not give much credit to the authors, and, as well, you feel that they have oversimplified things, which is not very scientific.
The article came from a website known as "Thunderbolts, which traces back to www.rense.com, which appears to me to be the main site. Amy Acheson, as Managing Editor for "Thunderbolts", seems to be leading the charge here, as she opened this up with the lead article "Big Bang Broken and Can't Be Fixed". From here, the article provides the six links which are included above. The first link "Quasar in Front of Galaxy" is an article I believe was penned by Amy, not the scientist-astronomers themselves. Within that link they feature a book entitled "Seeing Red" by Halton Arp. I believe that the six astronomers who wrote the paper on their discovery of the galaxy NGC 7319 with the associated quasar being in front of said galaxy, was written up in Halton Arp's book. Therefore, the article/link by Amy Acheson is giving her editorial opinion that "This proves the big bang theory to be wrong". She has based this opinion on the content of the Halton Arp book. Therefore, I would not be in too much haste to blame the astronomers for the statement(s) Amy Acheson makes. At the same time, IF what these astronomers and Halton Arp are saying is true, then Big Bang must be wrong, based on the evidence that contradicts it. Therefore, I can understand why Amy Acheson would say what she does, even though it is less than scientific.
But I do take your point, that such a statement is not scientific. At the same time, I do not discount or discredit the scientists for the reasons above.
So, didn't I. I did not discredit the scientists here. Just made an observation about what they said.
3) "It could be very well possible that for some other reason this quasar has a huge redshift, and yet the big bang theory is still true. Their quick conclusion is so invalid." Here again, Danny, I don't see how it is even logically possible that you can have a Quasar in front of a Galaxy, and at the same time the Quasar have a Redshift much greater than the Galaxy. According to Big Bang theory, RedShift = Distance (and Velocity).
Therefore this means or implies that the Quasar HAS TO BE much farther away than the Galaxy. Yet, here it is in front ot the Galaxy. To prove the position of Halton Arp and his colleagues wrong, we have to establish that their observational data is wrong. We have to prove that the Quasar is definitely NOT in front of the Galaxy. It is not enough just to say "No, they are wrong." Even if we go along with what you state, namely that the Quasar might not be in front of the galaxy, but may be inside the galaxy, interacting with the galaxy, this still can't work. The difference in the Redshifts under Big Bang theory MEANS that the Quasar has to be BILLONS of light years further away from us than the Galaxy is. Observation is saying that that is simply not the case here.
What I say here is that their reeasoning is wrong. There can be other reasons why in the case of Quasars in general there is another patern of red-shifts. One reason can be a velocity not as a result of the expanding universe, but that for some other reason this object is moving from us at a fast speed. (I do not think this is likely, but it is a possibility). Red shift can be the result of gravitational influences.
So we could have an expanding universe with galaxies moving away from us with a red shift found in those galaxies, and also some quasars that have another reason for this red shift.
This is a very real possibility, and this is what objects me the most to this article. They make conclusions that are not valid. The miss out a lot of possibilities and directly conclude that there was not a big bang. I think that very wrong, and unscientific.
Therefore, if the Quasar and the Galaxy are much closer together than heretofore thought, then the RedShift readings must mean something OTHER THAN Redshift = Distance (and Velocity). By extension of logic, then, this is not an expanding universe, which is a theory that absolutely depends on the Redshift premise of the Big Bang theory.
This does not have to be so.
It is proven that velocity causes a red shift (or blue shift). So when we measure galaxies redshift it is very possible that this is caused by velocity. Different methods of determing the distance confirm this, and there seems to be a good relation between velocity (red shift) and distance in galaxies that are not extremly far.
So my guess is the universe is expanding, but another process causes quasars to have a additional red shift.
For the closest galaxies it is a different story because they have a small velocity of their own. But at 'close' distances this is more then the expandding universe velocity. So (if I rememebr correctly) for example the andromeda galaxy has a blue shift.
Danny
Rod P.
Elsewhere

The people who are proposing this theory, are they saying that the red-shift is not proportional to distance?

That is basically correct. However

Ok, then what is this object and how far away is it? Also, what are those points of light surrounding the primary object and how far away are they?

My question was a very important one. To help out I will even make it more simple for you and not even worry about how far away it is. All I ask is for you to identify this object and the surrounding points of light.

(Let me know if the image does not appear)
DannyBloem

elsewhere,
It is NGC4565, I think.
The surrounding objects are probably stars of our own galaxy. I do not know if this galaxy has any satelite galaxies like andromeda,
I get your point here,
But in return I would like to ask you, to make a list of known QSO's, then to give the appearent distance (in arcseconds) to the closest normal galaxy. Then to to the same with random points. Then calculate the chance that the QSO's are so close to normal galaxies.
I do not indicate here that this is a prove against the big bang.
The article says basically this:
there is a problem with the redshift of this quasar. This there is a problem with all red shifts of quasars. Thus there is a problem with all redshifts also those of normal galaxies. There is a problem with the red shift so the universe is not expanding. Not expaning no big bang.
See the faults in this reasoning?
Danny

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

Share this