Posts by Rod P

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

Rod P

Elsewhere,

I am going to be commenting further on the question of the likelihood of these quasars being near a given galaxy. But in the meantime, I would like to say that the statements by these Astronomers (not Cosmologists) are not being made on the basis that they are in the same "line of sight". "Line of site" works for things really close up, not for galaxies and quasars, because they are simply too far away to do that.

I also have a difficult time attributing their observations to a mere "optical illusion to the human eye because our depth perception is not sensitive enough to detect the differences in distances of the stars." There is absolutely no way that anyone can look at galaxies and quasars in terms of the human eye when these heavenly bodies are that far away.

Allow me to highlight a couple of paragraphs from the last article posted above, that provides clues as to how the group of international astronomers came up with their observations:

Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle:

Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?
By Kim McDonald An international team of astronomers has discovered within the heart of a nearby spiral galaxy a quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away. The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?

Notice that they refer to the light spectrum of the quasar, and that is the conventional method utilized to help determine that it is supposed to be billions of light years away, according to conventional Big Bang wisdom.

The team’s findings......... raise a fundamental problem for astronomers who had long assumed that the “high redshifts” in the light spectra of quasars meant these objects were among the fastest receding objects in the universe and, therefore, billions of light years away.

.Again, these astronomers are using the same criterion of the "redshift" as all other astronomers use. There's nothing maverick or irresponsible here that I can see.

“Most people have wanted to argue that quasars are right at the edge of the universe,” said Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and a member of the team. “But too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental. If this quasar is physically associated with this galaxy, it must be close by.”

Here you see them stating a conditional claim "IF" the quasar is physically associated.....

Then they go on to explain the "Doppler Effect" which again, is conventional.

Astronomers have used redshifts and the known brightness of stars as fundamental yardsticks to measure the distances to stars and galaxies. However, Burbidge said they have been unable to account for the growing number of quasi-stellar objects, or quasars—intense concentrations of energy believed to be produced by the swirling gas and dust surrounding massive black holes—with high redshifts that have been closely associated with nearby galaxies.
“If it weren’t for this redshift dilemma, astronomers would have thought quasars originated from these galaxies or were fired out from them like bullets or cannon balls,” he added.

Here is being explained what they have found so puzzling, within the framework of the conventional approach of using redshifts and known brightness of stars. If this redshift differential between the quasar and that of the galaxy had not been observed, then astronomers would have attributed the galaxies would have been the origin of the quasars. I just don't see that as an irresponsible statement, especially since they are stating things like this at a meeting of the American Astronomical Society, and also publishing this in the Astrophysical Journal. It this was so wrong or irresponsible, they would have been laughed out of the room by their peers, and I doubt this would have been able to be published.

“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” said Geoffrey Burbidge.
Margaret Burbidge, who reported the team’s finding at the meeting, said the quasar was first detected by the ROSAT X-ray satellite operated by the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany and found to be closely associated with the nucleus of the spiral galaxy NGC 7319. That galaxy is unusual because it lies in a group of interacting galaxies called Stephan’s Quintet.
Using a three-meter telescope operated by the University of California at Lick Observatory in the mountains above San Jose and the university’s 10-meter Keck I telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, she and her team measured the redshifts of the spiral galaxy and quasar and found that the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas within the galaxy.

Here is described the equipment that was used for the observations and the measurements for the redshifts of the galaxy and the quasar. They were in two different locations. I find it difficult to conclude here that the problem lies with optical illusions and line of sight. It all seems pretty normal in the life of an astronomer, and the fact is, they are simply reporting what is being observed: the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas within the galaxy. What would possibly make them say that. Obviously, they must have noticed some activity, some perturbations with the interstellar gas within the galaxy, and it appeared to be the result of the quasar influencing it. Is is irresponsible to report this? I don't think so. And again, I don't think this is about optical illusion and line of site, but rather the measurements and calculations that had to be used to come up with this, again within the framework of conventional astronomical methodology.

Because quasars and black holes are generally found within the most energetic parts of galaxies, their centers, the astronomers are further persuaded that this particular quasar resides within this spiral galaxy. Geoffrey Burbidge added that the fact that the quasar is so close to the center of this galaxy, only 8 arc seconds from the nucleus, and does not appear to be shrouded in any way by interstellar gas make it highly unlikely that the quasar lies far behind the galaxy, its light shining through the galaxy near its center by “an accident of projection.”

Again, they have observed that this quasar is only 8 arc seconds from the nucleus of the galaxy. Further, the interstellar gas do not appear to shroud or obscure the quasar. That makes it a reasonable assumption that the quasar is not lieing behind the galaxy, or that the quasar's light is not shining thru the near centre of the galaxy by some "accident of projection". Let us not forget, that this international team is testifying of these observations to their peers. I hardly think that they would be making outrageous and irresponsible claims to them, and risk the destruction of their individual professional reputations. I think instead, that they are reporting exactly in accordance with their observations and made measurements in accordance with the generally accepted astronomical science, to people of their profession, and what they are really saying here is "Gentlemen and ladies, we have a problem!"

So what I'm saying in all this Elsewhere, I am very doubtful that these people have been irresponsible in their statements, and I believe that what they have observed, measured and reported are not because of optical illusions and line of sight.

What then, do we do about this? Well, maybe what would be a good position to take is that we suspend judgement for the time being, then all of us keep open minds as to several possibilities. Notice I did not say "any possiblility". I don't mean gullible or logically inconsistent or voodoo imaginations. It is about being open to the possibility of other Reality Models.

Sometimes this can be unnerving, even messy, because we all have certain facts and theories in our individual heads already. To have to redefine all this is something like taking all the pieces of a jigsaw that we thought fit together into a nice neat picture, and rip it all apart, and now have to put them back together again but into a different arrangement because the picture has now changed. Maybe all the pieces are there and are valid, but just need to fit in a different way. It may be messy and confusing for a while, but in the end we may find it comes back together in a brand new fresh picture that looks even better than it did before. In the process, we may have to throw some of the old pieces away because they are no longer necessary.

Rod P.

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

Rod P

Danny,

No, not right now. There are many other areas we need to cover, but for now I think we need to put one set of problems to bed before introducing a whole bunch more. It's a bit like trying to juggle too many balls all at once.

I do apologize, but I am really involved with some clients on my accounting work right now, so it is hampering my ability to sit on this thread all day long. I will try to fit things in as best I can as we go along. I do need to spend some time on your responses, and then I will get back to you.

I do appreciate the time and effort you and others are putting into this topic.

In the meantime, do feel free to carry on if you have the inclination to add a few other comments on this topic, and if others jump in and want to ask questions or debate. I meant this thread to be for everyone, and like I have said, I have a lot of questions myself, and certainly do not pretend to have all the answers.

I am curious about one thing though. Have you spent a lot of time in the field studying the stars and studied astronomy and/or cosmology formally to any extent? You seem to be up on a lot of things here.

Rod P.

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

Rod P

PaulJ,

Not sure, but just in case you might be wondering:

Big Bang Theory - Common MisconceptionsThere are many misconceptions surrounding the Big Bang theory. For example, we tend to imagine a giant explosion. Experts however say that there was no explosion; there was (and continues to be) an expansion. Rather than imagining a balloon popping and releasing its contents, imagine a balloon expanding: an infinitesimally small balloon expanding to the size of our current universe.

Rod P.

21

Mormons and Ten Speed Bicycles.

by gumby in

the other day my work partner and i were driving back to the shop after finishing working and it was hotter than hell.

we see these two mormon boys doing their thing on their 10 speeds with their typical white shirts on.

they had helmets on too.. my friend says..."why in the hell don't they use cars?

Rod P

The Mormons spend a great deal of money on media advertising, particularly television. The ads are usually about keeping families together, or else talking about the Book of Mormon as a companion to the Bible. (Thru the Bonneyville Corporation, the Mormon Church owns and controls several dozen television stations in America, so they are big on advertising.)

From their advertising campaigns they receive a lot of calls or letters from interested parties. These leads find their way to the Missionary President in the appropriate geographic jusrisdiction. These leads are then handed to that missionaries as field assignments. From here it turns into Missionary Discussions, then invitations to attend the Church, and finally becoming members thru babtism.

Perhaps this was why you did not see them knocking on every door.

However, I can tell you from experience, that if there were no such leads to work with, the assignment becomes one of cold-calling on a house-by-house basis. One time I was out knocking on doors with a young Mormon Missionary. We would basically knock on each door, and go around that block until making it back to the starting point. On this particular day, I looked across the street, and what did I see? Two young JW's out in their field service, knocking on doors. It sent shivers down my spine, because it was not that many years earlier when I was knocking on doors as a JW. What a weird feeling knocking on doors as a Mormon, while across the street are JW's knocking on doors, whose hat I used to wear. Talk about deja vu and confusion all at the same time. (Can you say the word "traitor"? LOL) Turned me off missionary work for a while.

Rod P.

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

Rod P

Here's some food for thought on Cepheid Variables from "Big Bang Theory in Serious Trouble":

Cepheid Variables

A Cepheid variable is thought to be a “relatively young” star slightly larger than the sun whose luminosity changes in a periodic way. Scientific American 11/92, p. 56

Some difficulties with measuring velocities and distances

In principle, determining the value of the H.C. is rather simple, “requiring only a measurement of distance and velocity.” p.56

“Although measuring the velocity of a galaxy is straightforward, gauging the distance is rather difficult.” p.56

It should be mentioned here that the “straightforward” method used to determine a galaxy’s velocity is its red shift. p.56

“To obtain the velocity, astronomers disperse the light” (from that galaxy), “and
record its spectrum... For a galaxy moving away from the earth, the positions of
these spectral lines are shifted to longer wavelengths by an amount proportional
to the velocity--an effect known as the red shift.” p. 56

“To determine the distance to a galaxy, astronomers have a variety of complicated
methods. Each has its advantages, but none, it seems is perfect.”

One of these is the use of Cepheid variables. These are stars that vary in brightness over a given period. It has also believed that: “the distance to a Cepheid can be calculated from its period (the lenght of its cycle) and its average apparent brightness (its luminosity as observed from earth).” p. 56

Problems with using Cepheid variables to calculate distances:

1) Their luminosity can be diminished by dust between stars. p. 56-57

To compensate for this “astronomers either observe...(them) at infrared wavelengths where the effects are less significant,” or they “observe them at many different wavelengths so they can assess the effects and correct for them.” p. 57

Unfortunately “...Cepheids are bright enough to be observed only in the nearest galaxies, not the distant ones. And although nearby galaxies are” (so we are told) “participating in the expansion of the universe, the gravitational interactions among the neighbors may be causing some to move much faster or slower than the rest of the universe” (except of course the HUGE CHUNK--of which we are a part of-- that is moving in the direction of Virgo) “consequently to calculate the Hubble Constant, astronomers must accurately determine the distances to remote galaxies, and the task is extremely difficult.” p.57 Emphasis added

Translation: Although Cepheids are what we use as a standard candle to measure distances, they really are not very useful in determining whether or not the universe is expanding (or at what rate) because to do this, we must accurately determine the distances to far off galaxies. And even though Cepheids are what we use to do this, we can’t do it very accurately because Cepheids are only useful in nearby galaxies.

Do you see what I am getting at?

“Nevertheless, astronomers have developed several methods for determining distances to remote galaxies.”

But “Because many of these techniques must be calibrated using the Cepheid distance scale” they are considered secondary distance indicators...Yet scientists cannot reach a consensus about which, if any, secondary indicators are reliable.” p. 57

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

Rod P

Here is another rather current article about the problem of redshift in cosmology.

Rod P.

January 10, 2005

Discovery By UCSD Astronomers Poses A Cosmic Puzzle:
Can A 'Distant' Quasar Lie Within A Nearby Galaxy?

By Kim McDonald An international team of astronomers has discovered within the heart of a nearby spiral galaxy a quasar whose light spectrum indicates that it is billions of light years away. The finding poses a cosmic puzzle: How could a galaxy 300 million light years away contain a stellar object several billion light years away?

The team’s findings, which were presented today in San Diego at the January meeting of the American Astronomical Society and which will appear in the February 10 issue of the Astrophysical Journal, raise a fundamental problem for astronomers who had long assumed that the “high redshifts” in the light spectra of quasars meant these objects were among the fastest receding objects in the universe and, therefore, billions of light years away.

“Most people have wanted to argue that quasars are right at the edge of the universe,” said Geoffrey Burbidge, a professor of physics and astronomer at the University of California at San Diego’s Center for Astrophysics and Space Sciences and a member of the team. “But too many of them are being found closely associated with nearby, active galaxies for this to be accidental. If this quasar is physically associated with this galaxy, it must be close by.”

Astronomers generally estimate the distances to stellar objects by the speed with which they are receding from the earth. That recession velocity is calculated by measuring the amount the star’s light spectra is shifted to the lower frequency, or red end, of the light spectrum. This physical phenomenon, known as the Doppler Effect, can be experienced by someone standing near train tracks when the whistle or engine sounds from a moving train becomes lower in pitch, or sound frequency, as the train travels past.

Photo of nearby spiral galaxy NGC 7319 with high red-shift quasar at arrow (below). Credit: NASA/Hubble Space Telescope

Astronomers have used redshifts and the known brightness of stars as fundamental yardsticks to measure the distances to stars and galaxies. However, Burbidge said they have been unable to account for the growing number of quasi-stellar objects, or quasars—intense concentrations of energy believed to be produced by the swirling gas and dust surrounding massive black holes—with high redshifts that have been closely associated with nearby galaxies.

“If it weren’t for this redshift dilemma, astronomers would have thought quasars originated from these galaxies or were fired out from them like bullets or cannon balls,” he added.

The discovery reported by the team of astronomers, which includes his spouse, E. Margaret Burbidge, another noted astronomer and professor of physics at UCSD, is especially significant because it is the most extreme example of a quasar with a very large redshift in a nearby galaxy.

“No one has found a quasar with such a high redshift, with a redshift of 2.11, so close to the center of an active galaxy,” said Geoffrey Burbidge.

Margaret Burbidge, who reported the team’s finding at the meeting, said the quasar was first detected by the ROSAT X-ray satellite operated by the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany and found to be closely associated with the nucleus of the spiral galaxy NGC 7319. That galaxy is unusual because it lies in a group of interacting galaxies called Stephan’s Quintet.

Using a three-meter telescope operated by the University of California at Lick Observatory in the mountains above San Jose and the university’s 10-meter Keck I telescope on Mauna Kea in Hawaii, she and her team measured the redshifts of the spiral galaxy and quasar and found that the quasar appears to be interacting with the interstellar gas within the galaxy.

Because quasars and black holes are generally found within the most energetic parts of galaxies, their centers, the astronomers are further persuaded that this particular quasar resides within this spiral galaxy. Geoffrey Burbidge added that the fact that the quasar is so close to the center of this galaxy, only 8 arc seconds from the nucleus, and does not appear to be shrouded in any way by interstellar gas make it highly unlikely that the quasar lies far behind the galaxy, its light shining through the galaxy near its center by “an accident of projection.”

“If this quasar is close by, its redshift cannot be due to the expansion of the universe,” he adds. “If this is the case, this discovery casts doubt on the whole idea that quasars are very far away and can be used to do cosmology.”

Other members of the team, besides Geoffrey and Margaret Burbidge, included Vesa Junkkarinen, a research physicist at UCSD; Pasquale Galianni of the University of Lecce in Italy; and Halton Arp and Stefano Zibetti of the Max-Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Garching, Germany.

Comment: Geoffrey Burbidge, (858) 534-6626

Media Contact: Kim McDonald (858) 534-7572

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

Rod P

Hey there Danny and Elsewhere, don't stop now. I'm quite enjoying your back and forth tete-a-tete.

Meanwhile Else, I have been trying to identify and gather information on the galaxy image you supplied. I have to agree with Danny that the picture is that of NGC-4565 (M145).

For the general readership here, this spiral galaxy is known as the Needle Galaxy in the constellation Coma Berenices (Bernice's Hair). It was discovered by William Herschel in 1785, and is one of the 200 brightest galaxies, and lies in and around the Virgo Supercluster. It has a distance of some 30 million light years, and a diameter of 100,000 light years across. It is perhaps the most famous example of an edge-on spiral galaxy. There is a massive intricate dust lane that bisects the galaxy into top and bottom halves, and this is quite common for spiral galaxies. This galaxy is regarded as quite similar to our own Milky Way.

I was not successful in identifying the points of light surrounding the primary object, and therefore could not comment on their respective distances either. I looked at literally dozens of sites to find such info and nothing shed any light on this. Perhaps you could enlighten me and the rest of us.

Anyways guys, I think that the Cepheid Variable Stars data corroborating the calculations for Redshift is the kind of thing I am looking for to test the other thesis of the observational quasars being in front of certain proximate galaxies. Even so, I would still be looking for an explanation as to how you could have a Quasar in front of a Galaxy with a higher redshift. To me that simply defies explanation when relying on the Redshift = Distance axiom.

Danny, if you look to Velocity (Redshift) as an explanation, are you suggesting that if a quasar appears to be in front of a galaxy (nearer), and the galaxy has a lesser redshift, that therefore it is because the galaxy is travelling at a lesser velocity away from us, and so we get this lower reading? And therefore, the implication is that the quasar could still be farther away?? Please clarify what you are suggesting.

Rod P.

21

Mormons and Ten Speed Bicycles.

by gumby in

the other day my work partner and i were driving back to the shop after finishing working and it was hotter than hell.

we see these two mormon boys doing their thing on their 10 speeds with their typical white shirts on.

they had helmets on too.. my friend says..."why in the hell don't they use cars?

Rod P

Well, I was an active JW, and then converted to Mormonism. As a JW I was quite used to knocking on doors in field service. So when I became Mormon, I also did local missionary work, including knocking on doors with young full-time Mormon missionaries. Typically, the one I worked with were from Utah. They all wore white shirts and ties, but also full suits. They were always clean-cut and friendly. I never used to see them with shirts and ties only, but now it seems to be all that I see. I suppose the climate has a lot to do with it, because if it's in a colder area, I'm pretty sure they would be wearing full suits, as well as coats.

I went door-to-door with the Mormon missionaries in a small town (3,000), as well as a medium (20,000+) and large city (600,000+). In the small town the Missionaries had no car, and no bicycle. They walked everywhere. If they worked in the countryside, they would do so with others who had cars. In the medium sized city they still walked a lot, but also had bicycles. They often accompanied others like myself who did have a car. One way or the other, they got the job done. For the big city, it was not unusual to have a car available, but there were also a lot of buses utilized. Again, they would work with others who did have cars.

As I recall, nobody made a big deal about this.They had a lot more on their minds than issues of transportation. Constant prayer meetings and church meetings, studying the Book of Mormon, learning their presentations, following up leads and conducting the missionary discussions with householders, being accountable to their Mission President and Church Leaders, writing letters back home, and on and on and on. During this two year period they also spend a lot of time focusing on fasting and prayer, trying to develop a closer relationship with God. This is not a game of pretence for them, and you have to try fasting and prayer for an extended period of time to find out just how challenging that can be. That would weed out the pretenders pretty quickly.

Each missionary basically does their own financing of the two year mission. Or I should say that in most instances it is the parents who must do the financing. Now, if the parents cannot afford these costs every month, then the Ward where they reside kicks in and finances this missionary either in whole or in part (if the parents have some money, but not enough).

Nowadays, it has become a very expensive proposition to own (or rent) and operate a vehicle. I can understand why bicycles would make sense, moreso now than in previous years. Also, have you noticed in large urban centres how couriers prefer bicycles to cars. They can run around block after block, weaving in and out of traffic. Cars get stuck in traffic, gridlocked, parking is impossible and expensive. It is so much easier and practical with a bicycle.

Now, of course, I no longer believe in Mormonism, and left back in the 1980's. You may question the motives of the Mormon missionaries, but I just don't think the matter of riding around on bicycles is in any way done for appearances sake, creating the impression of self-sacrifice and all that. It's more about practicality and economic reality. It's probably because you see them everywhere all the time, looking just the same as every other one; just that you pause and wonder their motive(s). But really, this is just a kind of stereotyping, IMO.

It's just not a big deal, particularly for them.

Rod P.

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

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.

95

Questioning the Big Bang Theory

by Rod P in

but halton arp's continuing research will forever change the direction of astronomy.

or do our observations of nature show things that a theory says are impossible?

gamow had argued that the stars' temperatures are too low to create elements heavier than helium.

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.