Interacting galaxies, help needed

[Lloyd]

* Jim, why are you assuming that redshift means only velocity? What's wrong with Arp's and Thornhill's explanation that redshift in distant objects is due to ionization? In that case, the redshift isn't saying anything at all about velocity or distance, at least until you can separate the small velocity component of redshift from the large ionization component.
* Do you have a problem believing this image from this TPOD: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... galaxy.htm and the many other TPODs I linked to above which prove that redshift does not primarily indicate distance or velocity?

[mharratsc]

If- according to the standard model- the redshift indicates one galaxy is 3 million LY away, and the connected object is supposedly 6 billion LY...

[GaryN]

An odd thought occurred to me (happens all the time ) but I wondered if
there had been observations over time, lets use these two objects, to see
if there are any variations in measured redshift? I had been wondering if
redshift differences could show if the objects were moving towards or away
from each other. I think they should be moving towards each other due to
tension in the connection.

If- according to the standard model- the redshift indicates one galaxy is 3 million LY away, and the connected object is supposedly 6 billion LY...

I don't think we really have any idea on cosmic distances outside of
parallax measurement.

[mharratsc]

My point was that we're probably not going to see a 5.97 billion LY long thread of hydrogen...

As for watching redshift change... I dunno. Wal Thornhill suggests that redshifts in child galaxies/quasars/whatevers change in discreet steps. Would that mean one day we'd see a redshift of .23 and the next day it would be completely different? Not exactly sure... :\

[Nereid]

Well thanks for the input, everyone!

Now- what do we make of the different redshifts of the objects that are connected by hydrogen filaments in this one image then? o.O

Consider our very own Milky Way (MW) galaxy.

Consider HI (21 cm) observations.

Lots of hydrogen (not necessarily 'filaments', YMMV of course), connected (though that's an inference (or interpretation); 'connected' is an extraordinarily difficult conclusion to draw, in observational astronomy - you need models to do so! ), with redshifts that have a range of several hundred km/sec.

One thing to 'make' of these (MW) observations is that the hydrogen is in motion, relative to us, and that the observations are consistent with a 'thin disk' of neutral hydrogen which is 'rotating' with respect the MW's nucleus, in orbits which are circular {insert quantitative estimate of confidence in this here, a 'quibble' perhaps?}, and the motion of hydrogen deviates from that of a circular 'velocity/rotation curve' by {insert ... well, let's just cut to chase and say quibblequibble, in the form of unintelligible symbols, numbers, and other 'gravity-centric bunkum'}.

In other words, why bother spending decades, making painstaking and (sometimes) difficult observations, when it's all just quibbling? Arguments for argument's sake

[mharratsc]

Ma'am- I apologize if I offended you, but really- you were arguing who was or was not considered an electrical theorist, what constitutes fractal organization, and pursuing again how you have caught Dr. Peratt in an error regarding how his model fails to account for observational data of galaxies, and pointing out how plasma cosmology still fails to provide quantitative models...

...but the subject of that thread is A question about dark-mode currents... it seemed to me you were making much to do about issues that you are already covering extensively in other threads...

We get to discuss this stuff somewhere on the site without having to argue the other topics, don't we? :\

[Siggy_G]

'connected' is an extraordinarily difficult conclusion to draw

In the case of the opening post / subject, it seems qualified people interprets the group of galaxies and their filaments as connected - as in, they are not separated bodies. ( Tidal interactions in M81 group )

On top of that, it seems (to me) fairly obvious from a visual point of view that the filaments are connected, from seeing the harmonics of curvatures and textures. Of course, a visual interpretation. Now, for the models and numbers, it boils down to, what the heck do the redshift numbers mean?

I came over this site, that has a take on irragular galaxy groups, with references to various papers:
Systems with other types of evidence of discordant redshifts (Scroll down to M81)

Systematic redshifts in M81 group

* Redshifts appear quantized in M81 group.
* All companion galaxies in M81 group have higher redshift than the main galaxy, M81.

o Companions are expanding away from M81 and our cone of vision intercepts more on the far, receding side than on the near approaching side.
+ This model is hopeless because it predicts large numbers of so far undiscovered M81 group members.
o Companions are falling toward M81 and companions on the far, approaching side are hidden by dust.
+ This model is hopeless because it predicts large numbers of so far undiscovered M81 group members.
o Contamination by unrelated, high-redshift background galaxies might be responsible for the effect.
+ This model is hopeless because it predicts large numbers of so far undiscovered M81 group members.

I'm currently trying to track down newer papers on the M81 group in relation to redshift.

[mharratsc]

Sounds like it's not so politically-incorrect to discuss glaring discrepancies anymore. Nice find, Siggy

[Nereid]

1. The tabulated redshifts are relative to us as receiver. I think one would have to know more about the velocity vector of each object to see how the redshifts compare one with the other among the galaxy group. I'm not sure that can be derived from redshift data to us as an external datum, since we only have redshift data relative to a directed line between here and there, and don't know the other vector components that may also exist. Maybe astronomers can; I'm just not sure how, as proper motions of galaxies so far away are kind of hard to obtain. I think.

Proper motions - components of velocity vectors transverse to our line sight - have been estimated (based on observations) for a number of objects beyond our galaxy ... but all are within the Local Group, far closer than the M81 group (caveat: per standard astronomical methods). GAIA, if it fulfils its mission objectives, might indirectly help 'move the boundaries' so to speak (incidently, GAIA should put some very tight contraints on Arpian - and other - models concerning quasars-being-ejected-from-local-galaxies!).

Astronomers can make only ensemble estimates of non-line of sight velocity vector components; naturally, all such are heavily model-dependent.

2. Let's say object A is actually found to have a positive redshift value relative to an observer in object B. I think that means it's likely that the absolute distance between the two objects is not decreasing with time. They may be flying directly away from each other in a common plane like "ships passing in the night", or they may be separating and not be in a common plane, oblique non-intersecting trajectories.

In general, that will depend upon what you define to be "the absolute distance between the two objects"; if you want to make your answer consistent with EU theory, you would likely have to make several - possibly many - assumptions.

3. If A and B have a filament of hydrogen gas or plasma connecting them, I am not sure you can say anything about what is happening. What if the filalment only happens or appears to be connecting them now, but they will eventually plow their way out of the filament and it will be left hanging in space? What if it is "attached" to these two objects? Then it may try to stay attached. If so, its two ends will be at different velocities or redshifts relative to, say, the center, and there would be a gradient or continuum of change along the length of the filament. It may be getting "stretched out", basically, if attached. Is it possible for that to happen? I don't know enough to be sure. I am not even sure how one snapshot in cosmic time can help us decide on a mechanism that "anchors" a filament "here" and also parsecs away over "there".

Bottom line for me, as usual: I don't know.

Actually, you've done a darned good job of putting your finger on something key to interpreting all astronomical observations! In short, pick your model, then you can go ahead and make an interpretation.

Which is an excellent segue into ...

* Jim, why are you assuming that redshift means only velocity? What's wrong with Arp's and Thornhill's explanation that redshift in distant objects is due to ionization? In that case, the redshift isn't saying anything at all about velocity or distance, at least until you can separate the small velocity component of redshift from the large ionization component.

Redshift - as observed - is nothing more than the ratio of the wavelengths of two lines, assumed to arise from the same electronic (occasionally molecular or nuclear) transition.

In "Arp's and Thornhill's explanation", redshift can be caused by a physical process that no one has ever observed in any lab, here in Earth.

In the case of the papers solrey brought to our attention, by Leif Holmlid, redshift can be caused by Raman scattering involving a rather novel form of matter (i.e. Rydberg Matter).

And so on.

If- according to the standard model- the redshift indicates one galaxy is 3 million LY away, and the connected object is supposedly 6 billion LY...

If all you have is patterns of electromagnetic radiation from the sky, how do you determine 'connected'?

Remember, the superb human visual pattern recognition system evolved from dealing with potential prey, potential dinner, potential mates, potential bad weather, ... not galaxies, redshifts, and quasars. As many generations of psycologists (and others) have convincingly shown, that superb system is all too easily fooled.

An odd thought occurred to me (happens all the time ) but I wondered if there had been observations over time, lets use these two objects, to see if there are any variations in measured redshift? I had been wondering if redshift differences could show if the objects were moving towards or away from each other. I think they should be moving towards each other due to tension in the connection.

It's not the least bit an 'odd thought' GaryN! In fact, it's been done for well over a century; it's one way of testing models of objects which show 'double-lined' spectra - the changes over time are consistent with models of them being binary stars, in relatively tight orbits around their common centre of gravity (to take just one example). For extragalactic objects, I think all such 'time-domain' observations show no changes ... except in the jets of AGNs.

As for watching redshift change... I dunno. Wal Thornhill suggests that redshifts in child galaxies/quasars/whatevers change in discreet steps. Would that mean one day we'd see a redshift of .23 and the next day it would be completely different? Not exactly sure... :\

If that could be turned into a quantitative hypothesis, it would be readily testable; in fact, there may be enough data available to everyone (with a broadband internet connection) to test exactly such hypotheses already! I think I'll add it to the list of possible citizen science projects (well done Mike!)

you were arguing who was or was not considered an electrical theorist, what constitutes fractal organization, and pursuing again how you have caught Dr. Peratt in an error regarding how his model fails to account for observational data of galaxies, and pointing out how plasma cosmology still fails to provide quantitative models...

Ah, those figures of straw, so easy to build, so easy to demolish! Mike, this sort of gross mis-representation is beginning to get tiring; may I ask you, politely, to please stop it?

In the case of the opening post / subject, it seems qualified people interprets the group of galaxies and their filaments as connected - as in, they are not separated bodies. ( Tidal interactions in M81 group )

Indeed.

And that's where things start to get interesting.

For example, if you don't buy into/accept/whatever the standard astronomical methods of even data reduction, let alone application of standard models, then you have no choice but to start from scratch, using your own data reduction algorithms and pipelines, and your own models, to derive your own interpretations, surely?

I came over this site, that has a take on irragular galaxy groups, with references to various papers:
Systems with other types of evidence of discordant redshifts (Scroll down to M81)

Excellent example, thanks Siggy_G.

Waaay back near the top of this thread, there's a table which includes not only estimated redshifts, but also estimated uncertainties. From my earlier post, you'll no doubt have concluded that the estimated redshift of a galaxy - which, in the case of the M81 group ones - is most certainly not a point source is model dependent (e.g. at least you have to make some assumptions about how to do your averaging). So, even at this, very close to actual observations level, you can see that choices of models influence what is quoted as 'observed redshift' (and, much more so, estimated uncertainty).

Whoever put together that material, on that webpage, on the M81 group, seems to have ignored - or, worse, been ignorant of - this simple fact.

I'm currently trying to track down newer papers on the M81 group in relation to redshift.

Good luck.

However, I suggest that your time would be better spent getting to the bottom of the myriad assumptions, models, etc which have gone into the M81 group redshift estimates, and trying to come up with an approach that is consistent (or at least defensible) within EU theory (good luck with that by the way).

Sounds like it's not so politically-incorrect to discuss glaring discrepancies anymore. Nice find, Siggy

Sounds like the work I put in to trying to answer your question was in vain; was it?

Should I just leave you to your imagination? Or do you find any value whatsoever in my honest attempts to explain key aspects of observational astronomy to you?

[Aristarchus]

In "Arp's and Thornhill's explanation", redshift can be caused by a physical process that no one has ever observed in any lab, here in Earth.

You were already taken to task for mentioning this specious positing before on the TB forum, and quite recently, in that the establishment science has a great deal that it is unable to prove in labs on Earth. I'll have those from the etablishment science underlined in the abstract below, which will also take into account the kind of research pertaining to plasma-redshifts:

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: a Review

The newly discovered and experimentally verified plasma-redshift cross section of photons penetrating hot sparse plasma leads to a new cosmology, which is radically different from the conventional big-bang cosmology. The plasma-redshift cross section is deduced from conventional axioms of physics without any new assumptions. It has been overlooked, because it is insignificant in ordinary laboratory plasmas; but it is important in sparse hot plasmas, such as those in the corona of the Sun, stars, quasars, galaxies, and intergalactic space. The energy that the photons lose in plasma redshift heats the plasma. The deduction of plasma redshift requires that we take into account the dielectric constant more accurately than is usually done. In the Sun, the plasma redshift predicts the observed densities and the temperatures in both the transition zone and in the corona. Plasma redshift predicts the observed intrinsic redshifts of the Sun, stars, quasars, and galaxies, the cosmological redshifts, cosmic microwave background, and cosmic X-ray background. There is no need for: Einstein’s cosmological constant Lambda, Big Bang, Cosmic Inflation, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, Black Holes, and Cosmic Time Dilation. Plasma redshift shows also that contrary to general belief, the gravitational redshift in the Sun is reversed when photons move from the Sun to the Earth. This is a quantum mechanical effect. This means also that the photons are weightless in local system of reference. All the many experiments, which have been assumed to prove photons have weight, are meaningless, because in all cases the researchers disregarded the quantum mechanical uncertainty principle. It is essential to use quantum mechanical concepts for deducing plasma redshift and weightlessness of photons. Plasma redshift cannot be derived using classical physics methods. It would, therefore, not exist in the conventional plasma cosmology. Plasma-redshift cosmology, which besides the plasma redshift cross section includes the newly discovered weightlessness of photons shows that there are no black holes (BHs) or super-massive BHs (SMBHs), because the weightless photons accumulate at the centers of BH candidates (BHCs) and SMBH candidates (SMBHCs) and prevent formation of BHs, as shown in the related poster session paper at this conference.

For complete paper:

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: a Review

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid quoted me, then said:

you were arguing who was or was not considered an electrical theorist, what constitutes fractal organization, and pursuing again how you have caught Dr. Peratt in an error regarding how his model fails to account for observational data of galaxies, and pointing out how plasma cosmology still fails to provide quantitative models...

Ah, those figures of straw, so easy to build, so easy to demolish! Mike, this sort of gross mis-representation is beginning to get tiring; may I ask you, politely, to please stop it?

Ma'am, you left out the following bit:
I also said:

...but the subject of that thread is A question about dark-mode currents... it seemed to me you were making much to do about issues that you are already covering extensively in other threads...

I don't follow the 'straw man attack' argument. At all. o.O

In any event, you went on to state regarding my comment:

mharratsc wrote:

If- according to the standard model- the redshift indicates one galaxy is 3 million LY away, and the connected object is supposedly 6 billion LY..

.

If all you have is patterns of electromagnetic radiation from the sky, how do you determine 'connected'?

Remember, the superb human visual pattern recognition system evolved from dealing with potential prey, potential dinner, potential mates, potential bad weather, ... not galaxies, redshifts, and quasars. As many generations of psycologists (and others) have convincingly shown, that superb system is all too easily fooled.

However from the introduction of 'The Origin of Companion Galaxies' by Halton Arp, we have the following:

Holmberg had been studying the properties of groups of galaxies for nearly 20 years when he published a study of physical companions of 174 nearby spiral galaxies (Holmberg 1969). The outstanding result of that study was that the companions were preferentially distributed along the minor axis of the central spiral. A later study of 96 nonequilibrium, peculiar galaxies showed these disturbed kinds of galaxies to be physical companions of spirals and to avoid regions in the direction of the major axes of the central galaxy (Sulentic, Arp & di Tullio 1978). Most recently a sample of 115 satellite galaxies around isolated spirals was shown to be aligned preferentially with the disk minor axis (Zaritsky et al. 1997b).

Also, right from the Abstract of the same paper, there is:

Empirically there is a continuity of physical properties which suggests that the intrinsic redshifts of quasars decay as they evolve into more normal galaxies. The coincident alignment of companion galaxies plus their systematically higher redshifts then both become confirmation of their evolution from quasars which have been previously ejected along the minor axes of active spiral galaxies. The quantization of the redshifts of companions also supports their evolutionary origin from the quantized, intrinsic, quasar redshifts.

So there are observations that suggests that maybe our understanding of the redshifts of remote astronomical objects may not be as well-developed as we'd like to believe.

You can say that estimates of values and uncertainties vary between models and whatnot, but if you have observations being made by the same personnel, with the same equipment, using the same 'yardstick', and you have 170+ instances of locality, axial alignment, and apparently quantized redshifts... would you not be foolish to sweep it under the rug with a big "Bah! Couldn't be!" ??


You next commented after quoting me:

mharratsc wrote:

Sounds like it's not so politically-incorrect to discuss glaring discrepancies anymore. Nice find, Siggy

Sounds like the work I put in to trying to answer your question was in vain; was it?

Should I just leave you to your imagination? Or do you find any value whatsoever in my honest attempts to explain key aspects of observational astronomy to you?

Not in vain at all. I read your post, and did my best to understand it.

Particularly interesting to me was the following:

The spectra of stars, planetary nebulae, HII regions, and galaxies (and many more objects besides) usually contain 'lines', which correspond to specific atomic transitions (the electron in an atom, or ion, 'jumps' from one allowed level to another; if the jump is 'down' - higher energy state to a lower one - the atom or ion emits light; if 'up, it absorbs light). The 'rest wavelengths' of the lines are very well known, either from high precision lab experiments or theory (e.g. many 'nebular lines' have never been observed in labs - we can't create vacuums hard enough for long enough). The difference between the observed wavelength (from the spectrum of the astronomical object) and the rest wavelength is called redshift, in the sense of (observed) - (rest). Note that negative redshifts are sometimes called blueshifts.

(Highlight mine)

Even as you said- power levels. They are suggesting that these 'children' are being expelled at much higher energy states than the surrounding matter, and then decay (oddly, in discreet or quantized steps) gaining in mass while losing energy.

Here is the thing- they are not saying they have all the answers to what they are observing. They are simply reporting what they see.

Here is where you can argue until tomorrow morning that they don't know what they are looking at, or whatever. And that may be your opinion, and you are certainly entitled to it.

However it is apparent that some few people still find it plausible to continue to investigate it, and interestingly enough- it seems to fit with plasma cosmology rather well with the notion of highly energized matter being expelled in an enormously-ionized plasma jet from the central plasmoid of a galactic core.

Falling back on consensus explanations has failed science several times in the past- the existence of meteors, charge separation in space, electrical circuit between the Sun and the Earth, to name a few.

I personally think that there is enough logic behind what Mr. Arp reports, and that it fits so well with the PC hypothesis regarding galactic nuclei, that I will continue to subscribe to the idea myself.

That is MY opinion, that I am likewise entitled to.

[Nereid]

In "Arp's and Thornhill's explanation", redshift can be caused by a physical process that no one has ever observed in any lab, here in Earth.

[...]
I'll have those from the etablishment science underlined in the abstract below, which will also take into account the kind of research pertaining to plasma-redshifts:

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: a Review

Um, did you read up on Brynjolfsson's 'plasma redshift' ideas, Aristarchus? Seriously?

Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that his work is consistent? based on established experimental results (obtained in Earth-based labs)?!?

Did you check whether Brynjolfsson's 'plasma redshift' is consistent - quantitatively - with the 'facts' in Arp's and Thornhill's materials (the ones which include their explanations of the redshifts)?

I seriously doubt that you did.

You see, among other things, Brynjolfsson's 'plasma redshift' is a kind of 'tired light' hypothesis; in other words, it provides an explanation for the Hubble redshift-distance relationship that is an alternative to that in LCDM cosmological models (where it is a consequence of general relativity). Yet central to Arp's (and Thornhill's) explanation is that the observed redshifts of quasars (and other objects) is due to something intrinsic to them (in large part anyway); quasars near M82 on the sky, for example, are at approximately the same distance from us as M82 is. Contrast this with Brynjolfsson: those quasars are cosmologically distant (many hundreds of Mpc, perhaps a few Gpc), not a few Mpc. That NGC 7319 'foreground' quasar? Per Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift, it's far in the background.

And so on.

So there are observations that suggests that maybe our understanding of the redshifts of remote astronomical objects may not be as well-developed as we'd like to believe.

You can say that estimates of values and uncertainties vary between models and whatnot, but if you have observations being made by the same personnel, with the same equipment, using the same 'yardstick', and you have 170+ instances of locality, axial alignment, and apparently quantized redshifts... would you not be foolish to sweep it under the rug with a big "Bah! Couldn't be!" ??

I'm going to pass on this one Mike.

Given the amount of time and effort it's taken me to explain some of the really straight-forward basics of observational astronomy, I honestly have better things to do with my time than try to tackle even basic statistics and astronomical surveys (you can do your own literature search, if you're truly interested; Arp's grasp of this topic - per his published papers - has been pretty thoroughly covered).

Even as you said- power levels. They are suggesting that these 'children' are being expelled at much higher energy states than the surrounding matter, and then decay (oddly, in discreet or quantized steps) gaining in mass while losing energy.

Strangely, no such behaviour has been seen in any lab, other than in atoms, ions, and molecules ... and that behaviour is consistent with quantum mechanics.

Here is the thing- they are not saying they have all the answers to what they are observing. They are simply reporting what they see.

Queue a discussion on selection effects in astronomy ... no, sorry, I don't think even the 'model teacher' in me would accept such a challenge with the students here (how many months do you think we'd need, Mike, to even get to a sufficiently good foundation - involving your everyday world - before we could even start?)

However it is apparent that some few people still find it plausible to continue to investigate it,

Good for them; may there always be such people with such an interest.

and interestingly enough- it seems to fit with plasma cosmology rather well with the notion of highly energized matter being expelled in an enormously-ionized plasma jet from the central plasmoid of a galactic core.

Only if you accept the existence of physics processes which have never been seen in any lab experiment, here on Earth, and are not derivable from any part of plasma physics.

[David Talbott]

and interestingly enough- it seems to fit with plasma cosmology rather well with the notion of highly energized matter being expelled in an enormously-ionized plasma jet from the central plasmoid of a galactic core.

Only if you accept the existence of physics processes which have never been seen in any lab experiment, here on Earth, and are not derivable from any part of plasma physics.

Okay, I'm mystified again Nereid. Do you really want to have to defend this statement? Both the plasma focus device and the Wolfe Effect are real, as are other well known plasma effects, all supporting a reasonable suspicion or belief that quasars are fundamentally electrical.

The Wolfe Effect: "The actual frequency shift due to the Wolf effect depends on the geometry. As the illustration above shows, whether an observer sees a redshift or a blue shift depends on his or her locations with respect to the source.

"The mechanism can be extended from the case of two radiating point sources to that of a whole collection of such objects, for example a plasma cloud. Wolf and his colleagues have shown that such a cloud can produce shifts that closely mimic the Doppler effect. The figure shows an example.

"Thus the assumption that quasars—beamed electromagnetic radiators with large redshifts—are part of the "Hubble flow" of an expanding universe could be wrong. This effect should also apply to normal galaxies, most of whose matter is in the plasma state."

http://plasmauniverse.info/redshifts.html

[Aristarchus]

Can you honestly say, with a straight face, that his work is consistent? based on established experimental results (obtained in Earth-based labs)?!?

You misunderstand. I threw out your "Earth-based labs" premise as simply insignificant. Did you read what I highlighted?

The plasma-redshift cross section is deduced from conventional axioms of physics without any new assumptions. It has been overlooked, because it is insignificant in ordinary laboratory plasmas; but it is important in sparse hot plasmas, such as those in the corona of the Sun, stars, quasars, galaxies, and intergalactic space.

Furthermore, Brynjolfsson's cites Arp in the following:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 1420v3.pdf

The plasma redshift theory predicts thus large redshifts especially in the large and hot O and B stars. These predictions are consistent with the observed K-effect, which was discovered long ago, but could not be explained; see Arp [52].

Initially, when very little matter covers up the ends of the vortex, we observe two jets, one from each end, beaming far away from many objects believed to be black holes. We will first see “knots” or “lumps” on the beams or jets, because, as is well known from laboratory experiments and theory for pair production, matter enhances the transformation rate of photons to particle pairs. Occasionally, these “lumps” and “knots” may coalesce as they are being pushed away, and could possibly form quasars, about the way Halton Arp sees it in his monograph, Seeing Red, [52]. For example, the largest “lump” in M87 already now emits more X rays than the core of M87.

Here's more from Brynjolfsson referencing Arp

http://www.davidscottderouin.com/Plasma ... edings.pdf

If for some reasons a SMBHC moves into a less dense environment, (for example into intergalactic space), a significant fraction of its extensive corona will necessarily ”evaporate” and become transparent. Initially, the corona will be relatively thick and the plasma redshifts therefore very large (like the quasars). With age, the corona becomes thinner and the intrinsic plasma redshift decreases, as observations by Halton Arp of quasars indicate[28].


... When excited, the large liquid drop model may split into two parts, which then with help of the large inertial mass in the two halfs may move apart into intergalactic space and become quasars. Again, this appears to match observations of quasars by Halton Arp [28].

As for redshift, there are various proposals to its causes, but, as before, and the third time I am informing you of this matter, is that researchers will cite one another, but not accept the entire theory of those researchers cited. As for redshift theories outside that of Arp's -

1. Ari Brynjolfsson
2. There's the less mathematical development of Brynjolfsson's from Robin Whittle
3. Sisir Roy )extension of Wolf Effect) - I believe the wolf Effect has already been mentioned in quoting Peratt

There are others, but, let's move on:

Yet central to Arp's (and Thornhill's) explanation is that the observed redshifts of quasars (and other objects) is due to something intrinsic to them (in large part anyway); quasars near M82 on the sky, for example, are at approximately the same distance from us as M82 is. Contrast this with Brynjolfsson: those quasars are cosmologically distant (many hundreds of Mpc, perhaps a few Gpc), not a few Mpc. That NGC 7319 'foreground' quasar? Per Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift, it's far in the background.

Now, let's look at what I highlighted from your above statement, and now refer back to Ari Brynjolfsson. Here's Brynjolfsson thesis statement:

Both the distance-redshift relation and the magnitude-redshift relation for supernovae and galaxies are well-defined functions of the average electron densities in inter-galactic space.

http://www.citebase.org/fulltext?format ... %2F0605098

Furthermore:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 1666v3.pdf

On a small stretch δx of the photon’s path, the photon’s redshift δz transfers the energy δz hν to the plasma, where hν is the photons energy at that location. The photon’s energy δz hν lost on the stretch δx is absorbed locally by the plasma electrons. The corresponding heating of the plasma is significant [1]. This energy is many orders of magnitude greater than the heating by Compton scattering. The plasma redshift makes it therefore possible to have extended and relatively dense and hot plasma in the intergalactic space, and in the coronas of stars, quasars, and galaxies. The hot, dense and extended coronas result in significant intrinsic redshifts of stars, quasars, galaxies, and galaxy clusters. [1].

Without the plasma-redshift heating, the sources supplying the necessary heating for the intergalactic plasma could not be found. The intergalactic space was therefore assumed to be cold and practically empty. The coronas of stars, quasars and galaxies were assumed to contain relatively low-density plasma. It was also difficult to explain the great extent of some of the high-temperature HII regions in our Galaxy. The density of the Milky Way’s corona was assumed to correspond to only T Ne ≈ 500 Kcm−3, because we couldn’t find enough supernovae or any other means for heating the more than a million K coronal plasma.

I'm not going to bother with placing the math symbols in the correct format, but the link to page 7 will allow the reader to extrapolate that for himself/herself were the need prove important:

The lensing galaxy or the lensing group of galaxies may be surrounded by dense galactic corona. The intrinsic redshift, δz′ L, can be expected to be as large or larger than that of the Milky Way. The redshift, z′ L, determining the distance to the lensing galaxy is then given by z′ L = zL −δz′ MW −δz′ L, where zL is the observed redshift.

The source, which is often a quasar, may have exceptionally large intrinsic redshift, δz′ S. The light path to the source grazes the lens, which results in an intrinsic redshift δz′ LL in addition to δz′ L.For obtaining the redshift z′ S that determines the distance to the source, we must replace the observed redshift zS by z′ S = zS −δz′ S −δz′ LL−δz′ L−δz′ MW. It therefore will be necessary to modify significantly the present lensing theory.

When observing a distant star or a quasar, most of the scattered light from the coronal electrons would be observed as coming from the star or the quasar. It is usually important to distinguish intrinsic redshift from the redshift caused by interaction with electrons in space along the line of sight. The cross section for intensity reduction caused by the Compton scattering is exactly twice that of the plasma redshift. In the plasma redshift model there is no time dilation, as the universe is quasi-static.

In case of lensing experiments little or no effort has been made to reduce the intrinsic redshifts. Only a few lensing systems are available. Also, the light path has to penetrate the entire length of the relatively dense corona of the lensing galaxy or galaxy group. The estimates of the average value of H0, which depends on the average electron density along each distance may skew the estimates. When we compare the observed data with the predictions of both the big-bang and the plasmaredshift cosmology and disregard intrinsic redshifts, we should expect relatively large values for the Hubble constant.

The conventional gravitational lensing models are described well by Peebles [7], Kochanek, Schnider and Wambsganss [9], Narayan and Bartelmann [10], Schechter [11], and Kochanek and Schechter [12]. In these models it is usually necessary to make some assumptions about the gravitational mass distribution and the gravitational environment including distribution of dark masses. It is a common practice in the big-bang cosmology to surmise that the galaxies and quasars have no intrinsic redshifts, except those caused by the Doppler shifts.

In the lensing theory based on plasma redshift, we must:

1. Replace the comoving distances given by Eq. (6) in the big-bang cosmology with the distances
in the plasma redshift cosmology, which are given by Eq. (4).

2. Take into account the intrinsic redshifts of the different objects, especially the large intrinsic
redshifts of the quasars.

The average intrinsic redshift corrections δz′ MW ≈ 0.00095 along the path close to the Milky Way, the intrinsic redshift δz′ L along the path close to the lens, the intrinsic redshift δz′ LL along the path grazing the lens, and intrinsic redshift δz′ S along the path close to the source can all be significant, especially the intrinsic redshift δz′ S of the source, which is usually a quasar.

Within the coronas of galaxies, the electron densities are often on the order of or exceed Ne = 10−2 cm−3, while the average electron density in intergalactic space is Ne ≈ 2 • 10−4 cm−3. The Milky Way, lens galaxies, galaxy clusters, and quasars often have significant intrinsic redshifts.

The intrinsic redshift δz′ LL will vary from one system to another; but it is most likely larger
than δz′ L. Nevertheless, it appears clear that the major portion of the intrinsic redshift of a system δz′ Q = δz′ S + δz′ LL, is due to the intrinsic redshift, δz′ S, of the source, which is usually a quasar.

The main purpose of this analysis is to show in Tables 2 and 3 that the plasma-redshift cosmology is consistent with the present lensing data. The plasma redshift cosmology predicts and the observations confirm that quasars have large intrinsic redshifts. Due to their high luminosity, we expect quasars to have hot, dense, and extended coronas, with a large value of R Ne dx, and therefore relatively large intrinsic redshifts. Due to the plasma-redshift heating, the corona of the quasar is hot and extends far beyond the Str¨omgren radius of the quasar.

Now the last quote is fairly important to our discussion, because it is clear that the research of Brynjolfsson' is ancillary, corollary, and can be applied in conjunction with the work of Arp.

[davesmith_au]

<tongue in cheek>
Well, obviously, Brynjolfsson got it wrong so we can dustbin his work, too!
</tongue in cheek>

...