Incorrect Assumptions in Astrophysics II
On June 1, 2008 Michael Gmirkin wrote a Thunderblog entry entitled
Incorrect Assumptions in Astrophysics. In it he put forward a
strong indictment of astrophysicists who base their scientific conclusions
on poorly substantiated assumptions. A prime example is their wide acceptance
of the ‘high redshift value equals distance’ principle. Even though
this idea stands on scientifically shaky grounds – Halton Arp’s evidence
has challenged it, if not completely falsified it – the astronomical power
structure believes this to be a Law of Nature. Gmirkin correctly points out
that this false ‘Law’ is responsible for numerous disastrous
misinterpretations of observed astronomical data.
Another equally unsubstantiated assumption made by present day astrophysicists
is that galaxies that are relatively close to each other (and have interconnecting
bridges of matter) must be
colliding. We presently have no way to measure the relative motions
of any such galaxies. Any two neighboring galaxies could therefore equally well
be flying apart from each other. The automatic knee-jerk declaration that ‘
interacting means colliding’ is simply a presumption. It is an error
in logic – a non sequitur.
Figure 1. ULIRGs giving birth.
And, as Michael Gmirkin pointed out previously,
they are not really ULTRA luminous at all.
Astronomers have no bona fide reason to assume two closely spaced galaxies
have to be approaching each other –
in the process of colliding – other than their stubborn belief that every
action in cosmic space is controlled solely by gravity. Gravity
only attracts. Thus they are prejudiced in favor of an attractive
force pulling the two into a collision.
A quick Internet search reveals an attitude of absolute certainty. For example:
The National Optical Astronomy Observatory News,
12/6/2005, reported as follows:
“More than half of the largest galaxies in the nearby universe have
collided and merged with another galaxy in the past two billion years,
according to a new study using hundreds of images from two of the deepest
sky surveys ever conducted.”
The Wikipedia entry for
Interacting Galaxies says:
“Colliding galaxies are common in galaxy evolution. Due to the
extremely tenuous distribution of matter in galaxies, these are not
collisions in the normal sense of the word, but rather gravitational
interaction. Colliding may lead to merging. This occurs when two galaxies
collide and do not have enough momentum to continue traveling after the
collision. Instead, they fall back into each other and eventually merge
after many passes through each other, forming one galaxy. If one of the
colliding galaxies is much larger than the other, it will remain largely
intact after the merger; that is, the larger galaxy will look much the
same while the smaller galaxy will be stripped apart and become part of
the larger galaxy.”
These paragraphs are entirely conjectural.
We have no evidence that “
more than half of the largest galaxies in
the nearby universe have collided and merged with another galaxy in the
past two billion years.” On the contrary, we have been inundated
by Big Bang pronouncements that everything in the universe is getting
farther and farther apart – not closer together.
We have never actually seen galaxies evolve. The detailed process
of how galaxies change over time is total supposition.
Colliding may lead to merging.” It might also lead to explosive
dissipation – might it not?
[Merging] occurs when two galaxies collide and do not have enough
momentum to continue traveling after the collision.” This is a
baseless pronouncement implying the writer has complete knowledge of
this process and is explaining it to us.
If one of the colliding galaxies is much larger than the other, it
will remain largely intact after the merger.” Again – this is a
pompous declaration – and it carries almost no information. If two masses
collide and one is bigger, of course it will be the smaller one that gets
distorted more. (This is why people buy Humvees.)
This same Wikipedia entry also defines “Galactic cannibalism”:
“Galactic cannibalism refers to the process by which a large galaxy,
through tidal gravitational interactions with a companion, merges with that
companion, resulting in a larger, often irregular galaxy.”
This is stated as fact – as if this term described some kind of verified
actual existing process that we have “often”
observed. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
If, as EU theorists believe, galaxies form in strings along vast intergalactic
current streams, then a pair of neighboring galaxies would interact in a way
similar to a pair of Birkeland currents. When they are widely apart they attract
each other. When they move closely together, they repel each other. This is a well
documented characteristic of Birkeland currents as observed in the laboratory.
We hear the following from the
Hubble Space Telescope (HST) group when they presented the images shown
in figure 1:
“Hubble astronomers conducting research on a class of galaxies called
ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRG) have discovered that over two dozen
of these are found within ‘nests’ of galaxies, apparently engaged
in multiple collisions that lead to
fiery pile-ups of three, four or even five galaxies
These people seem to have a fixation on violence and disaster. In view of
Halton Arp’s observations and scientific papers, what we are most likely
seeing is the riotous birth of galaxies and quasars,
not their deaths in ‘fiery pile-ups’. Instead of witnessing collisions,
we are looking at the separation of parent and offspring.
How can an unbiased person look at the images in figure 1 and not see
‘fireworks’? These scenes are most probably the festive birth of new
proto-galaxies, quasars, and BL Lac objects.
For a man who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
For astronomers who only have gravity, everything looks like a disastrous smash-up.
Gravity only attracts – Electromagnetic forces can attract and repel.
Astronomers need another tool in their toolbox.
D. E. Scott
Permalink to this article.
Public comment may be made on this article on the
Thunderbolts Forum/Thunderblogs (free membership required).
For an overview of Don Scott's book please visit:
The Electric Sky
Dr. Donald E. Scott is a retired Professor of Electrical Engineering and
long-time amateur astronomer.
Archives by Author
Archives by Subject