If Red Shift correlates to age, why so few Blue shifted obj

[jsorensen]

I am an avid fan of Thunderbolts site. Thanks, TPOD is the first thing I read every morning for the last 2 years now
.
My question, Halton Arp convincingly shows objects with greatly different Red Shifts are related to each other. Galaxies expel other galaxies, quasars, etc and the younger objects have a large red shift. They are not far apart as conventional cosmology believes, but instead are grouped together.

My understanding is that we have found extremely few Blue shifted objects, somewhere in the 100's. Yet we have found billions of red shifted objects.

This would imply that our galaxy is on the far blue edge of the "Red Shift spectrum". I find this disconcerting. It is much like the Fingers of God problem that implies we are at the center of the universe. Does someone have an explanation for this?

Thanks,
James Sorensen

[StevenO]

I am an avid fan of Thunderbolts site. Thanks, TPOD is the first thing I read every morning for the last 2 years now
.
My question, Halton Arp convincingly shows objects with greatly different Red Shifts are related to each other. Galaxies expel other galaxies, quasars, etc and the younger objects have a large red shift. They are not far apart as conventional cosmology believes, but instead are grouped together.

My understanding is that we have found extremely few Blue shifted objects, somewhere in the 100's. Yet we have found billions of red shifted objects.

This would imply that our galaxy is on the far blue edge of the "Red Shift spectrum". I find this disconcerting. It is much like the Fingers of God problem that implies we are at the center of the universe. Does someone have an explanation for this?

Thanks,
James Sorensen

Hi James,

First, welcome to the Thunderbolts Forum! Hope you will enjoy it even more than the TPOD...

The Red Shift is a relative effect. Imagine that all galaxies are on the surface of an expanding balloon. No matter which direction you look, all galaxies seem to move apart from eachother. It is the same from each viewpoint on the surface of the balloon, so you cannot conclude that our galaxy is on the far blue edge. The blue shifted objects come e.g. from local gravitional attraction in a group of galaxies that is greater than the universal expansion. That is the reason why the Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted for instance. It is moving towards us.

[webolife]

StevenO's explanation is the traditional expanding universe Hubble's constant Doppler effect explanation.
Arp's view is premised upon the intrinsic [non-relative] nature of redshift. As it is there are at least three different redshifts in even the traditional view, and I have offered another view elsewhere on these threads, that redshift as a light pressure issue can be th result of direction of travel, and having little to do with either speed and its correlated distance. What I would suggest here is that redshift is an optical effect having possibly several different causes... I disagree with the Hubble view of an expanding Doppler-shifted universe, but am open to the likelihood that the light pressure issue can be correlated with distance, what some mockingly call "tired light". Blueshifts as light pressure augmentations can indicate that we are moving relatively in the direction of:
1. The western limb of the sun compared to the eastern [indicating the sun's rotation]
2. M31 [Andromeda galaxy]
3. The Virgo galactic cluster
4. One "edge" of the universe
Without regard to a big bang, universal expansion, or doppleresquely moving light wavefronts.

[Lloyd]

Redshift is thought by some to have several causes. Positive or negative velocity is one cause, but the main cause seems to be ionization. I think Arp said it indicates youthfulness of an object, but Thornhill et al theorize that youthful objects tend to be more ionized.

Here are some relevant quotes [see the entire articles while you're at it, as well as the websites]:
http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV08.txt

A quasar is ejected from a galactic nucleus by the plasma focus effect as an electron-deficient plasmoid (electrons are trapped in the focus longer than the much heavier protons). Now, the phenomenon of mass is due to the energy conserving elastic response of charged particles to external electric forces. If gravity is an electric force, inertial and gravitational mass will always be identical. So, because the electric polarization of stars in the quasar is low at first, the mass of protons and neutrons will be lower than in the parent galaxy. Consequently electron orbits within quasar atoms will have lower energy - light from them will be redshifted. Luminosity will also be lower due to the lack of charge-carrying electrons. Electrons streaming after the quasar create an x-ray jet and vast radio-lobes. Such electron jets are seen clearly in images from the orbiting Chandra X-Ray telescope [such as the active galaxy Centaurus A]. As electrons arrive at the quasar, the luminosity increases at first and mass and redshift undergo quantum jumps to new resonant states across the quasar or galaxy.

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=gdaqg8df

The electrical relationship between matter and mass allows us to understand how quasars can be newborn objects that have low mass and brightness and high intrinsic redshifts. With time, their mass increases and their intrinsic redshift decreases in quantum jumps. This shows that quantum effects also occur on a galactic scale. It is another powerful argument for the near infinite speed of the electric force.

It seems that Hubble didn't really think redshifts were primarily Doppler effects.
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?art ... jwj&pf=YES

Hubble wrote, "If the redshifts are a Doppler shift ... the observations as they stand lead to the anomaly of a closed universe, curiously small and dense, and, it may be added, suspiciously young. On the other hand, if redshifts are not Doppler effects, these anomalies disappear and the region observed appears as a small, homogeneous, but insignificant portion of a universe extended indefinitely both in space and time." —(Royal Astronomical Society Monthly Notices, 17, 506, 1937).

Here's another article that should help explain electrical galaxies etc:
http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=2m1r5m3b

[nick c]

I disagree with the Hubble view of an expanding Doppler-shifted universe,

Just as a sidenote, I thought I might add this, because modern astronomy depicts Hubble as some kind of pioneer of the big bang/expanding universe paradigm. Which is simply not true. I don't think that Edwin Hubble ever supported the expanding universe theory. On the contrary, he believed that the redshift indicated distance but not recessional velocity. He wrote that the doppler effect was the result of an unknown principle of nature, not motion.

http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/edwinhubble.html

It is not unusual to find astronomy and cosmology books that credit Hubble with the discovery of the expansion of the universe. As we now see this is inaccurate. Such talk doesn’t square very well with Hubble’s repeated declarations that “for a stationary universe, the law of red shifts is sensibly linear." And “The results may be stated simply. If the nebulae are stationary, the law of red shifts is sensibly linear; red shifts are a constant multiple of distances. In other words, each unit of light path contributes the same amount of red shift." (1)

It is frequently said that 1929 is the year Hubble discovered that our universe is expanding. Yet, six years later in the abstract of a paper he co-authored with Richard Tolman, they wrote that the data is “not yet sufficient to permit a decision between recessional or other causes for the red-shift." (2)

To the best of my knowledge Hubble’s 1929 paper (3) is the only published paper where the reader is left with the view by Hubble, and now apparently universally adopted, that the linear law of redshifts applies only as a velocity-distance relation. It is no wonder that this is the paper that is usually cited by itself in astronomy textbooks.[...]
[...] In a 1934 lecture with the title "Red-Shifts in the Spectra of Nebulae," Hubble writes:


The field is new, but it offers rather definite prospects not only of testing the form of the velocity-distance relation beyond the reach of the spectrograph, but even of critically testing the very interpretation of red-shifts as due to motion. With this possibility in view, the cautious observer refrains from committing himself to the present interpretation and prefers the colourless term “apparent velocity.”

color highlight added

Sorry to detour the thread, but the ghost of Edwin Hubble came to me and asked me to correct this common misconception

nick c

[substance]

That is an interesting piece of history! I myself was convinced by astronomy books, that mr. Hubble invented the expanding universe..
I have also heard that he actually renounced any correlation of redshift to velocity or distance in his latter days. Is that correct?

[webolife]

Thanks for the clarification, Nick.
I knew that E. Hubble was not the originator of the expanding universe concept, but his epinymous constant has been used widely to try to circularly prove expansion [or acceleration], based on the presumption of spectral Doppler-icity.

[StevenO]

The field is new, but it offers rather definite prospects not only of testing the form of the velocity-distance relation beyond the reach of the spectrograph, but even of critically testing the very interpretation of red-shifts as due to motion. With this possibility in view, the cautious observer refrains from committing himself to the present interpretation and prefers the colourless term “apparent velocity.”

color highlight added

Thanks Nick,

I think "apparent velocity" is quite a correct term. The reference motion of the Universe is an expansion into all directions at lightspeed. This motion is offset by gravity. Outside the influence of gravity this reference motion becomes more apparent.

[webolife]

StevenO, you know I'm always confused when you talk about the "motion of space"...
Here you are saying [?] that the universe is stretching [or being stretched?] at "light speed."
Are these the same concept, and could you elaborate further in simple language... I really want to "get" this at some point before I die.

[Solar]

Imho Webolife is more correct in that redshift is an optical effect. What is usually never considered with regard to redshift is that the light (electromagnetic "wave") of celestial objects is 'traveling' vast distances through tenuous "hot" and "cold" plasma and numerous dark molecular clouds.

I take it that no one is familiar with Jacques Moret-Bailly and the CERIL effect from the world of optics:

"Heat sources, such as stars, send forth radiations that easily cut across gas with little interaction. Thus, most astronomical observations do not take into account the passage of light through gas."The CREIL effect

Propagation of electromagnetic waves in space plasma.
Computation of the spectra of the quasars

Again, imho, any deep field image must include the recognition that the space between objects and the observer is filled with plasma. There is no way that light can remain unaffected by that overlooked fact.

Google search results for Redshift & CREIL effect

This is a major challenge for big bangers and their expanding universe to understand. Redshift=distance is dead.

[robinson]

Wow. That is some interesting stuff.

[MGmirkin]

As long as we're bringing up other interpretations...

(Wolf effect)
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Wolf_effect

Apparently mimics Doppler shift...

~Michael Gmirkin

[Lloyd]

Hey, wasn't anyone listening to my previous post? The explanation for redshifts was there. I'll say it again more slowly and maybe you'll get it this time.

This is still from http://www.kronia.com/thoth/ThotIV08.txt

Thornhill said "the mass of protons and neutrons will be lower [in the quasar] than in the parent galaxy."

That means the protons and neutrons that make up the quasar start out with very low mass, unlike the protons and neutrons that we normally encounter all around us.

Thornhill then said, "Consequently electron orbits within quasar atoms will have lower energy - light from them will be redshifted."

He's saying that the photons emitted by the electrons in the quasar atoms and ions, because of the initial low mass of the quasar's subatomic particles, have very low energy. Low-energy photons are redshifted. Red light has lower frequency and, I think, lower energy, than other colored light. So, the redshift indicates a lower energy level of the electrons that emit the photons.

If you read the article, it explains well how galaxies shoot out quasars electrically. So what keeps anyone from reading it?

By the way, Michael, I didn't understand the Wolf theory well. If you do, would you like to rephrase it for us? I noticed that it referred to gravitational lensing. That's at least one part of the theory that's likely to be nonsense, since the quasar images seen around some galaxies are almost certainly not mirror images. They're each separate quasars, as Arp and TPODs argue very persuasively. E.g., see Stephen's Quintet TPOD.

[Solar]

Lloyd, there's nothing wrong with Arp and Wall's hypothesis and don't assume that no one read it or is unfamiliar with it. The CREIL effect is an additional component/factor. They work hand-in-hand. You have the lower energy level of the electrons that emit the photons in addition to frequency shifts with the propagation of light in cosmic low pressure plasma. Put the two aspects together for a broader picture.

When looking at either there is enough of an accounting to throw the traditional redshift interpretation into question. As many know Hubble himself had reservations. Together these form a pretty damning combination imho to that traditionally accepted interpretation.

[junglelord]

I would go for an optical effect as well, as opposed to increasing mass. According to APM mass is constant. So far that has always been true. The electron is always the same weight, each and every one.