Augmentation of PressRelease"Merging Galaxies Create Quasar"

[Jarvamundo]

Hi Guys,

New to this forum.... didnt really know where to go with this.... here is a copy of emails sent to a few other people about this issue.... i hope my emails get through.

Last night i wrote emails about a recent Press Release from the 6.5M Magellan Telescope in Chile
http://www.ciw.edu/news/merging_galaxie ... ary_quasar
4th February 2010

In this article Carnegie astronomer John Mulchaey describes his findings, with further analysis from his collegues
"Thomas Cox, now a fellow at the Carnegie Observatories, corroborated this conclusion using computer simulations of the merging galaxies. When Cox’s model galaxies merged, they showed features remarkably similar to what Mulchaey observed in the Magellan images. “The model verifies the merger origin for this binary quasar system,” he says. “It also hints that this kind of galaxy interaction is a key component of the growth of black holes and production of quasars throughout our universe.”

REMEMBER: This article clearly says Merging Galaxies CREATE binary quasar!

Now... heres where it gets interesting...

A few hours later another news article pops up on google...
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Quasa ... n_999.html
Quasar Paid CAPTURED in Galaxy Collision...
5th February 2010

Strikingly the verb has changed from "CREATED" to "CAPTURED"

What does CAPTURED mean? does this mean captured in a photo... or gravitationally captured? very ambiguous...

It gets better...

This new article now quotes a man by the name of Paul Green from Harvard
""Quasars are the most luminous compact objects in the Universe, and though about a million of them are now known, it's incredibly hard work to find two quasars side by side," said Paul Green, from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, MA, who led the study."

WEIRD STUFF ABOUT ARTICLE NUMBER 2 (released a day later) 5/2/2010

1) Hang on a minute!!! Paul Green works for the Chandra XRay observatory.... Not mentioned in the magellan Telescope, who released the Press Release in the first place.... why is there no reference to the men who made this discovery!!! or atleast the organisation who did... Carnege! Why has the original press release been re-badged with Chandra quotes?!

2) Quote "This composite image shows the effects of two galaxies caught in the act of merging." Sorry the image displayed in this article is a direct copy of the OPTICAL image from the Magellan website... it's not a composite... it's optical! You copied it directly from the optical image from the Magellan site...

3) Quote "This result represents strong evidence for the prediction that a pair of quasars would be triggered during a merger. " Excuse me!!! what does "triggered" mean.... The magellan press release specifically said "created" many times.... what does triggered mean? do you mean Supermassive Black Whole Accretion disk being fed??? this is ambiguous... why has it changed from the original press release.

4) Why does a seperate news release come out AT THE SAME TIME (a day later) using an almost identical title.... The article uses the Image from the Magellan Press Release.... but YOU ONLY MENTION OPINIONS FROM THE CHANDRA TEAM!!! and particularly Paul Green.... why no mention of Magellan team members.... it's where you got the image from...

5) Who is the source of this article.... why do they clearly not talk about Magellan and Chandras differences?!?! CREATED vs CAPTURED vs TRIGGERED ???

6) Why is the source of the article "by Staff Writers Huntsville AL (SPX) Feb 05, 2010" Sorry i'm from australia, normally the organisation or the person writing the article's name goes here... Who is "Staff Writers Huntsville AL (SPX)"..... Why when i paste that into google do i get many stories across many popular websites?!?!.... It could be innocent... but this is a crude misrepresentation of the original press release..... and i can't track down the author? How do i track down who wrote this article?

This seems really bizarre...

An original press release has been changed so much...

Is it because of the obvious implications that if these Quasars and Galaxies are interacting it would lead to the discovery that RedShift does not equal velocity!

What is going on here? Are discoveries meeting established theories...


Best Regards,
Alex

[Jarvamundo]

Turns out John Mulcahey and Paul Green, although from different organisations, were co authors on the paper http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/0004-637X/710/2/1578/

Why do the 2 articles use distinctly different quotes and directions?

Still seems weird.

[Jarvamundo]

Re 2) - The composite image is available here http://chandra.harvard.edu/photo/2010/sdss/

[mharratsc]

I dunno the answer to the above there, bud... but you certainly have a good memory for finer points of details!

I couldn't begin to conjecture why they chose to release those articles the way that hey did, unless some scientific reporters used some verbal license in 'quoting' the gents who made those discoveries.

I do think that you're correct- it seems to me that the discovery of quasars and galaxies interacting would completely vindicate Halton Arp after all his years of suffering indignities at the hands of truly foolish astronomers, and he should get public apology after public apology for all of it.

However, I would (sadly, I'll admit) guess that what will happen instead, will be a slow release of articles that completely re-write the definition of quasars, and they will make them sound like it was something that they knew all along, and they would 'have no idea what you were talking about' if you brought up the old definition of quasars to them! Make sure you copy the Wiki article regarding quasars quick, before they revise it, so that you can point out any sneakiness if (or when) they try anything funny!

[solrey]

Peratt's simulations produced the same morphology as what is seen in this new observation.



Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies

Fig. 6...not shown is the intergalactic plasma trapped at the center.
Note frames T=700 and 800

The frames at T=550 and 600 in Fig. 5, in Peratt's paper linked above, are an even closer match.

Yeah, I'd say these kinds of observations vindicate not only Arp, but Peratt as well.

[Jarvamundo]

I read the paper.... a few more observations from the read...

1) They specifically selected 2 quasars (binary set) that were at close redshift.... My point is... It wasn't random selection.. they selected 2 quasars that were always going to be at a similar velocity-redshift-distance...

Why not an in depth study, like this, of binary quasars at different redshifts? Are you scared that 2 different redshift quasars might be interacting?

It was a very specific pair to study... seems to me they took alot of effort in the low-risk selection of this pair

2) They has to dedicate a chapter / section of the paper to "why it isnt a lensed pair".... poor modern scientists have to demonstrate to themselves it's not lensed by all sorts of spectra details... and even still they leave it open for lensing with potential absorbtion... CLOWNS!... look at the photo... it's not lensed!...sheesh (... what kind of freaky lense would do that?.... sigh... why oh why... do you have to bother, proving this... is it cause of your so called "lensed einstein cross")... poor guys have to do this to get it published i guess.

3) I couldn't easy find the redshifts of accompaying gas in this paper... ie the swirl bit... according to Arp / Narlikar style model you might find differences here between the gas/swirl/galaxy and the quasar... ie if the quasar is born out / ejected from the galaxy...

all n all though... i found the paper very well written... and each assumption or rounding issue they did was well noted... unfortunately this doesnt carry through to the media...

bizarre thing is that "created" was never part of this paper and primary author is the chandra guy...

Maybe the magellan guy is saying it's "created" from the merging galaxies... wonder what his spin is on it... "created" says to me that it was born there.... ? interesting!

I personally don't care which "side" is right... can't we just study indepth one of the Arp cases and either prove it right or wrong and get on with it. Pick a set of quasars interacting like this at different redshifts..

I hope Arp, Narlikar, Lerner, Perrat all live long enough to see whats coming... unfortunately 1 burbridge just missed this news...

[Jarvamundo]

Thanks @solrey

FYI: here is a video of the (what i assume to be GR computer model from Carnege) of the merger...
http://videos.ciw.edu/achilles_movies_d ... aryqso.mp4

What is striking to me to be the key difference between the Peratt and this T.J Cox model is, not they they both are able achieve a "snapshot" of this photo.

But the drastic differences in the evolution of both models... Peratt's model goes on to form spiral, where as the GR T.J Cox model goes on to form an elliptical...

So i put it to you, as a logical prediction / difference following on from these two computer models.... if we get a larger number of optical photos of interacting binary quasars interacting and study their shapes...

Peratt's Model: We would expect to see more spiral shapes / consistent structure in the evolutionary progression of these interacting binary quasars.
Peratt = Spiral all the way

GR T.J. Cox Model: We would expect to see more stretched / gravity-warped / ellipitcal / irregular shapes... eg watch the video prediction, and see how it evolves... just picture differing versions of that.
GR = Spiral at a snapshot point in time, but then irregular/elliptical

both models are strikingly different to me in their evolution

Surely this would statistically weigh to either side based on the evolutionary paths of both models simulations...

I have yet to see a GR computer model to predict a stable spiral... let alone the birth and evolution of a stable spiral... the one supplied by Carnege here is just two elipticals gravitationally interacting (if anyone knows of one i would be keen to see).