Quasars...

[Goldminer]

IMHO, Nereid is purposefully oblivious to the difference between Arp's discovery of intrinsic
"quantum" red shifts in QSOs; and the reasons put forth for the existence of them. The existence of the intrinsic red shifts destroys the <moderator edit> consensus theories. The denial of their existence is the same treatment Arp received from his coworker when said coworker simply rubbed the offending evidence off the photographic plate when Arp pointed out the interaction apparent between a conventional galaxy and the QSO. That interaction is on the cover of his Quasars-Redshifts-Controversies

If the <moderator edit> consensus theoreticians can get the rest of us to deny the existence of the offending intrinsic red shifts, no explanation for the intrinsic redshifts are necessary, and the <moderator edit> consensus theoreticians can continue with their <moderator edit> fantasies. I call it the <moderator edit> agenda.

Nereid, I'm still waiting for a cogent response to the Robitaille material.

[Nitai]

My posting in this thread began, on 15 Jan this year, with a question: "what, to EU theorists and Thunderbolts Forum members, constitutes an observational definition of a quasar".

There have been a number of answers given, among them:

what the naming convention of the genre says it is [and] what has been provided by those who work in that field

what has been shown in the relevant, peer-reviewed literature

I would think, Nereid, that you would realize that several people here respect the work of Observational Astronomy. As DaveTalbott has explained in quite simple terms its the interpretation that causes problems for some. Not the purity, or the ideal(s) of Observational Astronomy; it is after all a technical science. There is a clear distinction that must be made with regard to this. For my own taste take for example the link you provided to Keel’s website (Thank you). It is quite nice and one can readily see the quality of actual Observational Astronomy that you seem to want to convey the merits of. The work is fine and most respectful - until one gets to the qualitative “Quasars Astronomy Forty Years On.”

Even though that article posits “black holes” as “the best explanation” the article subsequently goes on to mention them in relation to quasars a staggering forty-nine times - as if they are real. It all but destroyed my desire to read further but I did manage to do so and - doing so - requires ignoring references to that model in order to ‘see’ and appreciate the science of Observational Astronomy for what it is. Speaking for myself this is T-H-E serious problem for astronomy/astrophysics/observational astronomy imho.

I would ask, just as you have already alluded to earlier in this thread ...

From the perspective of photometry - and its equivalent in other regions of the electromagnetic spectrum such as x-ray and radio - AGNs have a central, unresolved ("point") source; this is sometimes referred to as the "engine". Physical models of that engine may include an Eddington-limit accretion disk around a supermassive black hole, a highly concentrated 'top heavy' nuclear star cluster, a plasmoid, ...

... that you to please understand that there is a significant difference between an appreciation of the science of Observational Astronomy and the interpretive physical model(s) that may develop from it's work. Above, you demonstrate the ability to distinguish between the two and I would make the case that so to those who find something amenable in the EU.

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.

(highlight added)

If that's so, then perhaps I have badly misunderstood this: "All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory" ... if Electric Universe theory contains nothing quantitative, then I do not know how there can be any properly constructed scientific arguments challenging it.

It is so to me because ‘I’ said of the EU that “It is a qualitative hypothesis …” because that is what ‘I’ consider it to be. Goodness me, I’ve been on this forum for some 3yrs(?) and I’ve never read the forum rules!!

It seems that you are having a bit of a relational problem because of wanting to ‘define’ (or confine?) a “scientific argument” as strictly quantitative (also questioning same here). You may; but this, imho, is an inaccurate assessment. I should like to inquire of you as to what scientific paper, book, essay, poster presentation etc you have experienced that does not eventually or explicitly contain a qualitative assessment of the quantifications that may be contained therein?

Both methodologies are necessary components of “science” imho. I don’t know what it is to try and separate them because there are no quantifications that I’ve seen wherein an explanative description (or interpretive framework) didn’t accompany same. Of what value would the quantifications be were there no attempt to coherently describe/interpret/explain them?

I couldn't agree more. Isn't the ultimate point of a quantitative assessment to provide facts and evidence toward an eventual qualitative assessment? Isn't it the reciprocating of these 2, the Yin & the Yang of science if you will, that propels us forward toward truth?

[Aristarchus]

As for the José Francisco García Juliá material; well, if Bengt Nyman gets his ideas moved to NIAMI, perhaps José Francisco García Juliá's should be too (along with Brynjolfsson's)?

Not sure why you would arbitrarily select a fellow TB member, namely, Bengt Nyman, as a comparison to José Francisco García Juliá, and relegating both to the NIAMI. The former I find rather well-considered, intriguing, and compelling in offering his research at the TB forum. Gee, Nereid, how bold and prolific of you, in that you managed to degrade two people and one of the topic subject headings at TB in one swipe - and without explanation.

As for José Francisco García Juliá, he is respected enough to have his research published on the Hilton Ratcliffe site, and the latter's credentials entail the following:

Hilton writes a monthly astrophysical column for Ndaba, newsletter of the Durban Centre of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa, and edits the online newsletter of the Alternative Cosmology Group (ACG).

He is best known in formal science as co-discoverer, together with eminent nuclear chemist Oliver Manuel and solar physicist Michael Mozina, of the CNO nuclear fusion cycle on the surface of the Sun, some 65 years after it was first predicted. In his capacity as a Fellow of the (British) Institute of Physics, he involves himself in addressing the decline in student interest in physical sciences at both high school and university level, and particularly likes to encourage the reading of books.

Hilton Ratcliffe

[Nereid]

Could you explain to me why we should not simply accept astronomers' observational description of quasars? That description is easily isolated from the astronomers' interpretation of the observations, including the typical high redshift. I don't see where there is an issue worth arguing about here.

Because, today (and for several years now), the observational definition of 'quasar' incorporates an LCDM* assumption; for an object to be a 'quasar', its estimated intrinsic luminosity (in the B or I bands, typically) needs to exceed a threshhold (e.g. -22.0 mag).

Caveat: it's true that I may have missed something from you, perhaps pointing to a reason for making the standard observational definitions an issue. I just don't understand why you would think that we would want to challenge the observations or change the way the bodies are categorized (as quasars).

Because, in EU theory, the estimated intrinsic luminosity would be quite different (and so there'd be no consistent basis for any discussion involving 'quasars').

Even though that article posits “black holes” as “the best explanation” the article subsequently goes on to mention them in relation to quasars a staggering forty-nine times - as if they are real. It all but destroyed my desire to read further but I did manage to do so and - doing so - requires ignoring references to that model in order to ‘see’ and appreciate the science of Observational Astronomy for what it is. Speaking for myself this is T-H-E serious problem for astronomy/astrophysics/observational astronomy imho.

This rather neatly illustrates the difference between material that is intended for a general audience and that intended for an audience of fellow (professional) observational astronomers, doesn't it?

In order to do any serious work on EU theory, based on observational astronomy, it is the primary sources which must be used, and understanding those sources - and the observational techniques which they are based on - is essential ... in order to not make gross mistakes (like blindly accepting that all 'quasars' in such primary sources are a single, unique class of object per EU theory).

... that you to please understand that there is a significant difference between an appreciation of the science of Observational Astronomy and the interpretive physical model(s) that may develop from it's work. Above, you demonstrate the ability to distinguish between the two and I would make the case that so to those who find something amenable in the EU.

In this case, a key point is that 'quasar' is, observationally, an arbitrary definition; it is merely one kind of AGN ... and all AGNs have a central engine. If anyone doing serious work on EU theory does not address this, their work is likely to have very limited validity (however, accepting it may well lead to a million or so 'fact-theory' conflicts, within and for, EU theory).

For the rest of your post, Solar, let's agree to disagree, shall we?

And that provides a nice segue into ...

IMHO, Nereid is purposefully oblivious to the difference between Arp's discovery of intrinsic "quantum" red shifts in QSOs; and the reasons put forth for the existence of them.

IMHO, Goldminer is purposefully oblivious to the difference between 'science' based on 'my intuition is cool with this' and objective, independently verifiable quantitative astrophysics.

The existence of the intrinsic red shifts destroys the <moderator edit> consensus theories.

"<moderator edit>" eh?

The denial of their existence is the same treatment Arp received from his coworker when said coworker simply rubbed the offending evidence off the photographic plate when Arp pointed out the interaction apparent between a conventional galaxy and the QSO. That interaction is on the cover of his Quasars-Redshifts-Controversies

No one - as far as I know - is stopping Arp from writing papers, putting them up on arXiv, and submitting them for publication (whether to Nature, ApJ, or Progress in Physics). No has anyone ever denied Arp access to the SDSS data, FIRST data, Hubble Space Telescope data, ... (indeed, it's difficult to see how they could; it's all available, for free, to anyone with a broadband internet connection).

Arp's ideas concerning intrinsic redshift - in the form of published papers - are available to anyone (though sometimes they are behind a paywall) ... as are the many papers critiquing his conclusions (I think these sort of critiques more or less stopped in the 1980s; here's a short piece on this, which includes material from a more recent critique).

Isn't the ultimate point of a quantitative assessment to provide facts and evidence toward an eventual qualitative assessment? Isn't it the reciprocating of these 2, the Yin & the Yang of science if you will, that propels us forward toward truth?

Nitai, I took considerable pains to describe how I see the framework within which a meaningful science-based discussion might take place, here in this forum. If you read those threads you'll see that Goldminer has a radically different perspective (making a meaningful, science-based dialogue between the two of us essentially impossible). Rather than repeat large amounts of what's in those threads, I'll simply as you this: based on the relevant (quantitative) facts and evidence, what 'qualitative assessment' can be made (do you make) concerning 'the quantum world'?

As for José Francisco García Juliá, he is respected enough to have his research published on the Hilton Ratcliffe site, and the latter's credentials entail the following:

Is this yet another appeal to authority, Aristarchus?

I need to dig up the post, by Dave Smith, on the relationship between Mozina's and Manuel's ideas and EU theory; short of an explicit endorement by an electrical theorist, can we assume that Juliá's material is on a par with that of Mozina and Manuel?

From now on, I will not be trying to present my own understanding of various aspects of contemporary astrophysics, cosmology, observational astronomy, etc, from the 'mainstream' perspective (no doubt with some exceptions).

If any reader is interested in answers to questions on the observational aspects of (extra-galactic) redshift - or any other aspect of contemporary astrophysics (etc) - I'd like to suggest the following:
BAUT's Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers section
Starship Asterisk*'s The Library: Ask Questions about Astronomy section
Physics Forums' Astronomy & Cosmology section
JREF's Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section

If your questions are general, and non-technical, the first two would likely be best; for more specific questions, try Physics Forums (but be prepared for answers that assume at least a year's study of physics). JREF has some extremely knowledgeable, professional physicists among its regulars, but few observational astronomers; the other three, especially BAUT, have several of these. Oh, in case you don't already know, Starship Asterisk* is the discussion forum associated with APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day).

If you're already signed up for a Zooinverse project, the Galaxy Zoo forum's Science Questions section (and equivalents in other Zooinverse project fora, such as Solar Stormwatch) may be an easier place to cut your teeth (so to speak).

* Lambda Cold Dark Matter

[David Talbott]

Could you explain to me why we should not simply accept astronomers' observational description of quasars? That description is easily isolated from the astronomers' interpretation of the observations, including the typical high redshift. I don't see where there is an issue worth arguing about here.

Because, today (and for several years now), the observational definition of 'quasar' incorporates an LCDM* assumption; for an object to be a 'quasar', its estimated intrinsic luminosity (in the B or I bands, typically) needs to exceed a threshhold (e.g. -22.0 mag).
* Lambda Cold Dark Matter

Well of course, doubtful interpretations get extended, which creates further problems. The theoretical interpretation of redshift leads to a requirement of previously unimagined luminosity. But where's the problem for the EU in simply looking past a questionable interpretation to the observed fact? I don't see why we would want to confuse things by giving a different name to a body when the observed condition is not in dispute.

On the matter of quasars, folks, please see my post correcting my own misunderstanding of Nereid's recent comment concerning the Wolf Effect:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... =30#p47280

[Aristarchus]

Is this yet another appeal to authority, Aristarchus?

Nope. It's a defense for a fellow TB forum member, which you, for some unknown reason, arbritrarily included in your terse retort back to me. In addition, it is an appeal to recognize the credentials of Hilton Ratcliffe that has published the papers by José Francisco García Juliá, as opposed to your ad hominem attack which allowed you not to address the specifics of García Juliá's research, as instead you chose to respond by casting aspersions about the latter's "authority." on the subject.

So, Nereid has responded as a substitute for not engaging in the specifics and the particulars of alternative research into redshifts with the following:

1. Hilton Ratcliffe will post García Juliá, but Nereid will not (implied).
2. Nereid equates a fellow TB forum member with García Juliá (Why? Don't know, because she didn't answer.)
3. Thus, we are left to assume Nereid will not address alternatives to redshift, unless it is from the establishment science. Nope. Check that. She has now stated this unequivocally in here previous post on this topic.
4. Nereid has added two new names to the mix, namely, Mozina and Manuel

Ohh-Kaay. Is this where you mount a defense to address someone that made the simple observation that it was you that at first deflected from the subject of the topic?

[Nereid]

Caveat: it's true that I may have missed something from you, perhaps pointing to a reason for making the standard observational definitions an issue. I just don't understand why you would think that we would want to challenge the observations or change the way the bodies are categorized (as quasars).

Well of course, doubtful interpretations get extended, which creates further problems. The theoretical interpretation of redshift leads to a requirement of previously unimagined luminosity. But where's the problem for the EU in simply looking past a questionable interpretation to the observed fact? I don't see why we would want to confuse things by giving a different name to a body when the observed condition is not in dispute.

David, back on the first page of this thread, on 17 Jan this year, I gave two examples of objects that might, to some, be classed as 'quasars'; on page two, on 20 Jan, I explained, in detail, what the current observational definition is, and why it causes (or should cause) headaches for electrical theorists (of which you are one, right?).

So, Nereid has responded as a substitute for not engaging in the specifics and the particulars of alternative research into redshifts with the following:

1. Hilton Ratcliffe will post García Juliá, but Nereid will not (implied).
2. Nereid equates a fellow TB forum member with García Juliá (Why? Don't know, because she didn't answer.)
3. Thus, we are left to assume Nereid will not address alternatives to redshift, unless it is from the establishment science. Nope. Check that. She has now stated this unequivocally in here previous post on this topic.
4. Nereid has added two new names to the mix, namely, Mozina and Manuel

Ohh-Kaay. Is this where you mount a defense to address someone that made the simple observation that it was you that at first deflected from the subject of the topic?

Before I forget, here's the post, by Dave Smith, I was referring to

Now, to the substance.

The framework within which I post, in this forum, is as follows*:

-> "All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory. The ONLY places we treat as exceptions to these guidelines is on "The Human Question" and "New Insights and Mad Ideas" boards." (source)

-> the primary source of published Electric Universe theory is material by electrical theorists

-> if an electrical theorist has not explicitly endorsed published ideas by an author, then I treat material by that author in three ways:
1) if it's based on objective, independently verified experimental results, done in labs here on Earth, and if those results have been published in relevant, mainstream journals, then I regard it as acceptable to electrical theorists, even if it's not explicitly part of published Electric Universe theory
2) if it's based on theoretical derivations, or extrapolations, of plamsa physics, and if those derivations (or extrapolations) have been published in relevant, mainstream journals, then I regard it as acceptable to electrical theorists, even if it's not explicitly part of published Electric Universe theory
3) otherwise, I regard it as NIAMI material (this includes, of course, much which one or more electrical theorists has explicitly, in published material, declared to be not part of Electric Universe theory).

By these criteria, the published material of Bengt Nyman, Mozina, Manuel, Robitaille, García Juliá, and Brynjolfsson (to name just a few) is, clearly, NIAMI material.

That, I think, should clarify things for you, Aristarchus (and several other readers).

Just to be clear about this ("we are left to assume Nereid will not address alternatives to redshift, unless it is from the establishment science"): the only explanations of the observed redshift, of extra-galactic objects, that I am prepared to discuss, in this forum, are those endorsed by electrical theorists (caveat: not counting any Doppler component).

So far, only two such explanations seem to exist (there may well be others; I may simply have not come across them yet):
a) intrinsic redshifts of the Arpian kind; here, for example, is Thornhill's explicit endorsement of this
b) the Wolf effect; here, for example, is Talbott's explicit endorsement of this.

Oh, and I mildly curious as to why the moderators of this discussion forum have allowed material that is not part of Electric Universe theory - and in some cases is explicitly, and strongly, inconsistent with it - to be so widely discussed here (outside the NIAMI board).

* note that this framework is fairly recent; many of my older posts were written outside this framework (at those earlier times, I did not understand Electric Universe theory at all, let alone well)

[Goldminer]

By these criteria, the published material of Bengt Nyman, Mozina, Manuel, Robitaille, García Juliá, and Brynjolfsson (to name just a few) is, clearly, NIAMI material.

I see! So the rules are that if Nereid can't make a cogent argument about why Robitaille should be disregarded, we must move the post to the mad ideas thread? I don't buy it, Nererid. You are toast, the CMB is toast, and the Big Bang has another nail in the coffin's lid.

You are clearly out of your league. When the foundation is rotten, the house will fall. Go on discussing all your trivia. Gloss the killer arguments and continue with your <moderator edit> consensus theories. The site has pleny of band width! None are so blind as those who willfully refuse to see. Your selective ignorance is very transparent.

When the redshift of an associated object is subtracted from the observed redshift of a Quasar, then the intrinsic redshift is revealed. You consensus theorists refuse to "understand," and go on claiming that Arp's evidence has been refuted. It has not been refuted; your <moderator edit> consensus compatriots just continue on with the "finer points" of your religion, in spite of how silly you look to those of us who can actually think for our selves.

.

[Aristarchus]

By these criteria, the published material of Bengt Nyman, Mozina, Manuel, Robitaille, García Juliá, and Brynjolfsson (to name just a few) is, clearly, NIAMI material.

That's nice. Now, getting back to the issue at hand, García Juliá quotes Arp in the second paper of the former that I linked on this topic:

Thus, for example, in the case of the pair quasar-galaxy NGC 7319 [11], where the
galaxy has a low redshift, = 0.0225 G z , and the quasar (which is in front of the galaxy)

a high redshift, = 2.1140 Q z (which is contrary to the expansion of the universe);

[11] Pasquale Galianni, E. M. Burbidge, H. Arp, V. Junkkarinen, G. Burbidge and Stefano Zibetti, The Discovery of a High Redshift X-Ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319, arXiv: astro-ph/0409215v1 (2004). http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 9215v1.pdf

And this was all submitted due what I previously asked you on this topic:

How is this relevant to NGC 7319? Since the paper you supplied, "The Opacity of Spiral Galaxy Disks. IV. Radial Extinction Profiles from Counts of Distant Galaxies Seen through Foreground Disks" doesn't turn up any results for the 'Stephan’s Quintet' or 'NGC 7319'. So, how is it you're attempting to tie this all in, as opposed to the specific information you request from your fellow TB forum members?

[mharratsc]

Ms. Nereid,


I would like to point out that not everyone here shares the intensity of feelings about you nor the same sentiments towards you that have been expressed in various posts on this board, especially as the above few posts have conveyed.

I for one appreciate your contributions on this site, and I think so do many others- even as Mr. Talbott has likewise expressed himself.

If it were not for you here on this board and bringing the discussion to us for once, then we would still be attempting to instigate rational discussions on the other mainstream sites, and dealing with the rather destructive criticisms to be met with there. :\

I commend you for your determination, and your dedication to what you perceive to be 'good science', even though perspectives on what the definition of 'good science' is might be a point of contention between camps, and thus a bit of a battle line.

However, just because you have a different perspective and different convictions than many of us here, that doesn't mean that you should become the target for vituperative personal comments. I would like to offer an apology for any such, even if no one else will- I do not want Electric Universe proponents to be known for our antipathy, but rather for our knowledge, logic, intuition, and perhaps even charisma, in the end!

You have pointed out cogently, and politely, what the weakness(es) of various aspects of EU/PC are (and perhaps of the model as a whole as well) as perceived by the main body of standard theory scientists... and you have done it far more politely than anyone else I have ever read comments from.

Likewise you have thusly demonstrated how we can expect any attempts to sincerely push this model into the mainstream view are likely to proceed. You have even instructed us as to how we would need to cogently organize any arguments we might press into service, and even gone on to show what kind of resistance and counter-argument we would certainly expect in return (and then some, I'm sure!)

Therefore, for the beneficial knowledge you have brought to these forums (however we might choose to perceive it), and for the patience you have managed so far to convey it with- I personally would like to offer my thanks to you!
I hope that- if this model is ever written into a 'quantitative, peer-reviewed' paper... the authors consider adding your name to the credits with a 'thank you' for your constructive criticisms and comments along the way.

Finally, a personal point- I hope I have not caused you too much consternation along the way. I am no scientist; I have no experience with such arguments. I thank you for your patience as I have labored to learn more about your field, and especially I appreciate your discussing some of the history of astronomy as I find it very interesting.
I became truly interested in astronomy after finding my way into the Thunderbolts site, you see... so therefore much of what you discussed in your posts was pretty new to me, and I apologize that I became overly defensive regarding some of your comments.

It's funny, but in that regard- I became guilty of defending my 'paradigm' in a way, even while nodding my head at the comments of others on the boards whom pointed fingers at standard model proponents whom are defending their paradigm in exactly the same fashion. >.<

I'm feeling a bit hypocritical at the moment. Boy, I hope I learn something from this..

[Lloyd]

* Goldminer, I'd prefer that you use more respectful terms when describing opponents, including the mainstream. It seems that your description of the mainstream as "<moderator edit>" must be meant to suggest ignorance or stupidity, which would seem to amount to the same thing as calling them stupid. It's possible that by <moderator edit> you mean innate, which is another one of its meanings, but your contexts suggest that you more likely mean stupid.
* I don't want to defend Nereid too strongly, because I think she has gotten in a number of digs herself, mostly more subtly, at least earlier on. Nor am I convinced that she has good intentions for being here. Her motives aren't obvious to me.

[Goldminer]

* Goldminer, I'd prefer that you use more respectful terms when describing opponents, including the mainstream. It seems that your description of the mainstream as "<moderator edit>" must be meant to suggest ignorance or stupidity, which would seem to amount to the same thing as calling them stupid. It's possible that by <moderator edit> you mean innate, which is another one of its meanings, but your contexts suggest that you more likely mean stupid.
* I don't want to defend Nereid too strongly, because I think she has gotten in a number of digs herself, mostly more subtly, at least earlier on. Nor am I convinced that she has good intentions for being here. Her motives aren't obvious to me.

You are right, Double L, sometimes I'm a little grumpy! Nobody who takes time to post here at Thunderbolts Forum can be retarded. It takes an intelligence above average to question the stars. I do appreciate Nereid, however she and "the Physicist" do have an agenda, however "polite" they are. [I've been spanked by the
"admin" several times and should take it easy!]<moderator edit>refers to the ideas, not the people. <moderator edit> does not necessarily produce reduced intelligence anyway. Occasionally above average individuals result. "Her" politeness wears thin when "she" thanks someone for a link or some quote that destroys "her" position, then glosses over the said information later on, sending another TBF member off on another rabbit trail.

Nereid's link: here's a short piece on this demonstrates that the supposed "debunker" doesn't even come close to understanding Arp's evidence. Quote from the article: "The various dashed lines are simulations that would result of quasars were ejected from galaxies at various different velocities." Arp's evidence does not concern the ejection speed of quasars from galaxies. This is another "<moderator edit> idea." The unsuccessful "debunker, Rob Knop's, entire rant merely demonstrates that this "debunker" is clueless about Arp's data. Nereid wants me to run around the internet fighting this sort of nonsense, when all Nereid has to do is read Arp's two books, both of which stand on their own, as does Robitaille's article which still begs "her" attention.

Arp's first book demonstrates his point right on the cover: Quasars-Redshifts-Controversies
.

[Lloyd]

* Goldminer, thanks much.
* There are ways to have friendly, productive debates, that help advance knowledge, but it seems that they're somewhat difficult to organize.
* Dave T was attempting to get an agreement with Nereid to have a debate, but I haven't yet heard that there is an agreement, or the likelihood of one.
* I've been working on having a debate with Charles on the NIAMI board, but it's taking him a while to get back to it, though we seemed to have a good start.
* I think someone will get the hang of it ere long and we'll start having more productive discussions when it happens.

[Lloyd]

Quasar Merger with Galaxy
* I thought I should post these as evidence that quasars are found near galaxies [because they are ejected from galaxies and eventually become galaxies themselves.]
- Dissecting a Merger between a Quasar and a ‘Green Valley’ Galaxy [z=0.37]
http://astrobites.com/2011/04/05/dissec ... ley-galaxy
- Surprising Hubble Images Challenge Quasar Theory
This Hubble picture provides evidence for a merger between a quasar and a companion galaxy.
http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/ ... Challenge-
http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archiv ... 4/image/a/
- Hubble Captures Merger Between Quasar and Galaxy
http://www.utahskies.org/HST/Archives/misc.html

[mharratsc]

ABOUT THIS IMAGE:
This NASA Hubble Space Telescope image shows evidence fo r a merger between a quasar and a companion galaxy. This surprising result might require theorists to rethink their explanations for the nature of quasars, the most energetic objects in the universe.

The bright central object is the quasar itself, located several billion light-years away. The two wisps of material on the (left) of the bright central object are remnants of a bright galaxy that have been disrupted by the mutual gravitational attraction between the quasar and the companion galaxy. This provides clear evidence for a merger between the two objects.

Since their discovery in 1963, quasars (quasi-stellar objects) have been enigmatic because they emit prodigious amounts of energy from a very compact source. The most widely accepted model is that a quasar is powered by a supermassive black hole in the core of a galaxy.

These new observations proved a challenge for theorists as no current models predict the complex quasar interactions unveiled by Hubble.

Wow, talk about presumptive! This quote: "This provides clear evidence for a merger between the two objects." - clear evidence of interaction, perhaps, but where do they get "evidence of a merger"?? That is a judgement based upon a pre-conceived notion, right there.

Also, how do they justify that last little bit of word-play at the end? "No current models"?? That's rather disingenious, if you ask me, and a slight against Dr. Halton Arp for certain.