The "redshift" debate

[PersianPaladin]

Okay....so I posted some stuff (in a forum) about Halton Arp's galaxy-quasar pairs which I had highlighted in an article I wrote here:-

http://hozturner.blogspot.com/2011/05/n ... -does.html

The response I got from one of the scientists (after they read my article) was:-

Interesting, but one or two anomalies does not necessarily falsify all of Big Bang cosmology, which is consistent with and supported by an overwhelmingly massive amount of data from many diverse sources.

For example, as an alternative explanation of the "foreground quasar" cited: A bright radiation source that was closely orbiting a black hole or on the surface of a dense neutron star might display an anomalous gravitational redshift that was not associated with distance or recession velocity.

But, that does not imply that the majority of high-redshift objects have that kind of exceptional explanation. Indeed, it seems difficult to explain in any non-Big-Bang framework why higher-redshift objects consistently also appear smaller and dimmer. Also, multiple other yardsticks (e.g., study of standard-candle supernovas) bolster the redshift-distance association. I think by now there is far too much data directly backing up the theory for there to be any serious challenge to it.

Is it just me, or has he totally ignored what I just put forward?

[orrery]

I would assume that most of us went to school with most of the people who today we call scientists and attended the same universities and even the same classes. Some of us can even say we even did better in school than many of them. A lot of us can also attest that for many of them their success depended on "who" they knew and not "what" they knew or how good they were.

So, in summation, most of the people we refer to as scientists are stupid crazy drunk frat boys.

[Goldminer]

Ah, yes! The difference between qualitative and quantitative "evidence." The "substance" of criticism used by Big Bangers/Black Holer/Consensus Religionists to denigrate any hypothesis that sideline their precious viewpoint. The meager data from the Pioneer/Voyager probes notwithstanding, all data for the various theories comes from electromagnetic radiation sensed/gathered from detectors here on Earth and the inter solar system. (i.e. spectra, intensity, direction from which said radiation was acquired, etc; little if any separate electrical/magnetic forces, or particles directly recorded or analyzed.) This "data" is the same for all the theories.

I am emphasizing that Big Bangers/Black Holers/Consensus Religionists wish to have others believe that their analysis are the only "unbiased" "scientific" analysis and formulas allowed consideration. They are willfully blind to hard evidence extracted from exactly the same data everyone has available to "analyze." Thus the cognitive dissonance that Hossein/PP received from his recent post on his blog. It is not "qualitative and quantitative," it is the method of analysis. All methods of analysis are biased in one manner or another.

[PersianPaladin]

Here is another one of his responses:-

I would be surprised if the theory that high-redshift galaxies were actually smaller and fainter could really be made consistent with all the information we have. E.g., info on galaxy morphology - spiral galaxies exist at a wide range of angular sizes but I haven't seen an explanation for why the same structures would form at such a wide range of length scales (nearby small galaxies like the Magellanic clouds are irregular, not spiral), nor is there a plausible physical explanation for the redshift itself other than the Doppler effect. Gravitational redshift would not explain the inverse correlation between redshift and angular size. The standard Big Bang picture is backed up by detailed computer simulations, based on known physics, that accurately reproduce the kinds of patterns in the distribution of galaxies that we actually see in the sky. I don't think this can be said for any alternative models.

As for my degree, I consider myself a polymath scientist whose degree just happens to be in Electrical & Computer Engineering because of my interest in the physical limits of computation. But generally throughout the sciences, I find that the consensus of top experts in a given field is far more likely to be right than a handful of maverick outsiders. Yes, occasionally an Einstein comes along and overthrows the conventional wisdom, but that is an extremely rare occurrence. And when this happens, it happens because new data shows the newcomer's theory is right. I haven't seen a coherent alternative theory to the Big Bang that is even consistent with all the data we already have, let alone any new data.

This is the guy who I'm referring to:-
http://www.facebook.com/m.p.frank

Funny how he is an electric engineer by trade, but completely ignored my invitations for him to look at the work of Don Scott.

[jjohnson]

PP, I think you must have touched a nerve! — on both sides of your discussion. Despite your respondent's denial of redshift anomalies he uses a very civil tone in discussing why the majority tend to be right more often than do mavericks. We would look better if we followed his tone in coming to alternative conclusions and interpretations.

Just sayin' Like mom says, "Dress the part; get the job."

Jim

[Dotini]

PP, I think you must have touched a nerve! — on both sides of your discussion. Despite your respondent's denial of redshift anomalies he uses a very civil tone in discussing why the majority tend to be right more often than do mavericks. We would look better if we followed his tone in coming to alternative conclusions and interpretations.

Just sayin' Like mom says, "Dress the part; get the job."

Jim

^
^
^
Very valuable and wise advice!

With respect to Arp, we must be aware that it is risky to refer to him by name when addressing redshift or other such issues.
1) He has a reputation of being a disagreeable crank amongst a wide array of up-to-date academics, students and professionals, whether deserved or not.
2) He has occasionally alluded to "God" in his work, and is therefore suspected of religious belief tendencies, another unforgivable "heresy" to many scientists.
3) Claims of nearby quasars or associated objects of different redshift will elicit an instant, united and concerted negative response from the current mainstream, as these claims, no matter how well observed, are at complete odds with the currently accepted paradigm. Arp's claims are wrong because they MUST be wrong.

So, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a lot of strong evidence."

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

[David Russell23]

My own research has involved testing for intrinsic redshifts in normal spiral galaxies. One thing I've learned is that not every researcher that thinks there are intrinsic redshifts believes that the Big Bang is disproven by that evidence. For example, one researcher I have dialogued with thinks that the intrinsic redshifts are superposed on top of the cosmological redshift from expansion of the universe. In fact this possibility cannot be ruled out by the data.

If you look at any plot of redshift vs. distance derived from redshift independent distance indicators you will see a trend of redshift increasing as distance increases. There will be a lot of scatter in that plot. The scatter is typically attributed by mainstream astronomers to peculiar motions and errors in the redshift independant distance indicator. However, it is possible that the scatter could in some cases indicate real deviations from a smooth Hubble flow that are caused by a non-cosmological redshift mechanism.

My hypothesis based upon my own published research is that the value of the Hubble constant is ~58 km s-1 Mpc-1 and that any excess redshift an object has above that predicted for H0=58 results from an intrinsic redshift component. That would include smaller excess redshifts in normal galaxies on up through almost the entire observed redshift of any local quasars. Now whether the underlying Hubble constant of 58 is caused by expansion of the universe or by some tired light mechanism, or the variable mass hypothesis of Narlikar & Arp I cannot say. I don't think I've seen any data that rules out the expansion hypothesis. But neither do I find the Big Bang that compelling due to numerous other difficulties it faces.

[PersianPaladin]

PP, I think you must have touched a nerve! — on both sides of your discussion. Despite your respondent's denial of redshift anomalies he uses a very civil tone in discussing why the majority tend to be right more often than do mavericks. We would look better if we followed his tone in coming to alternative conclusions and interpretations.

Just sayin' Like mom says, "Dress the part; get the job."

Jim

^
^
^
Very valuable and wise advice!

With respect to Arp, we must be aware that it is risky to refer to him by name when addressing redshift or other such issues.
1) He has a reputation of being a disagreeable crank amongst a wide array of up-to-date academics, students and professionals, whether deserved or not.
2) He has occasionally alluded to "God" in his work, and is therefore suspected of religious belief tendencies, another unforgivable "heresy" to many scientists.
3) Claims of nearby quasars or associated objects of different redshift will elicit an instant, united and concerted negative response from the current mainstream, as these claims, no matter how well observed, are at complete odds with the currently accepted paradigm. Arp's claims are wrong because they MUST be wrong.

So, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a lot of strong evidence."

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Well.....never throw the baby out with the bathwater. I could get all upset over Velikovsky's multiple errors as well as his horrible political zionism. But the fact remains, he should be given a lot of credit for his analysis of mythology (particularly the unity of mythical archetypes) and some of his successful predictions with respect to astronomy. I like Velikovsky.

[PersianPaladin]

PP, I think you must have touched a nerve! — on both sides of your discussion. Despite your respondent's denial of redshift anomalies he uses a very civil tone in discussing why the majority tend to be right more often than do mavericks. We would look better if we followed his tone in coming to alternative conclusions and interpretations.

Just sayin' Like mom says, "Dress the part; get the job."

Jim

With regard to the majority being mostly right....I really don't know. There are serious issues concerning the power of conformity in institutions of higher learning....and this also affects a lot of society, as this short video demonstrates (citing some interesting empirical studies):-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrNIuFrso8I

The video is very revealing to me - particularly in how peer pressure can literally affect how people SEE or interpret the same thing.

[Jarvamundo]

The standard Big Bang picture is backed up by detailed computer simulations, based on known physics

Cmon, we all had atleast a little chuckle there...

[Sparky]

David Russell23, "If you look at any plot of redshift vs. distance derived from redshift independent distance indicators you will see a trend of redshift increasing as distance increases".

What redshift independent distance indicators are there that do not have redshift as an intrinsic part of their construction?

-redshift increasing as distance increases"

"Fingers of God" falsifies redshift equals distance.
If redshift equals distance has been falsified, how can you say that?
I don't think you have any idea what distances are involved past the parallax measurable ones. The most accurate term for such distances is, "It's a long, long way"!

[Jarvamundo]

supernova time dilation, tolman surface brightness..... although interpretations continue with new data


large scale structure was the sealer for me... but "cosmic strings" apparently cover that one now....

I think mans obsession with beginnings and ends play a role, and so i see eastern philosophies and cultures being more accommodating to an eternal / cyclical plasma universe.

[David Russell23]

David Russell23, "If you look at any plot of redshift vs. distance derived from redshift independent distance indicators you will see a trend of redshift increasing as distance increases".

What redshift independent distance indicators are there that do not have redshift as an intrinsic part of their construction?

-redshift increasing as distance increases"

"Fingers of God" falsifies redshift equals distance.
If redshift equals distance has been falsified, how can you say that?
I don't think you have any idea what distances are involved past the parallax measurable ones. The most accurate term for such distances is, "It's a long, long way"!

Sparky - By definition a "redshift independent" distance indicator is a method of calculating the distance to a galaxy that does not require the assumption of redshift = distance to determine the distance to an object.

For external galaxies numerous methods can be applied: For elliptical galaxies researchers use the Surface Brightness fluctuation method (SBF), the fundamental plane (FP), the Globular Cluster Luminosity Function (GCLF), and Type Ia and Type II Supernova (when available). For spiral galaxies researchers use primarily the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) and the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TFGB) methods but they can also use Type Ia and Type II Supernova (again when available). The absolute calibration (zero point determination) for these scales is based upon Cepheids - which itself is based upon the Milky Way and Large Magellanic cloud Cepheid period luminosity relation. For each of these methods the calculated distance to a galaxy is independent of the redshift of the galaxy. In other words - the distance to the galaxy is calculated no matter what the observed redshift may be.

Thus we can take a sample of galaxies with these redshift independent distances and plot their observed redshifts against their redshift independent distances. The redshift - distance plots show that as distance increases the redshift increases ---- with a large amount of scatter. This is an empirical fact. For samples of normal galaxies - on average - as distance increases the observed redshift increases -- for a sample of galaxies. But there is large scatter in this overall trend such that for the most accurate redshift independent distances there is room for intrinsic redshifts.

My own published papers have primarily involved use of the Tully-Fisher relation to calculate distances. The TFR utilizes the relationship between the rotational velocity and absolute magnitude for spiral galaxies. As absolute magnitude increases so does the rotational velocity. Since the rotational velocity is a distant independent measurement whereas the value of the apparent magnitude is a distance dependent measurement --- the farther a galaxy is the fainter it appears --- all you need is a Cepheid calibration of the relationship, a measured rotational velocity, a measured apparent magnitude, and a measured inclination angle to calculate the distance to a galaxy. For completeness you also need to correct the apparent magnitude for galactic and internal extinction.

In my 2009 paper, the sample of 218 spiral galaxies showed an overall trend of redshift increasing with distance. Individual galaxies showed large scatter around the average trend - but the trend is real. So there is an underlying distance redshift relationship upon which intrinsic redshifts would be superposed.

The Fingers of God are an example of meaningless nonsense. They don't prove redshift = distance. They don't prove redshift does not equal distance. The only thing they show is how redshift values are distributed on an segment of the sky. Since the plots reveal no information about actual distances they are worthless in my opinion.

So far I've only mentioned normal galaxies. Now Quasars do not show any evidence of a relationship between redshift and distance. And since there are no redshift independent distance calculation methods for quasars nobody really knows how far they are. Personally, I think Arp is right and that they are not at cosmological distances. The lack of time dilation exhibited by quasars supports Arp's contention (see papers by Hawkins).

Finally, don't waste my time claiming I don't know blah blah blah. I've published papers in The Astrophysical Journal, Astrophysics&Space Science; and the Journal of Astrophysics & Astronomy. I also was asked to referee a paper for Astrophysical Journal Letters which proposed evidence for intrinsic redshifts. If I choose to contribute something to discussions like this - I know what I'm talking about.

Here is my most recently published paper:

http://arxiv.org/abs/0812.1288

And here is the paper I will be presenting at the NPA:

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/a ... s_6152.pdf

[David Russell23]

PP, I think you must have touched a nerve! — on both sides of your discussion. Despite your respondent's denial of redshift anomalies he uses a very civil tone in discussing why the majority tend to be right more often than do mavericks. We would look better if we followed his tone in coming to alternative conclusions and interpretations.

Just sayin' Like mom says, "Dress the part; get the job."

Jim

^
^
^
Very valuable and wise advice!

With respect to Arp, we must be aware that it is risky to refer to him by name when addressing redshift or other such issues.
1) He has a reputation of being a disagreeable crank amongst a wide array of up-to-date academics, students and professionals, whether deserved or not.
2) He has occasionally alluded to "God" in his work, and is therefore suspected of religious belief tendencies, another unforgivable "heresy" to many scientists.
3) Claims of nearby quasars or associated objects of different redshift will elicit an instant, united and concerted negative response from the current mainstream, as these claims, no matter how well observed, are at complete odds with the currently accepted paradigm. Arp's claims are wrong because they MUST be wrong.

So, to paraphrase Teddy Roosevelt, "Speak softly and carry a lot of strong evidence."

Respectfully submitted,
Dotini

Well.....never throw the baby out with the bathwater. I could get all upset over Velikovsky's multiple errors as well as his horrible political zionism. But the fact remains, he should be given a lot of credit for his analysis of mythology (particularly the unity of mythical archetypes) and some of his successful predictions with respect to astronomy. I like Velikovsky.

I remember one time I submitted a paper and asked Chip if he wanted me to add his name to it because he had given me some good feedback on it. He told me it would be better if his name was not associated with the paper because it would have a better chance of being accepted.

It is unfortunate that it should be that way, but even Chip seems to feel that way about it.

[Jarvamundo]

For spiral galaxies researchers use primarily the Tully-Fisher relation (TFR) and the Tip of the Red Giant Branch (TFGB) methods ...

I wonder how much the Electric Star - Glow discharge model will affect these measurement techniques? David, wondering if you might be somewhat familiar with the initial postulations of the EU interpretation of HR-diagrams?, and what they may mean with regard to these measurement techniques.

eg1: Rotational velocities of a Peratt style spiral, will luminosity and rotation be more dependent on energy density of the feeding Birkeland current?

eg2: TFGB: If a glow-discharge spectrum seems to be of no relation to fusion-fuel/Mass, how might these assumptions effect the distance measurement.

TB-ers: Here we can see a few challenges ahead of us all, if we are to start confronting the existing techniques, with electrical interpretations.

I suppose we may need to reach out the Electrical Theorists on some of these, but would appreciate any insights you may have here, if you are familiar somewhat with the EU literature.

J