Antennae Galaxy Distance Revision Raises Troubling Questions

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Antennae Galaxy Distance Revision Raises Troubling Questions

Unread post by MGmirkin » Thu May 15, 2008 11:48 pm

(The Antennae Galaxies Found To Be Closer To Us)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_A ... s_999.html
New research on the Antennae Galaxies using the Advanced Camera for Surveys onboard the NASA/ESA Hubble Space Telescope shows that this proto-typical pair of interacting galaxies is in fact much closer to us than previously thought - at 45 million light-years instead of 65 million light-years.

[...]

They reached an interesting and surprising conclusion. By measuring the colours and brightnesses of red giant stars in the system, the scientists found that the Antennae Galaxies are much closer to us than previously thought: residing at a distance of 45 million light-years instead of the previous best estimate of 65 million light-years.

[...]

Red giants are known to reach a standard brightness, which can then be used to infer their distance from the difference between the intrinsic and observed brightness. The method is known as the tip of the red giant branch (TRGB).

[...]

The previous canonical distance to the Antennae Galaxies was about 65 million light-years although values as high as 100 million light years have been used. Our Sun is only eight light-minutes away from us, so the Antennae Galaxies may seem rather distant, but if we consider that we already know of galaxies that are more than ten thousand million light-years away, the two Antennae Galaxies are really our neighbours.

The previous larger distance required astronomers to invoke some quite exceptional physical characteristics to account for the spectacular system: very high star-formation rates, supermassive star clusters, ultraluminous X-ray sources etc. The new smaller distance makes the Antennae Galaxies less extreme in terms of the physics needed to explain the observed phenomena.

For instance, with the smaller distance its infrared radiation is now that expected of a "standard" early merging event rather than that of an ultraluminous infrared galaxy. The size of the star clusters formed as a consequence of the Antennae merger now agree with those of clusters created in other mergers instead of being 1.5 times as large.
(Emphases mine)

It's not even so much THAT they believe the prior distance estimate was wrong (based upon "standard candle" approximations, redshift, etc. Various things that may or may not be patently wrong), but the fact that they partially recognized the implications of the distances being wrong. Or perhaps recognized is the wrong term. The fact is that they SHOWED (whether they realized it or not) the principle that TPODs have warned about for a while: if basic premises such as distance relationships are incorrect, then the results are GIGO ("Garbage In, Garbage Out").

(ULTRA LUMINOUS ASTRONOMY)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... ronomy.htm

(Ultra Luminous Astronomy [2])
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ ... onomy2.htm

(The Picture that Won’t Go Away)
http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/arch ... icture.htm

(The Bird is the Word)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... heword.htm

(Unsolved Mysteries of a "Starburst" Galaxy)
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2008/ ... ystery.htm

("Baked Galaxies," or Half-Baked Theories? )
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2006/ ... 6baked.htm

If you place the (apparently) "normal objects" much further away, then perform "adjustments" based upon assumed distances, then your size estimates, mass estimates, luminosity estimates, energy output estimates all get skewed, and more and more "exotic" (and unnecessary) mechanisms are required to explain the skewed final results.

In the case of the original article above, moving the objects 20 lightyears closer (out of appx 65; that works out to shaving off about 30% of the total distance or calculating a distance only 70% as far away) meant that they had to readjust their size, mass, luminosity and energy output results. This brought the objects down from being considered ultra-luminous, and super-massive to being within the parameters of a "normal" interacting galaxy pair.

This is a case-in-point for the caution about assuming that current standard distance calculations are correct.

The redshift=/=distance relationship may not be inviolable. If it's wrong, then there will eventually be a reckoning. Arp appears to have solid data backing his theory of redshift as a marker of age rather than distance, as well as quantization of redshift, etc.

It'll be interesting to see how this all shakes out!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Addendum: Digg it if you love it! I do love breaking news stories over there. Two today; sweet!
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

User avatar
MGmirkin
Moderator
Posts: 1667
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Beaverton, Oregon, USA
Contact:

Another good article...

Unread post by MGmirkin » Tue May 20, 2008 3:51 pm

("The Antennae" Fall Into Line)
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/news/18801314.html

Appears to be a rather decent article on the topic!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin
"The purpose of science is to investigate the unexplained, not to explain the uninvestigated." ~Dr. Stephen Rorke
"For every PhD there is an equal and opposite PhD." ~Gibson's law

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests