Interacting galaxies, help needed

[Nereid]

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 mharratsc 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).

and interestingly enough- it seems to fit with plasma cosmology rather well with the notion of highly energized matter being expelled in an enormously-ionized plasma jet from the central plasmoid of a galactic core.

Only if you accept the existence of physics processes which have never been seen in any lab experiment, here on Earth, and are not derivable from any part of plasma physics.

Okay, I'm mystified again Nereid. Do you really want to have to defend this statement? Both the plasma focus device and the Wolfe Effect are real, as are other well known plasma effects, all supporting a reasonable suspicion or belief that quasars are fundamentally electrical.

Parts of this thread are rapidly becoming similar to many others I've participated in, here in the Thunderbolts forum; a narrow, specific topic (or question) gets misunderstood, misrepresented, (mis-)generalised (etc), and before you know it we're thick in the middle of <irony> philosophical musings about the meaning of life </irony>.

Mike's comment, in context, is this (bold, highlight added):

However it is apparent that some few people still find it plausible to continue to investigate it, and interestingly enough- it seems to fit with plasma cosmology rather well with the notion of highly energized matter being expelled in an enormously-ionized plasma jet from the central plasmoid of a galactic core.

Q. And what is this mysterious "it" Mike refers to?

A. Again, in context:

Here is the thing- they are not saying they have all the answers to what they are observing. They are simply reporting what they see.

Q. And what is it that "they" are observing?

A. Redshifts (and blueshifts):

The spectra of stars, planetary nebulae, HII regions, and galaxies (and many more objects besides) usually contain 'lines', which correspond to specific atomic transitions (the electron in an atom, or ion, 'jumps' from one allowed level to another; if the jump is 'down' - higher energy state to a lower one - the atom or ion emits light; if 'up, it absorbs light). The 'rest wavelengths' of the lines are very well known, either from high precision lab experiments or theory (e.g. many 'nebular lines' have never been observed in labs - we can't create vacuums hard enough for long enough). The difference between the observed wavelength (from the spectrum of the astronomical object) and the rest wavelength is called redshift, in the sense of (observed) - (rest). Note that negative redshifts are sometimes called blueshifts.

So, in context (bold added): "the existence of physics processes which have never been seen in any lab experiment, here on Earth, and are not derivable from any part of plasma physics", the physics processes are those which give rise to redshifts (as I described them) observed in the spectra of astronomical objects.

In brief, the only part of this: "the plasma focus device and the Wolfe Effect are real, as are other well known plasma effects, all supporting a reasonable suspicion or belief that quasars are fundamentally electrical." which is relevant to my post is "the Wolfe Effect"1 (and, possibly, "other well known plasma effects").

If I may quote your own words, David T:

When a fact outside one's specialized field of view falsifies a theoretical assumption, common sense should direct the attention of the specialist to this contrary fact. All that is left when the specialist ignores common sense is denial.

Could the Wolf effect be the cause of the observed redshift of AGNs (per an observational definition; quasars - however defined - are a subset of AGNs)?

Never say never of course, but if I assume the "specialized field of view" is EU theory (or plasma cosmology in general), and if I assume that the "theoretical assumption" is that the Wolf effect is the cause of (most of) the redshift of AGNs (per their observed spectra), then the "fact" (actually tens of thousands of them) is existence of lines from "Lambertian sources" in those spectra, along with those assumed (by the writer of the webpage you provided a link to) to be from "non-Lambertian sources".

And what are those Lambertian sources? Why none other than "the blackbody radiation from stellar surfaces"!

Yes, that's right; the spectra of tens of thousands of AGNs can be interpreted as containing lines produced by ordinary stars, as well as H-alpha, [OIII] (several lines), H-beta, and so on (all in emission) ... and the redshifts are the same.

Aristarchus, my response to your lengthy post will have to wait for another day.

<tongue in cheek>
Well, obviously, Brynjolfsson got it wrong so we can dustbin his work, too!
</tongue in cheek>

Yes, he did (get it wrong).

If you read the document in the link Aristarchus provided, where Brynjolfsson presents what I'll write in shorthand as 'the physics case' for his particular 'plasma redshift' concept2, you'll see that he's made at least one mistake with regard to textbook physics his concept is developed using. I would guess - but do not know - that it is these mistakes (and Brynjolfsson's continued inability to fix them) which have been a key reason why none of his papers has ever been published in a relevant, peer-reviewed physics journal. Contrast this with Leif Holmlid's MNRAS paper; the underlying physics - which he worked on for many years - is well-established (his application of it to astronomy is new, of course).

1 From the context, I think you made a typo, David T; the Wolfe effect - usually called the Sachs-Wolfe effect - is something very different!
2 This is important, because there is more than one 'plasma redshift' concept. The ones that I am aware of, including Brynjolfsson's (and the Plasma Universe one, on the Wolf effect), are mutually inconsistent; in other words, no more than one can be 'right'; specifically, the Wolf effect and Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift are mutually inconsistent (as explanations of the observed redshifts of AGNs).

[David Talbott]

1 From the context, I think you made a typo, David T; the Wolfe effect - usually called the Sachs-Wolfe effect - is something very different!

No, Nereid, the Wolf effect (Emil Wolf) has no connection to the Sachs-Wolfe effect, and it relates directly to the issue of quasars and redshift. I provided a reference that should be sufficient:
http://plasmauniverse.info/redshifts.html

But see also:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/Wolf_effect

[David Talbott]

Okay, my apologies Nereid. Suddenly I see that you were really just referring to a typo. I've known of the Wolf Effect for several years and hadn't even realized I'd slipped into a misspelling. Aaaargh.

[Nereid]

Aristarchus, my response to your lengthy post will have to wait for another day.

It's clear that I made a mistake.

Since I last studied Brynjolfsson's ideas in detail, several years ago now, it seems he has tweaked those ideas extensively, and added many new fudge factors.

As for redshift, there are various proposals to its causes, but, as before, and the third time I am informing you of this matter, is that researchers will cite one another, but not accept the entire theory of those researchers cited. As for redshift theories outside that of Arp's -

1. Ari Brynjolfsson
2. There's the less mathematical development of Brynjolfsson's from Robin Whittle
3. Sisir Roy )extension of Wolf Effect) - I believe the wolf Effect has already been mentioned in quoting Peratt

There are others, but, let's move on:

To repeat what I wrote elsewhere: 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.

There are, as you might expect, quite a few astronomical observations which would seem, at first glance, to be inconsistent with Brynjolfsson's ideas (though he is to be applauded for the apparent effort he has put in to proposing, quantitatively, models built using his ideas, leading to testable hypotheses of them ... something which electrial theorists have not yet done, apparently).

Okay, my apologies Nereid. Suddenly I see that you were really just referring to a typo. I've known of the Wolf Effect for several years and hadn't even realized I'd slipped into a misspelling. Aaaargh.

No worries.

Have you, or any other electrical theorist, published anything on how the Wolf effect accounts, quantitatively, for actual astronomical observations of extra-galactic objects (mostly spectra)?

[Aristarchus]

Nereid,

I was expecting a better defense on your part.

Since I last studied Brynjolfsson's ideas in detail, several years ago now, it seems he has tweaked those ideas extensively, and added many new fudge factors.

Let's stick to your first unsubstantiated assertion, shall we? Highlight mine:

You see, among other things, Brynjolfsson's 'plasma redshift' is a kind of 'tired light' hypothesis; in other words, it provides an explanation for the Hubble redshift-distance relationship that is an alternative to that in LCDM cosmological models (where it is a consequence of general relativity). Yet central to Arp's (and Thornhill's) explanation is that the observed redshifts of quasars (and other objects) is due to something intrinsic to them (in large part anyway); quasars near M82 on the sky, for example, are at approximately the same distance from us as M82 is. Contrast this with Brynjolfsson: those quasars are cosmologically distant (many hundreds of Mpc, perhaps a few Gpc), not a few Mpc. That NGC 7319 'foreground' quasar? Per Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift, it's far in the background.

Now, it's more than apparent that Brynjolfsson accounts a great deal for the intrinsic redshift in quasars, so based off what I linked from Brynjolfsson, answer the question as it pertains to what I submitted - repeated below.

Initially, when very little matter covers up the ends of the vortex, we observe two jets, one from each end, beaming far away from many objects believed to be black holes. We will first see “knots” or “lumps” on the beams or jets, because, as is well known from laboratory experiments and theory for pair production, matter enhances the transformation rate of photons to particle pairs. Occasionally, these “lumps” and “knots” may coalesce as they are being pushed away, and could possibly form quasars, about the way Halton Arp sees it in his monograph, Seeing Red, [52]. For example, the largest “lump” in M87 already now emits more X rays than the core of M87.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 1420v3.pdf

See? What's in bold and underlined? Asked and answered.

If for some reasons a SMBHC moves into a less dense environment, (for example into intergalactic space), a significant fraction of its extensive corona will necessarily ”evaporate” and become transparent. Initially, the corona will be relatively thick and the plasma redshifts therefore very large (like the quasars). With age, the corona becomes thinner and the intrinsic plasma redshift decreases, as observations by Halton Arp of quasars indicate[28].


... When excited, the large liquid drop model may split into two parts, which then with help of the large inertial mass in the two halfs may move apart into intergalactic space and become quasars. Again, this appears to match observations of quasars by Halton Arp[28].

http://www.davidscottderouin.com/Plasma ... edings.pdf

And the flow of this discussion followed from another desperate attempt on your part to distract from the focus of the dialogue on this topic, when you asked the following:

In "Arp's and Thornhill's explanation", redshift can be caused by a physical process that no one has ever observed in any lab, here in Earth.

And I answered using an explanation from Brynjolfsson, as follows: Again, emphasis mine ...

The plasma-redshift cross section is deduced from conventional axioms of physics without any new assumptions. It has been overlooked, because it is insignificant in ordinary laboratory plasmas; but it is important in sparse hot plasmas, such as those in the corona of the Sun, stars, quasars, galaxies, and intergalactic space. The energy that the photons lose in plasma redshift heats the plasma. The deduction of plasma redshift requires that we take into account the dielectric constant more accurately than is usually done. In the Sun, the plasma redshift predicts the observed densities and the temperatures in both the transition zone and in the corona. Plasma redshift predicts the observed intrinsic redshifts of the Sun, stars, quasars, and galaxies, the cosmological redshifts, cosmic microwave background, and cosmic X-ray background.

Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: a Review ~ Brynjolfsson

[davesmith_au]

Did you check whether Brynjolfsson's 'plasma redshift' is consistent - quantitatively - with the 'facts' in Arp's and Thornhill's materials (the ones which include their explanations of the redshifts)?

I seriously doubt that you did.

You see, among other things, Brynjolfsson's 'plasma redshift' is a kind of 'tired light' hypothesis; in other words, it provides an explanation for the Hubble redshift-distance relationship that is an alternative to that in LCDM cosmological models (where it is a consequence of general relativity). Yet central to Arp's (and Thornhill's) explanation is that the observed redshifts of quasars (and other objects) is due to something intrinsic to them (in large part anyway); quasars near M82 on the sky, for example, are at approximately the same distance from us as M82 is. Contrast this with Brynjolfsson: those quasars are cosmologically distant (many hundreds of Mpc, perhaps a few Gpc), not a few Mpc. That NGC 7319 'foreground' quasar? Per Brynjolfsson's plasma redshift, it's far in the background.
[source]

Aristarchus blows your argument out of the water, after which you post a rather 'thin' disclaimer:

Since I last studied Brynjolfsson's ideas in detail, several years ago now, it seems he has tweaked those ideas extensively, and added many new fudge factors.
[source]

Please cite some references, published by Brynjolfsson in the last "several years" which show "extensive tweaking" and "many new fudge factors". The main body of his work on the arxiv database is from 2004 (5 papers) to 2006 (2 papers). Whilst I would not consider these to be in the last several years, if you wish to cite from them (as containing the tweaking and fudge factors) then also cite the work of Brynjolfsson you studied in detail.

Not withstanding the escape clause in the same post as the above:

... 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).

It would be very bad form not to back up your own words, would it not?

Cheers, Dave.

[Nereid]

Since you signed your post "Dave", I'll assume that you wrote it wearing your ordinary forum member hat (and not your forum Admin/moderator one).

If the Thunderbolts forum moderators are prepared to allow discussion of ideas that are clearly exceptions to the guidelines in "the scientific parts of the forum" (and not move them to the "The Human Question" or "New Insights and Mad Ideas" board), I am in no position to disagree.

However, you surely cannot complain if I myself abstain from taking part in such discussions, can you?

To be clear, I will be the first to admit that my grasp of EU theory is weak, and that it is very easy to see why some people could easily confuse Brynjolfsson's work with EU theory. However, just as it is easy to see why some people could confuse Mozina's and Manuel's work with EU theory - when it is not, by a long shot - merely confusing such a link does not permit forum members to complain about those who do try to stick within the guidelines, does it?

Dave, for me the EU theory learning curve has been very steep indeed, and I have made many mistakes along the way, especially in understanding the scope of EU theory. Aristarchus has helped me - greatly - in my learning, more than he (she?) will ever likely appreciate. But - and this is a big but - mistakenly attributing ideas (which, outside this forum, are often called 'crackpot') to EU theory should not result in demands (?) that those ideas be discussed here (or any part of this forum, other than the HQ or NIAMI), should they.