Quasars...

[davesmith_au]

Not sure where you're going with this whole opacity fishing expidition.

Never a simple answer with Nereid, it seems. Instead of taking the context of the TPOD into account, we now have what appears to be a critique of the Gilianni et al paper? Perhaps The Astrophysical Journal was errant to publish the paper... Perhaps the review panel missed everything Nereid picked up... Perhaps they need Nereid on their review panel... Perhaps Nereid should be working with Gilianni, Arp, and their colleagues... Perhaps Nereid is obfuscating again...

Write until you're blue in the face if you wish Nereid, the simple fact is that the conclusions drawn by Gilianni et al are represented fairly in the TPOD (again, I'll try to stress written for a LAY audience as are the APODs and just about any other *POD you can find on the net) and your highlighting of the terms used was a pathetic attempt at discrediting the TPOD and its 'who are they anyhow' author(s). Now that you've been called out over it, you think writing a huge essay on just one of the terms will somehow distract readers from the simple fact of your pedantry.

Cheers, Dave.

[Nereid]

The unreasonableness of "the galaxy is opaque", part II - opaque gas clouds/dust

That the interstellar medium (ISM) in galaxies, especially spirals and irregulars, can be opaque to electromagnetic radiation ('light') with wavelengths between ~300nm and ~1 micron is well-established.

In our own Milky Way galaxy, for example, there is the Coalsack; and there are plenty of 'edge on' spirals with thin 'dust lanes', demonstrating that, integrated over lines of sight through the disk 'horizontally' as it were, the ISM is opaque.

However, the distribution of this opaque phase of the ISM is far from uniform. For starters, its 'vertical' extent is, in most galaxies, very limited (it lies very close to the disk plane); within the disk, its distribution is very patchy ... and it's just as well that it is, because if it were uniform, and extended more than a few hundred pc vertically, here on Earth we'd see no external galaxies at all. Just how patchily this opaque phase is distributed is well illustrated by a galaxy I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread, Dwingerloo 1: it is only 0.1o below the galactic plane, yet the many kpc line of sight in that direction through our galaxy's disk is not opaque. Two more examples: the infrared cirrus - interstellar dust grains in our neighbourhood heated by the surrounding stellar radiation field - discovered by IRAS; and Arp's loop, much of which is now thought to be part of our own galaxy, rather than associated with the M81 group.

Bill Keel, an astronomer at the University of Alabama, has devoted much of his research time to studying the distribution of the ISM opaque phase. Here is one of his recent papers (link, as usual, is to the arXiv preprint abstract); it is worth quoting from the introduction:

Studies of overlapping galaxies have shown that the relative geometry of the stars and dust plays an important role, which can vary significantly from galaxy to galaxy. They also show that in a given galaxy there may be both optically thick and thin regions which may or may not correlate with patterns in the stellar density (e.g. Holwerda et al. 2009).

"Optically thick" means, in everyday English, "more or less opaque", which "optically thin" is "more or less transparent"; however, the terms have rather precise, narrowly technical, meanings (Here is Holwerda et al. (2009)).

What does this mean for NGC 7319, particularly the region within ~10" of the nucleus? In a nutshell, the distribution of the opaque phase of the ISM will be patchy, just as it is in other spirals; there will very likely be regions of almost total transparency, and regions that are nearly completely opaque, and these regions will have a wide range of sizes. In addition, the fact that the spiral seems to be interacting with other, nearby, galaxies likely means there is more dust around than in a typical spiral of its luminosity and type; however, the collision/interaction is likely to mean the distribution of dust is even more patchy than in similar, non-interacting spirals.

A good test, albeit a qualitative one, is to compare the 2001 and 2009 Hubblesite JPEG images (see link in my last post) - fuzzy brown smears in the 2001 image can be clearly seen to trace intricate patterns on several spatial scales (and CXOU J223603.6+335825 seems to lie in a little pocket clear of brown stuff, suggesting that it could be a background object).

So, to conclude part II, and my response to davesmith_au: in the case of the Figure 1 HST image of NGC 7319, is it not reasonable to use the term "opaque" if paraphrasing the paper, where opaque refers to absorption by the relevant part of NGC 7319's disk?

Maybe; especially if the first two sentences in Section 5 ("There are no signs of background objects showing through the disk in our HST picture of the inner regions of NGC 7319 (Fig. 1). This is in accord with our expectation that the absorption in the disk near the center of this Seyfert galaxy would block out any objects behind it.") is all that is used.

Nereid, do you have reason to believe the image is not that of NGC 7319?

None; it is clearly an image of NGC 7319

and a quasar in front of it or within it?

I hope you can now see that it can't possibly be a 'quasar' per today's definition! I also hope you can now see that whether it is "in front of it or within" NGC 7319 cannot be determined merely by visual inspection of Figure 4 in Galianni et al. (2005).

I haven't been able to find a name or number for the quasar

It's CXOU J223603.6+335825 (per Galianni et al. (2005)).

but it seems to be generally acknowledged that the blob in front of NGC 7319 has high redshift, as other quasars do

It does seem to have a high redshift (2.114), and broad emission lines; if the contemporary definition of 'quasar' were applied, it would be far in the background of NGC 7319, and be defined as a quasar. However, if it were "in front of NGC 7319", it would not be a quasar.

Do you need an official astronomer to tell you that the object is in front of or within the galaxy?

I could, no doubt, find several dozen official astronomers who would tell me - and you - that the object is not in front of or within the galaxy!

But surely that's not important, is it? I mean, what counts is the validity, soundness, etc of the evidence and logic which leads to any conclusion concerning the position of CXOU J223603.6+335825 with respect to NGC 7319, no?

Do I gather then that with the tighter constraints fed into the SDSS pipeline via algorithm(s) in conjunction with the 'definition' you've attributed to Arp that said 'definition' (at that time) may have been a bit broad in comparison to today's standards?

It's not so much that it (Arp's definition) is (was) broad or not; it's more that it was rendered so imprecise, by subsequent observations, as to be scientifically ineffective.

Those observational discoveries - to which Arp himself contributed - led to what is referred to in the Galianni et al. (2005) paper as "the unified model of AGNs". In this model, quasars, QSOs, Seyfert nuclei (both type 1 and 2), blazars (BL Lac objects, etc), most FRII radio galaxies, type 2 quasars, ... are all the observational signatures of a single type of object, the active galactic nucleus. The obvious (and not so obvious) differences between the different, observationally-defined, classes are due, essentially, in this model to differences in viewing geometry. So, for example, in blazars we are looking 'down the barrel', along the axis of a jet (but the bright disc may still contribute to the detected light); in narrow-line AGNs (e.g. type 2 Seyferts), the broad line region is hidden from our view by the dusty (obscuring) torus that surrounds the bright disc (note that the bright disc is completely unresolved - it appears as a point - in even the closest AGNs, even when observed with the highest angular resolution).

Another aspect, the "appears stellar on photographs (diameter <1")" criterion: it quickly became clear that many, perhaps most, low redshift 'quasars' do not appear 'stellar' when observed at higher resolution than was generally achievable in the 1970s and early 1980s, so applying the criterion objectively and consistently became problematic. A case in point, SDSS J092321.80+344342.8. This is NGC 2859 UB 6 (or U06) in the 1981 Arp paper I referenced in an earlier post in this thread. In that paper it is called a quasar; however, in SDSS DR8 it is classified as a galaxy (and is clearly not stellar in appearance!), and not even an AGN at that (while its spectrum has strong emission lines, they are narrow, there is no obvious nucleus, etc; it's a classic 'starburst' galaxy).

It is opaque to infrared just beyond visible on the side thats important found that a bit curious

Not entirely.

For example, if it were opaque to infrared just beyond visible, then the 2MASS survey would not have been possible (to take just one example).

Having responded to all posts in this thread, can I now get back to my question please?

What (to EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members) is the (or an) observational definition of a 'quasar'?

[Nitai]

What (to EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members) is the (or an) observational definition of a 'quasar'?

Hi Nereid,

Not being a EU Theorist, but being a Thunderbolt Forum member I can tell you what most people here consider a Quasar.

Any object with a high redshift that appears to be physically connected with a galaxy of low red shift.

The definition in precise observational measurements isn't as important as the evidence of a physical connection (plasma bridges etc..) between two objects of different red shift values.

A Quasar in EU terms could easily be an AGN of modern SDSS classifications.

You won't find an SDSS type classification of Quasars I'm afraid.

I hope that answers your question. Good Luck!

[davesmith_au]

<snip another part of the opacity essay>

What (to EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members) is the (or an) observational definition of a 'quasar'?

I don't know why anyone here would bother to answer your question, Nereid (though Solar already gave you his opinion). You have shown that you are not interested in considering (relevant, peer-reviewed published) ideas which conflict with your own "bolted-in and can't be removed" dogma. Not to mention that it was you who began the obfuscation and pedantry which sidetracked the discussion in the first place!

Here's your problem. In this post you state:

What I am trying to do - apparently quite unsuccessfully so far - is to find out how EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members address the 'bolted in and can't be removed' Hubble redshift-distance relationship embedded in the contemporary definition of 'quasar', as the material on how quasars are classified in SDSS makes clear (see above; my original question: what (to EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members) is the (or an) observational definition of a 'quasar'?).

You're insisting on a narrow, "contemporary" definition which RELIES on the Hubble redshift-distance relationship (HRDR to make further reference easier). The Galianni et al paper, and obviously the TPOD, are challenging this view. That's what science is supposed to be about. Dogma will get us nowhere. That you've "bolted in" the HRDR exposes your lack of flexibility in thinking. IF the HRDR is bollocks, the whole house of cards falls down, and it seems you (and perhaps a good percentage of those who rely on the card-house for their bread, butter and SUVs) won't even consider the possibility, even when presented with a 'relevant, published peer-reviewed' paper! That paper does not stand alone. It is cited by three more ApJ papers and of course there are many more like it.

If you're so hell-bent on refuting such work, again I ask (as your contemporaries like to ask 'us') why don't you write up a paper and get it published in the ApJ? You won't get far on this forum with "bolted-in, can't be removed" contemporary dogma.

Cheers, Dave.

[Lloyd]

Nereid said:

Lloyd wrote:but it seems to be generally acknowledged that the blob in front of NGC 7319 has high redshift, as other quasars do

It does seem to have a high redshift (2.114), and broad emission lines; if the contemporary definition of 'quasar' were applied, it would be far in the background of NGC 7319, and be defined as a quasar. However, if it were "in front of NGC 7319", it would not be a quasar.

Lloyd wrote:Do you need an official astronomer to tell you that the object is in front of or within the galaxy?

- I could, no doubt, find several dozen official astronomers who would tell me - and you - that the object is not in front of or within the galaxy!
- But surely that's not important, is it? I mean, what counts is the validity, soundness, etc of the evidence and logic which leads to any conclusion concerning the position of CXOU J223603.6+335825 with respect to NGC 7319, no?

* Thank you for providing the "name" of the "object".
* It's amazing that you acknowledge that the "object" does "seem" to have a high redshift, just like other quasars, yet you want to deny that it's either actually a quasar and/or it's in front of or within NGC 7319.
* It looks extremely probable, like over 95% probable, that close inspection of the image of the stars and the object in the galaxy will show that the object partly obscures some of the stars of the galaxy and, therefore, is in front of them. If the object is far behind the galaxy, then it's an incredible coincidence that there's a hole in the galaxy of exactly the right size to let the whole image of the object be visible to us.
* If you can find scientists who actually believe the object is far behind the galaxy, it simply shows how desperate conventional science has become to grasp at such flimsy straws. The same scientists deny that quasars are found predominantly near galaxies. In fact, many are found on opposite sides of a galaxy between them.
* Since the object is obviously in front of the galaxy, you want to deny then that the object is a quasar. But you'd still have to explain the high redshift. That image proves that high redshift does not equate necessarily to high velocity and great distance, since the galaxy isn't so distant.
* And the Fingers of God arrangement of galaxies and quasars in the universe is probably the biggest proof against the Big Bang theory, based on that redshift assumption. See http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/ ... rs-god.htm.
* To me, any high redshift object is likely to be a quasar, and a quasar is an infant galaxy.

[Nereid]

Now that you've been called out over it, you think writing a huge essay on just one of the terms will somehow distract readers from the simple fact of your pedantry.

I really don't follow you Dave.

In what way is anything that I have presented, in this thread, anything other than exactly what the forum rules and guidelines call for? I mean, in what way is what I wrote anything other than "properly constructed scientific arguments challenging published Electric Universe theory"?

being a Thunderbolt Forum member I can tell you what most people here consider a Quasar.

Any object with a high redshift that appears to be physically connected with a galaxy of low red shift.

The definition in precise observational measurements isn't as important as the evidence of a physical connection (plasma bridges etc..) between two objects of different red shift values.

Thanks very much!

So if there is no evidence of a physical connection between a compact (~<1") optical source whose spectrum has well-defined broad emission lines from which a redshift of z > 0.2 (say) is derived and any other object, then you'd not classify it as a quasar?

* It's amazing that you acknowledge that the "object" does "seem" to have a high redshift, just like other quasars, yet you want to deny that it's either actually a quasar and/or it's in front of or within NGC 7319.

Lloyd, not all objects which have high redshifts are classified as quasars, even by Arp (check out his 1970 paper that I cited, for example). Also, I thought I did a pretty darn good job of showing that the image (Figure 4) itself, when combined with later observations, is as consistent with the object being (far) in the background (of NGC 7319) as it is of being in front of or within. Which part(s) of my lengthy posts do you feel fail in this regard?

* It looks extremely probable, like over 95% probable, that close inspection of the image of the stars and the object in the galaxy will show that the object partly obscures some of the stars of the galaxy and, therefore, is in front of them.

As far as I know, no individual stars have been resolved, in any optical image of NGC 7319, nor are they likely to be any time soon (other than a supernova, or, perhaps, a nova). May I ask why you (apparently) think otherwise?

In any case, how - in detail - would you go about showing any such obscuration (I'm not trying to be pedantic; as far as I know no astronomer has ever done such a thing, certainly not beyond the Local Group)?

If the object is far behind the galaxy, then it's an incredible coincidence that there's a hole in the galaxy of exactly the right size to let the whole image of the object be visible to us.

Why? I mean, if you were on an Earth-like planet in a galaxy near what we call the South Galactic Pole, you'd be able to see right through the Milky Way's disk, in our vicinity, and see bright quasars in the direction we call the North Galactic Pole. Stars are incredibly far apart, compared with their sizes, so even though there are billions of them in a typical galaxy, they almost never occult/obscure one another (and when they do, astronomers call it 'microlensing').

Did you take a look at the M87 jet images? M87 has far, far more stars in it than NGC 7319, yet the optical jet can be clearly seen despite all those stars, even through the densest part of the galaxy.

* If you can find scientists who actually believe the object is far behind the galaxy, it simply shows how desperate conventional science has become to grasp at such flimsy straws. The same scientists deny that quasars are found predominantly near galaxies. In fact, many are found on opposite sides of a galaxy between them.

Um, no. If I may be blunt for a moment, these ideas have been around for many decades, and as the observational record has become more detailed, quantitative hypotheses developed from these ideas have been more and more clearly shown to be inconsistent with the relevant observations. I, for one, am actually quite puzzled that ideas like this still seem to have currency to some.

For the rest, well, that's the topic for another discussion, on another day.

[tayga]

Did you take a look at the M87 jet images? M87 has far, far more stars in it than NGC 7319, yet the optical jet can be clearly seen despite all those stars, even through the densest part of the galaxy.

Could you direct me to one of these images and the evidence that it is being seen through the galaxy?

these ideas [that many quasars are found on opposite sides of a galaxy between them] have been around for many decades, and as the observational record has become more detailed, quantitative hypotheses developed from these ideas have been more and more clearly shown to be inconsistent with the relevant observations.

Quantitative hypotheses can be tested and falsified but what does that have to do with the validity of the observations themselves?

[Lloyd]

Nereid said: not all objects which have high redshifts are classified as quasars, even by Arp (check out his 1970 paper that I cited, for example).

* How about listing the things with high redshift that he doesn't call quasars and tell us what he does call them and what their redshifts are?

Also, I thought I did a pretty darn good job of showing that the image (Figure 4) itself, when combined with later observations, is as consistent with the object being (far) in the background (of NGC 7319) as it is of being in front of or within. Which part(s) of my lengthy posts do you feel fail in this regard?

* The parts that ignore the actual image of the high redshift object unobscured within the bounds of NGC 7319, as seen here: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... galaxy.htm.

As far as I know, no individual stars have been resolved, in any optical image of NGC 7319, nor are they likely to be any time soon (other than a supernova, or, perhaps, a nova). May I ask why you (apparently) think otherwise? - In any case, how - in detail - would you go about showing any such obscuration (I'm not trying to be pedantic; as far as I know no astronomer has ever done such a thing, certainly not beyond the Local Group)?

* My guess is that the galaxy contains Birkeland filaments partially visible, as is the case with most galaxies, such as galaxy arms or disks or smaller filaments or other dusty plasma, and that close inspection is likely to reveal that some of the filaments will be found to be partly obscured by the high redshift object. Heck, even just looking at the image above shows such obscuration, proving it's in front of the galaxy.

If the object is far behind the galaxy, then it's an incredible coincidence that there's a hole in the galaxy of exactly the right size to let the whole image of the object be visible to us.

Why? I mean, if you were on an Earth-like planet in a galaxy near what we call the South Galactic Pole, you'd be able to see right through the Milky Way's disk, in our vicinity, and see bright quasars in the direction we call the North Galactic Pole. Stars are incredibly far apart, compared with their sizes, so even though there are billions of them in a typical galaxy, they almost never occult/obscure one another (and when they do, astronomers call it 'microlensing').

* They use such terms, because they are professionally brainwashed. That galaxy is too distant to be able to see through it clearly, like nearby galaxies. Dusty plasma within distant galaxies at least partially obscures anything behind them. Have a look at these http://www.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en ... =&q=galaxy and see if you can find an object that's behind any of these galaxies.

Did you take a look at the M87 jet images? M87 has far, far more stars in it than NGC 7319, yet the optical jet can be clearly seen despite all those stars, even through the densest part of the galaxy.

* That's because M87 is nearby and the jet is bright and large and part of the galaxy. It's like the difference between looking at something close by through the air and looking at something distant through air. Any dust, haze, fog etc obscures more distant objects.

scientists deny that quasars are found predominantly near galaxies. In fact, many are found on opposite sides of a galaxy between them.

Um, no. If I may be blunt for a moment, these ideas have been around for many decades, and as the observational record has become more detailed, quantitative hypotheses developed from these ideas have been more and more clearly shown to be inconsistent with the relevant observations. I, for one, am actually quite puzzled that ideas like this still seem to have currency to some.

* They have currency, because not all voices of reason have yet been silenced, such as this: http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... galaxy.htm

[Nereid]

Yes you are missing the point. There is a huge difference between "Arp states that they are quasars" and that Arp SHOWS that they are quasars.

I'm going to get quite detailed in this post, so much so that I'm quite confident Dave will at least think 'pedantic!' (if not write it in a post). I make no apologies for this; in my view, science is being pedantic, systematically. The content of this post is grounded in the fundamentally quantitative nature of astronomy.

What, observationally, is a star? Is it possible to define 'star' in such a way that astronomical objects can be classified as either stars or 'not stars'? Objectively, unambiguously, in a way that is independently verifiable (at least in principle)? This turns out to be trickier than you might imagine! And right off the bat you will need a third class, 'uncertain' - i.e. can't decide/determine/judge whether the object is a star or not.

Oh, and please keep in mind that I'm concerned only with an observational definition; i.e. one based solely on what you can observe.

Two observational characteristics are immediately obvious: a star is a point, and it's bright (i.e. a source of light); that leads to two semi-quantitative criteria we can apply to any astronomical object: it is unresolved (appears the same as a point would appear), and is a source of electromagnetic radiation with a wavelength between ~300 and 700 nm.

To distinguish between stars and solar system objects, a third, relatively easy (in principle!) criterion can be added: a star does not move more than ~a few arcseconds per year, relative to some carefully defined framework. Why 'in principle'? Because defining the framework in such a way that the position of a 'candidate star' can be measured, robustly, and in a way that is relatively easy for others to verify, is a task that has taken astronomers centuries to get right!

Concerning point, as in point source.

Alpha Centauri looks like a star, if you go outside on a clear night and look up at the sky (right place, right time, of course). However, if you look at it with even a modest (amateur astronomer's) telescope, it becomes two stars (there are lots of examples like this). So a star, observationally, is heavily dependent on the angular resolution of what you're using to observe it with. Here's another example: in any image of M87, in a visual waveband, lots of stars can be seen - i.e. point sources. However, if images of M87 produced using cameras (let's call them that) on the Hubble Space Telescope - such as the ACS - are carefully analysed, most of these point sources are broader (wider) than points (and are classified, observationally, as globular clusters ... though some are actually background galaxies, observationally).

What if the region of the electromagnetic spectrum is changed, to the UV, say, or one of the IR regions (near-, mid-, or far-)? Or the x-ray region, or millimetre microwave, or ...?

For regions far from the visual/optical, 'point source' is the preferred term; for UV and IR, both point source and star are used. As the identification of a point source in a Hubble image with an x-ray (point) source (CXOU J223603.6+335825), in Galianni et al. (2005), makes clear, astrometric alignment between widely separated electromagnetic wavebands is challenging (at the arcsec level), even with a robust astrometric framework.

In the 1960s, a number of stars (defined observationally, in the visual waveband), positionally near 'radio stars', were found to have very high redshifts; they were given the (observationally derived) name 'quasi-stellar radio sources', or quasar for short. Others stars, with high redshifts, were soon found, that were not radio sources; they were dubbed 'quasi-stellar objects', or QSOs for short. Several were found to be not-quite stellar; they seemed to be surrounded by 'fuzz', an extended emission region, of characteristic size ~an arcsec or two, several magnitudes fainter than the central point. Many of the radio stars were found to be double-lobed, some with a central point (radio) source, some with 'jets', and some lobes clearly extended (i.e. not points).

And so on.

Today, the term quasar is no longer used as a reliable observational classification; generally, in papers published in the last decade or so, the authors will take some pains to define what they mean by 'quasar' for the astronomical objects (and observations) they are reporting ... and a random pair of papers may have quite different definitions (an example: SDSS J092321.80+344342.8, or NGC 2859 UB 6 (or U06) in the 1981 Arp paper I referenced in an earlier post in this thread is called a quasar by Arp; however, when observed with the far better facilities today (than in 1980), observationally it's a classic 'starburst' galaxy).

But why does it matter? Why is it so important to expend so much effort on what, to a non-astronomer (or non-scientist), looks like the a dictionary-perfect case of being pedantic?

An example of what happens when you are not sufficiently pedantic about things like this is "Further Evidence that the Redshifts of AGN Galaxies May Contain Intrinsic Components" (Bell (2007); hint: what's wrong with this? "Since the VCVcat is made up of AGN galaxies from many different surveys, there will undoubtedly be differences in the selection criteria involved. However, since AGN galaxies are easily distinguishable from other types of galaxies, the normally strict selection criteria are not required in this case to obtain a source sample that is made up almost entirely of AGN galaxies.").

[Solar]

Do I gather then that with the tighter constraints fed into the SDSS pipeline via algorithm(s) in conjunction with the 'definition' you've attributed to Arp that said 'definition' (at that time) may have been a bit broad in comparison to today's standards?

It's not so much that it (Arp's definition) is (was) broad or not; it's more that it was rendered so imprecise, by subsequent observations, as to be scientifically ineffective.

Those observational discoveries - to which Arp himself contributed - led to what is referred to in the Galianni et al. (2005) paper as "the unified model of AGNs". In this model, quasars, QSOs, Seyfert nuclei (both type 1 and 2), blazars (BL Lac objects, etc), most FRII radio galaxies, type 2 quasars, ... are all the observational signatures of a single type of object, the active galactic nucleus. The obvious (and not so obvious) differences between the different, observationally-defined, classes are due, essentially, in this model to differences in viewing geometry. So, for example, in blazars we are looking 'down the barrel', along the axis of a jet (but the bright disc may still contribute to the detected light); in narrow-line AGNs (e.g. type 2 Seyferts), the broad line region is hidden from our view by the dusty (obscuring) torus that surrounds the bright disc (note that the bright disc is completely unresolved - it appears as a point - in even the closest AGNs, even when observed with the highest angular resolution).

Another aspect, the "appears stellar on photographs (diameter <1")" criterion: it quickly became clear that many, perhaps most, low redshift 'quasars' do not appear 'stellar' when observed at higher resolution than was generally achievable in the 1970s and early 1980s, so applying the criterion objectively and consistently became problematic. A case in point, SDSS J092321.80+344342.8. This is NGC 2859 UB 6 (or U06) in the 1981 Arp paper I referenced in an earlier post in this thread. In that paper it is called a quasar; however, in SDSS DR8 it is classified as a galaxy (and is clearly not stellar in appearance!), and not even an AGN at that (while its spectrum has strong emission lines, they are narrow, there is no obvious nucleus, etc; it's a classic 'starburst' galaxy).

Having responded to all posts in this thread, can I now get back to my question please?

What (to EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members) is the (or an) observational definition of a 'quasar'?

I thank you for the information. In relation to these objects you have stated:

… are all the observational signatures of a single type of object, the active galactic nucleus. The obvious (and not so obvious) differences between the different, observationally-defined, classes are due, essentially, in this model to differences in viewing geometry.

You’ve also stated that the “differences” are “essentially … due … to differences in viewing geometry” accompanied with a nice explanation of classifications according to said “viewing geometry.”

This is interesting because despite the nomenclature invoked by way of “viewing geometries” according to Rich Kron and “Quasars in the SDSS” 2006, not only do quasars “not shine by the same processes that stars do” but those quasars that do meet the criteria are prescribed the physical model of a “supermassive black hole” wherein as the “… gas falls, the gravitational energy of falling is converted into heat and light.”

Another example of this confusing practice can be seen in the opening salvo of Spitzers’s 10-25-08 media piece “Missing Black holes Found!”:

A long-lost population of active supermassive black holes, or quasars, has been uncovered by NASA's Spitzer and Chandra space telescopes. – Spitzer

Or, from “Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN)/Supermassive Black Holes[/url]” one has:

In some cases, light generated by friction between the falling dust grains outshines the entire host galaxy. Astronomers refer to these objects as Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN). The munching super-massive black hole at the galaxy's core is called a quasar, which is one type of AGN. – Spitzer

Even the caption for the accompanying AGN “supermassive black hole” displayed says “Spitzer's view of a dust enshrouded quasar."

Hence, it appears, that any and all quasars i.e. radio and/or radio quiet, despite the variety of definitions given according to viewing geometry (ULX, AGN, quasar, type 2 Seyferts, traditional Seyfrets, axis oriented Blazar, QSO, BL Lac objects (a subclass of AGN’s), type 2 quasar etc etc) are then encompassed via the title “supermassive black hole.” Yet, for the “citizen scientist” to have discovered a venue (Electric Universe) which is desirous to dispense with this menagerie and subsume the same dynamical cosmic variety ‘neath the reality of what the object actually is as per the smallest reference with the largest impact in the Galianni et al. (2005) paper i.e. …

One of the most pertinent observations comes from the radio studies of this galaxy at 20cm by van der Hulst and Rots (1981). Radio emission from the Seyfert nucleus extends to the SW, bends over to the south and is traceable to within 5’’ of the QSO. Aoki et al. (1999) confirmed the existence of radio ejection from the nucleus and concluded that emission features to the SW are “from gas compressed by the bow shock driven by the outward moving radio plasmoid”. Perhaps the QSO is that plasmoid.

… is somehow problematic with regard to accuracy and precision as relates the naming convention that accompanies cataloging and organizing the electromagnetic differences of these “single type of objects." ANY article that speaks to these objects from the traditional astrophysical point of view does so with some degree of 'convenience' for the interested reader as exemplified by "Global Telescope Network" and its brief coverage of these objects while shuttling the physical model towards supposed "black holes."

But its not okay for someone else to provide the same 'convenience' and/or courtesy for their potential audience I guess.

Yet you, Nereid, have already had this conversation on more than one occasion with others here, and here. In still another conversation here you posit:

The challenge of the 'plasma proponent' is to show that such a large mass can exist in such a small volume and not collapse to a BH, or to show that the observational results that lead to the conclusion (large mass, small volume) can be explained in a completely different way ('plasma focus', perhaps?), or both. – Nereid

The presumption seems to be that a “black hole” is a real physical object in the cosmos such that a “plasma proponent” (or anyone else) would be somehow ‘challenged’ in actually wanting to explain how a “large mass”, presumably the dense plasmoids in question, would not “collapse” into a non-existent - “supermassive” or otherwise.

That “challenge” is as awkwardly ill-put as the question “What (to EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members) is the (or an) observational definition of a 'quasar'?” How do subsequent observations of an object from different viewing geometries ‘change’ and/or redefine said object when said object is "a single type of object?" It is still a plasmoid at its most fundamental and “citizen scientist” regularly produce them in their microwaves for kicks. Alas, maybe there might be revealed something with regard to the object's age, environmental influences, make up and things of this nature but it doesn't change the nature of what the thing is does it?

Sometimes I quite enjoy science but I don’t think that some people understand the point of the EU. It is a qualitative hypothesis whose goal is to familiarize the exact same “citizen scientist” that populate the Galaxy Zoo with the dynamics of electrical forces and plasma in the Cosmos. Why this puts such an itch in the craw of some is far beyond my capacity to understand. I feel as if I'm being told 'Its either our way or the highway.'

[Nereid]

I want to thank Lloyd (and tayga, and ...) for their posts; in preparing a response (or responses; I'm not ready yet), I've spent many a very pleasant hour downloading - and looking at - very large JPEG files, of images of relatively nearby* galaxies taken with various cameras on the HST!

I've got a couple of galaxies for your consideration, with regard to whether it is possible to see right through one such or not.

First, NGC 891. Viewed from outside, in space near Dwingeloo 1 (but not inside that spiral itself), the Milky Way would look something like this, with the Sun buried deep in obscuring dust that runs right through the middle (the galactic latitude of Dwingeloo 1 is only ~0.1o) ... yet from our vantage point, looking right through our own Milky Way dust clouds, we can clearly see Dwingeloo 1!

Second, NGC 3314. Here we have one galaxy very clearly visible right through the nuclear region of another!

* I don't think anyone, even Arp, would contend that M81, for example, is relatively nearby!

[Goldminer]

Lensing and microlensing are foregone truths to consensus astronomers. The truth that there are other very plausible explanations to what is observed cannot possibly be considered, since it contradicts the consensus astronomer's authority. Let's all agree with Stalin and stop this divisiveness! For crying out loud, we cannot allow reality to obstruct the march of astronomical authority!

Sarcasm, one of my many services!

[Goldminer]

If Nereid were to expend 25% of the effort shown in these posts upon demonstrating her reason for pronouncing Robitaille's article a failure, We (me and my mouse) might take her seriously. Her efforts to avoid the discussion of this article lead me to believe it is fatal to her cause.

Opacity seems to block everything but a view of a QUASAR. They are well known to be "the brightest objects in the Universe" when taken at their Hubble shift distance. Maybe this is the reason they can cut through opacity?

Nereid seems to be unaware of intra stellar dust. This would be the stuff between the "widely spaced stars" as she says. It is the "stuff" that supposedly new stars are formed from, by gravity, no less! Without electricity, no less! And is sometimes opaque!!


Sarcasm, one of my many services!

[tayga]

I've got a couple of galaxies for your consideration, with regard to whether it is possible to see right through one such or not.

First, NGC 891. Viewed from outside, in space near Dwingeloo 1 (but not inside that spiral itself), the Milky Way would look something like this, with the Sun buried deep in obscuring dust that runs right through the middle (the galactic latitude of Dwingeloo 1 is only ~0.1o) ... yet from our vantage point, looking right through our own Milky Way dust clouds, we can clearly see Dwingeloo 1!

Second, NGC 3314. Here we have one galaxy very clearly visible right through the nuclear region of another!

Thanks, Nereid. I don't think your second example is a good comparison for NGC 7319. It clearly shows one galaxy BEHIND another but I'm not sure you could claim to be seeing one THROUGH the other.

That said, Dwingeloo 1 is not so easy to dismiss. I'm not familiar enough with the concepts to comment on whether the comparative closeness of the objects to each other and to the observer make it a valid comparison or what it tells us about the probability of such an observation. But to me, an outsider, the Dwingeloo 1 example raises sufficient doubt.

Like anyone who writes papers, I always try to anticipate referees' comments and I'm sure the authors here are no different. I imagine that is why they looked for and presented qualitative and quantitative evidence of interaction.

With the limited number of observations like NGC 7319 I suppose that, in an ideal world, astronomers would be working like mad to find similar examples and challenge the idea of cosmological red shift.

[Nereid]

Thanks, Nereid.

You're welcome.

I don't think your second example is a good comparison for NGC 7319. It clearly shows one galaxy BEHIND another but I'm not sure you could claim to be seeing one THROUGH the other.

That said, Dwingeloo 1 is not so easy to dismiss. I'm not familiar enough with the concepts to comment on whether the comparative closeness of the objects to each other and to the observer make it a valid comparison or what it tells us about the probability of such an observation. But to me, an outsider, the Dwingeloo 1 example raises sufficient doubt.

I'm working on some material that I hope will help.

One difficulty relates to what you have written here; there are a whole slew of concepts in observational astronomy that I think are important to firmly grasp in order to have a science-based discussion here (I briefly covered one - surface brightness - in an earlier post in this thread) ... and those concepts are deeply quantitative.

It's also important to recognise the difference between the observations reported by astronomers and the interpretations of those, in terms of models of the various objects observed for example; the surface brightness of a patch of some galaxy or other is completely unrelated to any models of galaxies! Of course, what astrophysical models of galaxies need to do is explain/account for/be consistent with/etc the observations (of surface brightness), quantitatively, and to within the estimated uncertainties.

I should also add that I personally think photometry (within which 'surface brightness' lives) is relatively straight-forward compared with spectroscopy (which plays a key role in any decent response to your excellent post, Solar).

Like anyone who writes papers, I always try to anticipate referees' comments and I'm sure the authors here are no different. I imagine that is why they looked for and presented qualitative and quantitative evidence of interaction.

And, in their paper, they did not spend much time on the disk of NGC 7319 being 'opaque' due to it being 'too bright'; rather, they refer to 'absorption in the disk near the center of this Seyfert galaxy', and their 'expectation' of how much absorption there should be there (i.e. they have a model which they use to interpret the observations).

('interaction' is a different kettle of onions entirely!)

With the limited number of observations like NGC 7319 I suppose that, in an ideal world, astronomers would be working like mad to find similar examples and challenge the idea of cosmological red shift.

Er, um, no. The hard work on the nature of quasar redshifts was done in the 1960s and 1970s; by the 1980s I think it fair to say that very few astronomers considered the observational evidence - in totality - to be consistent with AGNs (or any subset) having 'intrinsic' redshifts (whether quantised or not); however, SDSS and 2dF produced such enormous volumes of consistent observational data that an 'intrinsic redshift' signal should have been screamingly obvious (in a statistical sense of course) ... yet, as far as I know, no one has shown that there is such an (observational) signal.