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.