Galaxy cluster Abell 2744 (Pandora’s Cluster), with X-ray emissions in red. Credit: NASA, ESA, ESO, CXC and D. COE (STSCI) J. Merten (Heidelberg/Bologna)
Posted on 11/12/2014 7:19:53 PM PST by Swordmaker
If redshift equals distance calculations are incorrect, the Universe could be a much different looking place.
“Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an ‘elegant’ or ‘robust’ theory. But it isn’t science.” — Halton Arp
The speed of light is used as a benchmark for defining cosmological distance calculations. As discussed in past Picture of the Day articles, the shifting of Fraunhofer lines into the red end of electromagnetic spectra is thought to determine “recessional velocity”. Standard theories state that the faster an object recedes from observation platforms the farther away it is. This is said to be caused by the primordial Big Bang explosion and subsequent expansion of the Universe. Therefore (according to consensus theory), a faster recessional velocity means greater distance, which means the observed object exists in an earlier time period.
Some massive galaxy clusters with high redshift are seen to shine brightly in X-ray wavelengths. As most astrophysicists think, the presence of “hot gas” encompassing the clusters, with temperatures of 100 million Kelvin, makes them some of the most energetic X-ray sources, since they are calculated to be at a redshifted distance of z = 1, or 13,770,000,000 light-years away.
Such massive clusters are thought to confirm the existence of dark energy because dark energy causes acceleration in the expansion of the universe. That acceleration makes it more difficult for massive clusters to hold together in more recent times because dark energy expansion wants to tear them apart.
Astronomers “discovered” that the Universe is expanding faster today than it did in the past about 15 tears ago. In order to accommodate anomalous redshift observations, the existence of a force that exerts negative pressure on gravitational fields was proposed and later called “dark energy” because it cannot be detected with any instrument.
Enzo Brachini from the European Organization for Astronomical Research in the Southern Hemisphere (ESO) wrote: “This implies that one of two very different possibilities must hold true. Either the Universe is filled with a mysterious dark energy which produces a repulsive force that fights the gravitational brake from all the matter present in the Universe, or, our current theory of gravitation is not correct and needs to be modified, for example by adding extra dimensions to space.”
Presumptions are difficult to overcome, which decreases the ability of conventional researchers to understand several factors that hamper their ability to grasp the fundamental nature of the cosmos. Brachini’s comments—a respected scientist employed by ESO—are a perfect example of the absurd conclusions that can be drawn when electricity in space is ignored.
Dr. Halton Arp earned his place at the top of his field through years of research and many lonely hours on cold mountain peaks, documenting far-flung celestial objects. As his galactic compendium grew, he noticed that there was something wrong with conventional time-speed-distance calculations, since he discovered objects with higher redshift values in front of objects with lower redshift. Surely, such a conundrum should have immediately called into question the very nature of that “cosmological constant”.
If redshift is not an indicator of distance, those massive, bright galaxy clusters might not be so far away and therefore not so massive or bright. As Arp and his colleagues have repeatedly shown, taking in a wider field of view often reveals similar objects on the opposite side of a nearby active galaxy. Many of these high-redshift pairs are connected across the galaxy with a bridge of radiating material. Theories of an expanding universe, dark matter, and dark energy depend on an extremely narrow field of view and a (presumably) biased data selection method.
The story of Halton Arp’s experiences with the scientific community has been documented many times. Suffice to say, a respectful and open-minded reception from astronomers and astrophysicists was not to be the result of his discovery. Rather than accepting his observations, Dr. Arp’s papers were barred from publication and his telescope time was canceled. He was shunned by colleagues and ignored by the community at large, one of the most shameful chapters in a book filled with instances of shoddy treatment and blind resentment.
Referring to material with a temperature of 100 million Kelvin as “hot gas”, astrophysicists are highlighting their complete ignorance of plasma and its behavior. No atom can remain intact at such temperatures: electrons are stripped from their nuclei and powerful electrical fields develop. The gaseous matter becomes plasma, capable of conducting electricity and forming double layers.
In 1986, Hannes Alfvén, in a NASA-sponsored conference on double layers in astrophysics, said: “Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that X-ray and gamma ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers. In solar flares, [double layers] with voltages of 10^9 volts or even more may occur, and in galactic phenomena, we may have voltages that are several orders of magnitude larger.”
Plasma is the first state of matter and makes up more than 99.99% of all observable matter in the Universe. Cosmological redshift has been shown to be a property of matter and not one of velocity. It is far past time that scientists actually look at what they see with critical eyes.
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.