help me out here guys, I know that Redshift is an assumption, but this sounds like they are taking that assumption to extremes, I know you guys use the forum to discuss the way in which the world around us can be better described in EU terms, I love that, it is edifying, so with this particular topic, can you help me and others who can't fully grasp the redshift issues reconcile this one??
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/11/06 ... more-44368
Sean.
Early Galaxy Pinpoints Reionisation Period, help me out here
-
seanoz
- Posts: 27
- Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:03 am
-
jjohnson
- Posts: 1147
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2009 11:24 am
- Location: Thurston County WA
Re: Early Galaxy Pinpoints Reionisation Period, help me out here
The interpreters of these observations frame their conclusion within the Big Bang theory of the Standard Model (SM). I suspect the EU's prevailing view is that this is not a correct model, and we should look for an explanation that assumes a temporally continuous universe that has existed for an indefinite period, rather than "infinitely long" or "15 billion years" because we have no certainty of either of the latter two cases. The Standard Model uses red shift as a combined indicator of age and expansion rate of the universe, both, even though Hubble was not convinced that this was a done deal - still hypothetical in his mind, but others ran with it, and it's firmly entrenched in the literature.
Halton Arp thinks that intrinsic red shift is highest as a galaxy is created, and falls off as it ages and slows down. I think everyone agrees that Doppler based red shift can be an indication of relative velocity, but if an object actually has two red shifts, viewed from Earth, based on age and relative velocity, I have no idea how one teases the one effect out out from the other.
Red shift is different from a reddened spectrum. A galactic or stellar spectrum can be approximated by equivalent blackbody temperature, the construct which says the peak temperature in the spectrum is an indicator of thermal temperature. Very hot stars peak in the blue or UV end of the spectrum, whilst cooler stars peak at long wavelengths down in the red end, low frequency end. This is merely evidence of temperature; not velocity or age related at all. A reddened spectrum can be caused by intervening material which selectively absorbs bluer (higher frequency / shorter wavelength) light, and passes the long wavelengths through the "optical column" from there to here.
When a telescope is fitted with a band-pass filter to reveal a part of the E/M spectrum, I am not sure how that translates into doppler/distance red shift observation. Perhaps the idea is that if you can see a series of emission lines, that normally would be found grouped in the yellow like, say, ionised sodium, and you find it in the red window created by your filter, then it shows that they have been red-shifted. I would think that one would simultaneously look in the yellow part of the spectrum to make sure that they have gone missing from there, just to be sure, but I'm only an occasional amateur astronomer. All the red-shift stuff I've read indicates that the observers look for "lines" (emission - bright - or absorption - dark) - in the spectrum or spectrograph, that are shifted to a place different from where those lines are found locally in experiments with no significant velocity differential.
When Arp's observations showed that there were strongly red-shifted objects coupled with, or in front of and partially occluding, objects whose lower red shift meant, under the SM rules, that they should be much closer to us, he was rewarded by having his "multi-pass" (Fifth Element fans) snatched back and papers rejected, forcing him to Germany to be able to continue working in astronomy. So it goes...
If there were no changes to the universe regarding "reionisation" or "expansion" - the EU position, what would we expect to see when observing galaxies out at the extreme reach or out instruments? I would expect to see the same variety of physical shapes and occasional events like catastrophic double-sheath collapses ("supernovas") but at dimmer light levels. An optical column which is billions of light years deep, and flooded with plasma filaments light years across, would naturally be expected to attenuate some or all parts of the E/M spectrum en route to us. Peratt (Ch. 7, ¶7.5) notes that sequential plasma filaments can selectively absorb E/M energy at given frequencies and their harmonics, in the context or their own synchrotron radiation, and the same should hold for transient E/M radiation ("light") coming through them from farther away. Some Doppler based red shift due to relative velocities between then and now might be observed. Larger red shifts might be assigned as age-related, per Arp, but again, it is really hard to tell when all you've got is an extremely tiny image at an unresolvable angular radius to work with.
However, in accordance with Arp's view, I think that objects associated with high red shifts are actually closer and therefore less intrinsically bright than mainstream cosmologists think. Imagine you're an astronomer, looking at a point of light. You DON'T know how far away it is. That is frustrating, so you think of everything you possibly can to tell you haw far off that point is. Parallax measurements, for a few light years, work swell. You might use stars which seem to have consistent brightnesses (the Cepheid variables and types of supernovas) and make them "standard candles" whose brightness will tell you how far away they are, and therefore how far away their associated galaxies likely are, too. It's a guess.
You notice that some galaxies have greater red shifts than others. That must mean that they are moving relative to us - first, away from us, or it wouldn't be a "red" shift; it's be "blue", and second, some are moving faster if their red shifts are greater. I am not sure where the connection between red-shift and universe expansion and "farther away" got started, unless it was based on relatively close-in measurements (our local cluster, for example) where the use of standard candles seemed to indicate distance, and greater red shifts might have been associated with greater estimated distances. I am not quite sure there, and someone else here might elaborate on that.
I'm with you. I'd like to know more about this. Arp and others make a really convincing case that red shift is not ALL about relative velocity and expansion of the universe, however. And SM ortho-docs don't want to listen to that contradictory nonsense, and have proven it in powerful and self-preserving ways.
References: Don Scott's The Electric Sky, Appendix B, Calculating Red Shifts. Halton Arp's books (e.g., Seeing Red) and his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, and his website. Of course, Thornhill & Talbott's The Electric Universe touches on these issues as well.
Halton Arp thinks that intrinsic red shift is highest as a galaxy is created, and falls off as it ages and slows down. I think everyone agrees that Doppler based red shift can be an indication of relative velocity, but if an object actually has two red shifts, viewed from Earth, based on age and relative velocity, I have no idea how one teases the one effect out out from the other.
Red shift is different from a reddened spectrum. A galactic or stellar spectrum can be approximated by equivalent blackbody temperature, the construct which says the peak temperature in the spectrum is an indicator of thermal temperature. Very hot stars peak in the blue or UV end of the spectrum, whilst cooler stars peak at long wavelengths down in the red end, low frequency end. This is merely evidence of temperature; not velocity or age related at all. A reddened spectrum can be caused by intervening material which selectively absorbs bluer (higher frequency / shorter wavelength) light, and passes the long wavelengths through the "optical column" from there to here.
When a telescope is fitted with a band-pass filter to reveal a part of the E/M spectrum, I am not sure how that translates into doppler/distance red shift observation. Perhaps the idea is that if you can see a series of emission lines, that normally would be found grouped in the yellow like, say, ionised sodium, and you find it in the red window created by your filter, then it shows that they have been red-shifted. I would think that one would simultaneously look in the yellow part of the spectrum to make sure that they have gone missing from there, just to be sure, but I'm only an occasional amateur astronomer. All the red-shift stuff I've read indicates that the observers look for "lines" (emission - bright - or absorption - dark) - in the spectrum or spectrograph, that are shifted to a place different from where those lines are found locally in experiments with no significant velocity differential.
When Arp's observations showed that there were strongly red-shifted objects coupled with, or in front of and partially occluding, objects whose lower red shift meant, under the SM rules, that they should be much closer to us, he was rewarded by having his "multi-pass" (Fifth Element fans) snatched back and papers rejected, forcing him to Germany to be able to continue working in astronomy. So it goes...
If there were no changes to the universe regarding "reionisation" or "expansion" - the EU position, what would we expect to see when observing galaxies out at the extreme reach or out instruments? I would expect to see the same variety of physical shapes and occasional events like catastrophic double-sheath collapses ("supernovas") but at dimmer light levels. An optical column which is billions of light years deep, and flooded with plasma filaments light years across, would naturally be expected to attenuate some or all parts of the E/M spectrum en route to us. Peratt (Ch. 7, ¶7.5) notes that sequential plasma filaments can selectively absorb E/M energy at given frequencies and their harmonics, in the context or their own synchrotron radiation, and the same should hold for transient E/M radiation ("light") coming through them from farther away. Some Doppler based red shift due to relative velocities between then and now might be observed. Larger red shifts might be assigned as age-related, per Arp, but again, it is really hard to tell when all you've got is an extremely tiny image at an unresolvable angular radius to work with.
However, in accordance with Arp's view, I think that objects associated with high red shifts are actually closer and therefore less intrinsically bright than mainstream cosmologists think. Imagine you're an astronomer, looking at a point of light. You DON'T know how far away it is. That is frustrating, so you think of everything you possibly can to tell you haw far off that point is. Parallax measurements, for a few light years, work swell. You might use stars which seem to have consistent brightnesses (the Cepheid variables and types of supernovas) and make them "standard candles" whose brightness will tell you how far away they are, and therefore how far away their associated galaxies likely are, too. It's a guess.
You notice that some galaxies have greater red shifts than others. That must mean that they are moving relative to us - first, away from us, or it wouldn't be a "red" shift; it's be "blue", and second, some are moving faster if their red shifts are greater. I am not sure where the connection between red-shift and universe expansion and "farther away" got started, unless it was based on relatively close-in measurements (our local cluster, for example) where the use of standard candles seemed to indicate distance, and greater red shifts might have been associated with greater estimated distances. I am not quite sure there, and someone else here might elaborate on that.
I'm with you. I'd like to know more about this. Arp and others make a really convincing case that red shift is not ALL about relative velocity and expansion of the universe, however. And SM ortho-docs don't want to listen to that contradictory nonsense, and have proven it in powerful and self-preserving ways.
References: Don Scott's The Electric Sky, Appendix B, Calculating Red Shifts. Halton Arp's books (e.g., Seeing Red) and his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, and his website. Of course, Thornhill & Talbott's The Electric Universe touches on these issues as well.
-
Lloyd
- Posts: 4433
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm
Re: Early Galaxy Pinpoints Reionisation Period, help me out here
* This TPOD http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... galaxy.htm says this about a quasar in front of a galaxy.
* These TPODs have quite a bit more info http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Quasars.
* The fact that most quasars are observed near galaxies and appear to be within dust bridges connected to these galaxies strongly suggests that they are near the galaxies. The quasar in front of NGC 7319 is surely near that galaxy. Those galaxies almost invariably have low redshifts. Therefore, since the quasars are at the same distance and probably the same velocities as the galaxies, the redshifts of the quasars are caused by something besides distance and velocity. I believe ionization has also proven to be a cause of redshift. Therefore, it's highly likely, since ionization is typical of plasma, and the universe is almost completely plasma, that the redshifts of quasars are caused by ionization. Whether the .0225 redshift of NGC 7319 is mostly caused by ionization or velocity doesn't yet seem to have an authoritative theory.The galaxy, NGC 7319 ... has a redshift of 0.0225. The ... quasar ... in front of the [galaxy has a] redshift of ... 2.114.
* These TPODs have quite a bit more info http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/00subjectx.htm#Quasars.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests