Posted on 11/12/2014 7:19:53 PM PST by Swordmaker
LOL! Someone else, Freeper MaxMax, noticed this astronomical juxtaposition of styles. . . proving there is nothing new in Heaven and Earth. . .
Honestly? I think the Nebula's version looks better. The touch of green is a better choice. But then, God is always better at these things than is man.
I wonder how we would seem from that side of the universe.
Dark matter may be massive: Theorists suggest the Standard Model may account for the stuff
http://phys.org/news/2014-11-dark-massive-theorists-standard-account.html
He's claiming that there is no Doppler effect here?
Not when you find objects with high red-shifts that are apparently within our own Galaxy
High red shift within our own galaxy means high velocity. The only reason higher and higher red shifts was associated with greater and greater distance was because it equated to an early expansion phase of the universe.
Two objects 100k light years distant, one receding at twice the rate of the second must produce different red shifted frequencies.
Those who possess even a modest familiarity with Halton Arp's arguments should be highly dubious of the analysis presented on this page. The following statement does not fully address the possible causes for the *intrinsic* redshift, whether it's an accurate representation of Arp's claims, or not. And that means that this analysis should be rejected as an incomplete rebuttal for the claim of intrinsic redshift:"Astronomy has long had a handful of fringe scientists who argue that at least some of the redshifts we see are non-cosmological in origin. In particular, Halton Arp, most famous for a catalog of galaxies with disturbed morphologies (as a result of interactions), argues that quasars aren't really cosmologically distant objects at all, but are rather objects ejected from nearby galaxies, SHOWING THEIR REDSHIFTS AS THE RESULT OF AN EXTREME DOPPLER SHIFT DUE TO THEIR HIGH EJECTION VELOCITIES."
To my knowledge, the intrinsic component to the observed raw redshift is *quantized*. Thus, how does it even make any sense that ejection velocities would be the inferred cause? What causes the quantization? What we are seeing here, by necessity, is a microscopic process playing out in a macroscopic manner.
There is arguably a large set of explanations which could be tapped into to explain this observation of quantized inherent redshifts. Ejection velocity is hardly one of the more convincing inferences.
One idea which has emerged from the EU camp is that, observationally speaking, there appears to exist an increase in the mass of the quasars as the quantized redshift in quasars falls. This is an important aspect of Arp's observations which was noteworthy enough to end up in the documentary, "The Cosmology Quest". It also appears quite clearly on page 108 of Seeing Red, Arp's explanation for his observations, where he states:
"Now comes a key point: If the mass of an electron jumping from an excited atomic orbit to a lower level is smaller, then the energy of the photon of light emitted is smaller. If the photon is weaker it is redshifted ... it suffices here to understand that lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts and that younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass."The point here is that the analysis presented on this page does not appear to reflect the full argument which Arp and others are making. So, it appears to me that you are (intentionally or not) confusing people.
One way to explain intrinsic redshift is as quantized changes in energy levels of electrons, protons and neutrons within the atom. Within the EU view, the masses of subatomic particles change in response to electrical stress. In an Electric Universe, that includes magnetic and gravitational stress. Wal Thornhill argues that increasing negative charge on bodies increases their mass and gravity (see "Orbital Energy" in http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=q1q6sz2s).
So, how could we reconcile this? One way -- and I'm just throwing this out there as an example -- would be to realize that the plasmoid formed in a plasma gun is the most copious beamed source of neutrons known. So, most of the mass ejection will be neutral and decaying, once free of the plasmoid's electromagnetic influence, into protons and electrons (nascent hydrogen).
The second fact is that electrons, being much lower in mass than protons, will remain entangled in the plasmoid in greater numbers and for longer than protons. Also, strong electric fields in the plasmoid will tend to separate the electrons and protons, giving oppositely directed beams.
There are almost surely other inferences which could explain the full set of observations. But, the trick is in getting people to leave their comfortability zone of the gravitational framework sufficient to postulate plasma physics explanations. Whatever the proposed explanation is, it needs to be proposed within a plasma universe framework. This is where most conventional thinkers go wrong: They fail to absorb the plasma universe materials sufficient to even make such propositions.
It always amuses me when people point to a statistical analysis in order to prove that somebody else's theory is wrong. Yes, it is unfortunately common today, but there exists a very large set of misconceptions or dirty tricks which can bias the results to accommodate any pre-existing worldview. The human mind oftentimes looks for shortcuts to avoiding uncertainty. We oftentimes want to believe *something*, and it might as well be that which we've been already taught.
Furthermore, many of the bridges that Arp points to are startlingly apparent to the human eye, once the proper spectra are included. That you decide to focus upon the statistics instead of the stronger bridge evidence, I think speaks to your desire to fight the battle on terms which the general public cannot understand. You are essentially winnowing down the set of people who can argue against you.
An arguably far better way to test Arp's theory would be to look for "quantum graininess" in particle mass increases within particle acceleration experiments. But, I suspect that your intentions do not so much align with curiosity as they do with an attempt to justify your current belief system. So, I don't expect that you would follow up on such a suggestion, or even think anything of it if the hunch was confirmed. This is what happens when physicists are trained in just one theory. It is not so much a product of science, as it is human psychology. Teaching a student one theory suggests memorization. Critical thinking -- which results from a process of comparing and contrasting -- does not truly begin until the student is taught two competing sets of ideas.
High velocity is the key. One potentially valid criticism of Arp's observations may be that what he is seeing is the artifacting effect of Galactic Lensing of far distant Quasars being magnified to appear closer than they are. I find this very questionable in that they are now claiming that EVERY one of Arp's observed objects is such a Lensed Quasar. . . now over 100 of them. What are the odds of that occurring? That a quasar exists with a lensing galaxy placed just exactly right to make it appear closer than it is? Possible? Maybe. Likely? If so, Quasars must be very populous on the fringes of the Universe.
Interesting thread. Thanks for your posts. Provocative ideas. I’m not convinced, but it does make for interesting reading.
No one has to be convinced. You just have to be open minded and think about possibilities.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.