Another Fogged Image of Stephan’s Quintet

[longcircuit]

In this TPOD, Mel Acheson writes:

This belief in redshift as a cosmic meterstick has been disproved since the 1960s,...

Disproved? That's pretty strong. Disproved by whom? Using what observations?
I know that "redshift = distance" has been and is criticized, not least by participants in this forum, but disproved? I'll need to see some sources for that assertion.
Thanks in advance for any help.

longcircuit

[nick c]

hi longcircuit,

I think Mel is referring to Halton Arp, and the evidence that he has presented concerning high red shift quasars with physical connections to (or even in front of) low red shift galaxies.
see:
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Nick

[Osmosis]

One reference is Halton Arp's "Seeing Red", published in 1998.

[longcircuit]

Well, duh. I should have guessed that about Arp.
So my question now is: why do mainstream astronomers reject Arp's contention that redshift ≠ distance? If, as Arp says, redshift occurs in discrete stages (quantization?), surely this is an empirical observation that any theory must explain. Does the mainstream reject the quantization of redshift?
As for the "bridges," "tails," and "jets" that appear to connect objects of different redshifts, how can astrophysicists claim with a straight face that these are merely appearances? I grant they are possible, but what's the likelihood?

longcircuit

[solrey]

Does the mainstream reject the quantization of redshift?

Nope. Their explanation is concentric shells, or primordial bubbles, which as luck would have it we apparently happen to be at the center.
Ptolemy would be proud.

Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N ( z ) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys

A

Fourier analysis on galaxy number counts from redshift data of both the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey indicates that galaxies have preferred periodic redshift spacings of Δz= 0.0102, 0.0246, and 0.0448 in the SDSS and strong agreement with the results from the 2dF GRS. The redshift spacings are confirmed by the mass density fluctuations, the power spectrum P(z) and N pairs calculations. Application of the Hubble law results in galaxies preferentially located on co-moving concentric shells with periodic spacings. The combined results from both surveys indicate regular co-moving radial distance spacings of 31.7±1.8 h−1 Mpc, 73.4±5.8 h−1 Mpc and 127±21 h−1  Mpc. The results are consistent with oscillations in the expansion rate of the universe over past epochs.

We know that electromagnetic emission/absorption is quantized so it makes sense to see the quantization of redshift from objects at quantized stages of emission/absorption.

As for the "bridges," "tails," and "jets" that appear to connect objects of different redshifts, how can astrophysicists claim with a straight face that these are merely appearances?

They are detected in wavelengths outside the visible spectrum as well. They just keep makin' stuff up as they go along to explain away so called "anomalies".

For example. There is a recent paper defending lambda cold dark matter based on the "anomalies" in the measured CMBR being statistically insignificant somehow, in their model with at least six adjustable parameters.


click image for larger view

Figure 17. The “SH” initials of Stephen Hawking are shown in the ILC sky map. The “S” and “H” are in roughly the same font size and style, and both letters are aligned neatly along a line of fixed Galactic latitude. A calculation would show that the probability of this particular occurrence is vanishingly small. Yet, there is no case to made for a non-standard cosmology despite this extraordinarily low probability event. It is clear that the combined selection of looking for initials, these particular initials, and their alignment and location are all a posteriori choices. For a rich data set, as is the case with WMAP , there are a lot of data and a lot of ways of analyzing the data. Low probability events are guaranteed to occur. The a posteriori assignment of a likelihood for a particular event detected, especially when the detection of that event is “optimized” for maximum effect by analysis choices, does not result in a fair unbiased assessment. This is a recurrent issue with CMB data analysis, and is often a tricky issue and one that is difficult to overcome.

Hey I see the symbol for pi at the two o'clock position near the central void....oh oh, and one of the monsters from space invaders on the far right...OMG, across the top it says "resistance is futile", oh the humanity.

[jjohnson]

Semantically, proved and disproved are logical and mathematical terms, not scientific terms. A basic tenet of scientific endeavor is to "falsify" whatever predictions a contending theory or idea has so as to show that it is not workable, or at least less viable than a competing theory or method. Theories are not "proved", once and for all. They last until a better theory or approach can replace them, yielding better predictive value or simplification, perhaps, or leading to another track of discovery or enlightenment altogether, in extreme or paradigm shifting cases.

I think that disproving the Gravity Model is NOT a goal of the proponents of the Electric Model. Perhaps, as I noted in the TPODS portion of this forum (It's All in the MOND) the intelligent unification of the forces acting on matter in the cosmos is what we are all about. Assessing which force(s) dominate, and how they interact with one another to reliably, accurately and consistently be able to predict outcomes is the overreaching goal. In the spirit of Occam's Razxor, if we can falsify certain of the assumptions and concepts of the Gravity Model, and substitute known forces (E/M) for those less-good constructs (dark matter, big bang, accelerating expansion, red shift anomalies, etc.) then we can effect a simplification of the overall model. Understanding the Electric Model better should make it possible for scientists and just about anybody to formulate more inclusive and complete models, and to gain an overall better, more inclusive understanding of the complex, combined workings of forces that drive what we observe around us.

What those forces actually ARE is something else altogether...