Redshift in Doubt? (verse, science, Article)

[linwood]

Is Arp right?
Why do these quasars have a redshift they shouldn`t?
Why do some appear to actually be coming "closer" than receding?
Whats up with this?

Let's have some quotes from Mr Arp on the matter. Concerning the mid-twentieth century discovery that radio sources were being ejected from galaxies in pairs with filaments connecting them: "This fundamentally changed our view of galaxies: rather than vast, placid aggregates of majestically orbiting stars, dust and gas, it became clear that their centres were the sites of enormous, variable outpourings of energy 4. Some of the radio sources turned out to be quasars: "... The quasars are at much higher redshift than the galaxies from which they originate ... The redshifts, which are very high as the newly created matter emerges from its zero-mass state, continue to diminish as the mass of the matter grows 5." Arp has argued that redshifts are quantised, ie appear in discrete increments, rather than being continuous as one would predict if they expressed recessional velocity.


http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...ontroversy.htm

[linwood]

bump...

[Godless Dave]

The basics of redshift aren't in doubt, but Arp and a few others have brought up some questions that haven't all been adequately answered.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Thanks, linwood. This is fascinating stuff. You might enjoy haltonarp.com.

[The Voice of Reason]

Help me out, Linwood. What is Arp really saying? That some parts of the universe are static (relative to us), that some parts of the universe is approaching us, or that it is still unknown as yet?

Thanks,
TVOR

[linwood]

Thanks, linwood. This is fascinating stuff. You might enjoy haltonarp.com.

Deut, thats an excellent forum with some very cool additional resources
Thank you for the link, I think I`ll be spending some time there.

Help me out, Linwood. What is Arp really saying? That some parts of the universe are static (relative to us), that some parts of the universe is approaching us, or that it is still unknown as yet?

Consider, Redshift is the only verifiable evidence we have for a Big Bang .

Arp disagrees with the current cosmological model of the Big Bang and always has.
Arp disagrees that redshift is indicitive of or a means to measure the distances between galaxies nor does he believe the rate of universal expansion can be measured by redshift.
If Arp is correct then the entire Big Bang theory is done and he is somewhat persecuted within the scientific community for his views.

Time with a good telescope is essential to any astronomers life/career and is only given to those whose idea theories are considered acceptable by the scientific community.
ARP has been denied access to these telescopes here in the US because he disagrees with current theory so he moved to Germany to use their instruments.
Germany doesn`t seem to have a problem with Arps questioning of modern theory.

The article I posted is about a quasar in a galaxy whose redshift indicates it is far from us but the redshift of the quasar itself shows that it is closer to us than the galaxy that it is in.
This just isn`t possible and seems to be direct evidence of current sciences redshift use being wrong.
Arp has compiled a collection of data on galaxies that are like this.
Direct evidence against the use of Redshift.

I`ve posted questions about it in several places but no one has ever actually rebutted this evidence.
They just poo poo Arp for being crazy or wrong.
This is difficult to believe considering his excellent credentials.

[Mr Spinkles]

Well there would certainly would have to be an enormous paradigm shift before the scientific community throws out redshift as an accurate indicator of distance. Interesting article, linwood!

Originally Posted by article

It may be time for astronomers to take a step back, and review the axioms which they wish to rely upon. For example, is 90% of the universe 'missing?' Cosmologists continue not to find this 'dark matter', and may eventually wish to consider Arp's view that this is a spurious problem resulting from scale-factor errors, generated by illusory redshift-inferred distances (p.188).

This is a good point, though it should be noted that in recent years the existence of neutrinos has been detected and confirmed (they have been theorized to make up a significant amount of dark matter).

Here's another article I found: http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/20...hirtyyears.htm

It mentions the possibility that NGC 7603 only looks connected to its companion because of a foreground galaxy in our P.O.V. That would seem like a less plausible explanation if more examples like NGC 7603 were found, but I suppose if Arp is denied access to the best telescopes that is unlikely for now.

[Steve]

Very interesting article linwood.

Originally Posted by linwood

If Arp is correct then the entire Big Bang theory is done and he is somewhat persecuted within the scientific community for his views.

Time with a good telescope is essential to any astronomers life/career and is only given to those whose idea theories are considered acceptable by the scientific community.

ARP has been denied access to these telescopes here in the US because he disagrees with current theory so he moved to Germany to use their instruments.

This just cant be right, the scientific community is perfectly objective! They arnt biased they let the evidence speak for itself. Even members of this forum will agree.

Originally Posted by linwood

The article I posted is about a quasar in a galaxy whose redshift indicates it is far from us but the redshift of the quasar itself shows that it is closer to us than the galaxy that it is in.

This just isn`t possible and seems to be direct evidence of current sciences redshift use being wrong.

Arp has compiled a collection of data on galaxies that are like this.

Direct evidence against the use of Redshift.
I`ve posted questions about it in several places but no one has ever actually rebutted this evidence.
They just poo poo Arp for being crazy or wrong.

This is difficult to believe considering his excellent credentials.

But they wouldnt just dismiss evidence because it contradicts there current theory's would they, especially evidence like this, thats not how real science is suppose to work? I always thought the theory's were suppose to be based on the evidence and to be changed if evidence was found to contradict the current theory. What your saying suggests that the big bang theory is sacred or somthing, not to be touched or questioned no matter what the evidence
Hmm now im wondering if the scientific community regards any of their other theories the same way?

[Mr Spinkles]

Originally Posted by Steve

But they wouldnt just dismiss evidence because it contradicts there current theory's would they, especially evidence like this, thats not how real science is suppose to work? I always thought the theory's were suppose to be based on the evidence and to be changed if evidence was found to contradict the current theory. What your saying suggests that the big bang theory is sacred or somthing, not to be touched or questioned no matter what the evidence [img]images/smilies/smile.gif[/img]
Hmm now im wondering if the scientific community regards any of their other theories the same way?

Yeah, kind of like how the Bible is not to be touched or questioned no matter what the evidence.

[The Voice of Reason]

Steve -

I appreciate your sarcasm, but it is misplaced. This question of the accuracy of using Red Shift will eventually be resolved - by scientists, using science. It may not happen overnight, but it will happen. If there is validity to Arp's position, it will eventually be accepted by smaller groups at first, then larger groups, and finally it will be embraced by the scientific community at large.
Remember, just because one person disagrees with an accepted belief in science doesn't mean that they are automatically hailed as the next saviour of science. Their work will be peer reviewed by the best minds that mankind has to offer in that field. Kinda neat how that works, huh?

TVOR