A New Cosmological Redshift

[New Science]

EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE LIGHT WAVES

 

The ‘expansion of the light waves has real evidence for its support. Examples:

 

The magnetic field patterns where the central portion is expanded by an ‘intrinsic’

force between the magnetic poles and field lines.

This is also true of the electric fields between the opposite charges (+, -) by similar

(real field charged particles (RFCP) that mutually repel each other between the

major electric charges.

The electric motor makes use of the magnetic component repulsive forces within

the EM fields to generate the power for its use.

 

The photons are primarily a compressed congregate of 'negatively charged RFCP'

that result from the magnetic pulses of radiation during the electron transitions in

the hydrogen atoms. These magnetic pulses are directional and at maximum when

the observer is perpendicular to the electrons orbital transitional movements and

in line with the electrons plane of movement. When the electron is approaching or

receding from the observer, the energy level is zero.

The electric fields surrounding the electrons are the carriers that transmit the photons.

The photon energy (momentum) uses this field for its transmission by the mutual

repulsion between these RFCP.

 

In a tranquil state, they disperse themselves equally around the electron and

throughout the surrounding area and the spaces widen as the distances of the

field increase from the electron inversely reducing its strength

 

The photon congregate pushes against the particles in front to transmit their

momentum through this field as a line of dominos transfer their falls through the

aligned dominos. In other words, they just 'wobble' to transmit the momentum.

Naturally, this photon momentum is transmitted at the velocity of light.

 

The Arp redshift anomalies show that these RS’s are temperature related and

therefore intrinsic to the light being emitted by these objects and their radiating

temperatures.

Quasars radiate at much higher temperatures than the nearby galaxies.

The intrinsic forces in these higher energy photons cause a greater expansion per

unit distance. That is why they have higher redshifts at the same distance than the

adjacent galaxies. It is known that the higher frequencies and therefore higher

temperatures have greater energies

 

It takes billions of years for these photons to increase their wavelengths. My

estimate is a length of about 4 - 5 billion light years for a photon to increase by

one wavelength.

This expansion would also gradually decrease as the photons widen. However,

this decreasing expansion per unit distance would be very small because at a

RS of 6, the intrinsic force would be reduced by the inverse square law to 1/25th

of its original strength.

 

The BB space expansion concept cannot expand the light pulses because they

are not the transmitters of these pulses.

The Michelson - Morley interferometer experiment has refuted the idea of a spatial

ether. So the cosmological redshift cannot be a product of the space expansion.

 

New Science

[mooeypoo]

Wow.

 

Wordsalad of mixing a bunch of claims from different fields together, and then finishing off by a HUGE illogical leap that is far from being demonstrated from this argument.

 

BB space expansion concept cannot expand the light pulses beacuse they're not the transmitters--?? huh!? The expansion of the universe DOES expand light rays, regardless of what originates them or if they were their own originators.

 

And what does the refutation of the aether has ANYTHING to do with the cosmological red shift....?

 

The Redshift cannot be a product of space expansion... okay.... uhh... your claims make absolutely no sense, so why would your conclusion be valid?

 

New Science - your insistence to avoid knowing what you're talking about results in your talking utter nonsense. This isn't physics. It's not valid science. It's a wordsalad.

Whether you want to go to college or not, you should really study the claims you so blatantly try to destroy. Your explanation of them is utterly wrong, so obviously your proposed "corrections" are just absurd.

 

You also need to provide substantiations, explanations based on SCIENCE, citations from other previous theories (not just claims "it was said" or "it is so"), and the dreadful of all - math.

 

YES! This time, you must put forth math because you claim NUMERICAL values, such as "increase their length by 4-5 billion--- whatever. If you provide a number, you need to show how you estimated that number.

I estimate 1.2 lightseconds. Without saying what made me estimate this and why this is a valid estimation, I might aswell be trying to estimate the size of manhattan with a toothpick.

 

And you seem to be threatening to leave every time someone criticizing your theories - but then you add another thread with yet another kooki unbased idea. We can all do a great job explaining to you why your logic is fallacious, but if you're here to preach and run away when you're found to be wrong, then you might as well leave before the trolling reports do it for you.

 

Cheers.

 

~moo

[doG]

Mike,

 

I think you really need to work on getting your work published. Perhaps Baen would be interested...

[Reaper]

Not only do you need to include math, but also remember to include UNITS this time so that a proper dimensional analysis can be made . They will make understanding this, um, proposition easier and better.

 

 

And a word to the mods, how long before this thread gets moved to the pseudoscience section?

[D H]

And a word to the mods, how long before this thread gets moved to the pseudoscience section?

Now.

 

New Science, this is not new science. It is falsified science buried in the midst of incomprehensible ramblings.

 

Halton Arp was a brilliant scientist with an interesting idea. Lots of brilliant scientists have interesting ideas. Lots of these interesting ideas are smashed to smithereens by observations. Meanwhile, other brilliant scientists' brilliant ideas in the same subject area are not smashed to smithereens by observations. A sane brilliant scientist will give up the brilliant but wrong idea and look for brilliant insights elsewhere. Less sane scientists cannot let go. Halton Arp's idea on intrinsic redshift is one of brilliant but wrong ideas, and unfortunately Halton Arp is one of those scientists who cannot let go.

 

The concept of anomalous redshifts has been falsified. We have now observed many quasars with large redshifts that appear to be close to galaxies with much smaller redshifts. The key phrase here is appear to be. We have observed a whole lot of quasars since Arp first hypothesized intrinsic redshift. The angular distribution between quasars and the angular distributions between galaxies dictates that some quasars will appear to be close to galaxies. The exact same thing happens with stars. Since ancient times we have grouped stars to form pictures called constellations. The stars only appear to be close together because we don't see depth. The apparent closeness is just an illusion.

[New Science]

Wow.

 

Wordsalad of mixing a bunch of claims from different fields together, and then finishing off by a HUGE illogical leap that is far from being demonstrated from this argument.

 

BB space expansion concept cannot expand the light pulses beacuse they're not the transmitters--?? huh!? The expansion of the universe DOES expand light rays, regardless of what originates them or if they were their own originators.

 

And what does the refutation of the aether has ANYTHING to do with the cosmological red shift....?

 

The Redshift cannot be a product of space expansion... okay.... uhh... your claims make absolutely no sense, so why would your conclusion be valid?

 

New Science - your insistence to avoid knowing what you're talking about results in your talking utter nonsense. This isn't physics. It's not valid science. It's a wordsalad.

Whether you want to go to college or not, you should really study the claims you so blatantly try to destroy. Your explanation of them is utterly wrong, so obviously your proposed "corrections" are just absurd.

 

You also need to provide substantiations, explanations based on SCIENCE, citations from other previous theories (not just claims "it was said" or "it is so"), and the dreadful of all - math.

 

YES! This time, you must put forth math because you claim NUMERICAL values, such as "increase their length by 4-5 billion--- whatever. If you provide a number, you need to show how you estimated that number.

I estimate 1.2 lightseconds. Without saying what made me estimate this and why this is a valid estimation, I might aswell be trying to estimate the size of manhattan with a toothpick.

 

And you seem to be threatening to leave every time someone criticizing your theories - but then you add another thread with yet another kooki unbased idea. We can all do a great job explaining to you why your logic is fallacious, but if you're here to preach and run away when you're found to be wrong, then you might as well leave before the trolling reports do it for you.

 

Cheers.

 

~moo

 

Do you understand what the M-M Inter experiment says?

It refutes space as an ether for light transmissions.

 

For your information, that experiment had the light source and the EM fields moving with the experiment and the Earth.

That is why space has nothing to do with light transmission.

 

What math? My redshift data was based on the HDFN photo that has detected redshifts of 7+.

 

I concluded that those distant objects were about at least 25+ billion light years distant.

This was on the basis that M87 as a model would be at that distance comparing angular sizes to the small specks.

 

4 ly RS's at every 4 Bil years adds up to red shifts of 6 for a distance of 24 Bil lys. This is just a crude extimats.

 

Can you provide some math for the BBT size?

 

Can you provide what is driving the current expansion of the universe?

 

I would like to see your logic here?

 

NS

 

Mike,

 

I think you really need to work on getting your work published. Perhaps Baen would be interested...

 

I plan to eventually but the truth does not sell.

 

NS

[Reaper]

Do you understand what the M-M Inter experiment says?

It refutes space as an ether for light transmissions.

 

Nope. The Michelson-Morly experiment (I think that's what your referring to, you are never clear on what you are claiming) refuted the idea of ether all together. Actually, to think of it, this experiment doesn't really have any relevance to what you are proposing, other then the fact that ether is shown not to exist, or at the very least be necessary.

 

 

That is why space has nothing to do with light transmission.

 

We are talking about the expansion of space that causes light to be stretched out, so that it becomes red shifted. This is a known fact. Therefore, space has something to do with the incoming wavelengths we observe.

 

What math? My redshift data was based on the HDFN photo that has detected redshifts of 7+.

 

I concluded that those distant objects were about at least 25+ billion light years distant.

This was on the basis that M87 as a model would be at that distance comparing angular sizes to the small specks.

 

4 ly RS's at every 4 Bil years adds up to red shifts of 6 for a distance of 24 Bil lys. This is just a crude extimats.

 

 

:confused::confused:

 

How the hell did you get to that solution. You need to show us MATH in order to claim any numerical values. Otherwise, what you are saying is complete rubbish. How did you get to the values you stated on your posts? What formulas did you use? What physical cause relates them, etc.

 

 

Can you provide some math for the BBT size?

 

Sure we can. But the burden of proof is on YOU at the moment.

 

Can you provide what is driving the current expansion of the universe?

 

Dark energy.

 

I would like to see your logic here?

 

Where's yours?

 

 

I plan to eventually but the truth does not sell.

 

NS

 

Oh yes, the appeal to conspiracy . How lovely.

[mooeypoo]

Physics Experts, chip in here.

 

I'm sure their explanations of the known facts about the expansion of the universe will be better than mine. We do have explanations for this, I will leave it to the Physics experts to show you.

 

I, however, am going to point out why your logic is fallacious. You have a few logical fallacies in your assumptions here:

 

Clarification: The quotes below are explanations for the fallacies, taken from The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe Fallacy page. You can also find these fallacies in other pages. I didn't have the patience or the desire to start quoting EACH and EVERY time your claims go fallacious. I will, however, point it out in the future and I suggest everyone do that too. If nothing else, it's great practice.

 

Argument from personal incredulity seems to be the biggest one:

I cannot explain or understand this, therefore it cannot be true. Creationists are fond of arguing that they cannot imagine the complexity of life resulting from blind evolution, but that does not mean life did not evolve.

 

But you also seem to think that "Ad Ignorantiam" (Appeal to Ignorance) is a valid claim, when it's not. Here's what the fallacy mean:

The argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don't know that it isn't true. Defenders of extrasensory perception, for example, will often overemphasize how much we do not know about the human brain. UFO proponents will often argue that an object sighted in the sky is unknown, and therefore it is an alien spacecraft.

 

You have a big tendency to fall into a false dichotomy, where you start saying something isn't possible, therefore----extreme solution must be true. The world is not made out of 2 options. Even if redshift isn't possible (ahem), that doesn't mean your option is the obvious conclusion.

Arbitrarily reducing a set of many possibilities to only two. For example, evolution is not possible, therefore we must have been created (assumes these are the only two possibilities). This fallacy can also be used to oversimplify a continuum of variation to two black and white choices. For example, science and pseudoscience are not two discrete entities, but rather the methods and claims of all those who attempt to explain reality fall along a continuum from one extreme to the other.

 

Your Ad Hominems are sometimes replaced by Tu Quoque fallacy (I love that one, it has a cool name. But it's still an argument-wrecker):

Ad Hominem:

An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself. True believers will often commit this fallacy by countering the arguments of skeptics by stating that skeptics are closed minded. Skeptics, on the other hand, may fall into the trap of dismissing the claims of UFO believers, for example, by stating that people who believe in UFO's are crazy or stupid.

Tu Quoque:

literally, you too. This is an attempt to justify wrong action because someone else also does it. "My evidence may be invalid, but so is yours."

Regardless of the answers that will be supplied, logical fallacies are still illogical. Asking a question based on a logical fallacy sets up the question (and potential answer) to be fallacious as well.

So if you want us to treat your ideas seriously, please try to avoid logical fallacies and personal attacks.

 

Last point: If your data is supported on anything (math or other work) you need to show it. We're not just taking your word for it. We're not taking anyone's word for anything, actually, which is why we debate science and not dogma.

You need to SHOW US what you've done and how you've reached your conclusion, not expect us to start researching the background to every claim.

 

If you used math, show it. If you haven't used math and instead you decided to base your conclusion on someone else's study, you need to cite it. It's called plagiarism when you don't. It's illegal, as well as against the forum's rules.

 

I suggest you read the rules.

 

...Whoa! deja vu anyone?...

 

~moo

[D H]

Do you understand what the M-M Inter experiment says?

It refutes space as an ether for light transmissions.

Nope. The Michelson-Morly experiment (I think that's what your referring to' date=' you are never clear on what you are claiming) refuted the idea of ether all together. Actually, to think of it, this experiment doesn't really have any relevance to what you are proposing, other then the fact that ether is shown not to exist, or at the very least be necessary.[/quote']

Nineteenth century physicists realized that the wave phenomena with which they were familiar propagate through some physical medium. Newton's concept of light as particulate had been abandoned in favor of light as a wave phenomenon. The luminiferous aether was posited as the unknown physical substance through which light waves propagated. As a physical medium, a frame should have existed that was at rest with respect to the medium. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to identify the luminiferous aether rest frame. The experiment instead yielded a null result.

 

The Michelson-Morley experiment did not disprove the concept of the luminiferous aether per se. This is a popular press mischaracterization of the experiment. It is akin to saying the paucity of solar neutrinos disproved the standard model of physics. Modifications to the standard model successfully explained the observed lack of solar neutrinos.

 

Many notable physicists worked on explaining the solar neutrino problem. Many notable physicists, including Lorentz, similarly worked to rescue the luminiferous aether in a way that was consonant with the null results of Michelson-Morley experiment. Various kludges such as Lorentz contraction and time dilation did explain away most (but not all) of the problems. What killed the concept of a luminiferous aether was Occam's scalpel. Relativity showed that the concept of a luminiferous aether is not necessary to explain the Lorentz contraction and time dilation. Quantum mechanics provided an underlying mechanism for the transmission of light without the need for a physical medium. The luminiferous aether was an unnecessary appendage. Occam's scalpel says to cut off the unnecessary appendage.

 

 

Edited to add

Do you understand what the M-M Inter experiment says?

It refutes space as an ether for light transmissions.

Just in case it is not obvious from the above, no, it does not. The Michelson-Morley experiment refuted the idea of a luminiferous aether as it existed at the time of the experiment.

 

The phrase "space as an ether" makes absolutely no sense. Aether hypotheses are about some hypothetical substance that fills space. Aether is not space.

Edited June 17, 2008 by D H

[Klaynos]

I'd not commented earlier as I felt the other members where doing fine. But it seems to be apparent now that New Science doesn't understand current theories.

 

On maths behind the BB, it's a bit beyond discussion here, but as you have so much to say on the issue I'd suggest you read something like:

 

Cosmology: The Science of the Universe

By Edward Robert Harrison

[New Science]

The phrase "space as an ether" makes absolutely no sense. Aether hypotheses are about some hypothetical substance that fills space. Aether is not space.

 

You are right. That is what I am trying to explain.

So how do you explain the cosmological red shift as a space expansion in the BBT?

 

NS

 

I'd not commented earlier as I felt the other members where doing fine. But it seems to be apparent now that New Science doesn't understand current theories.

 

On maths behind the BB' date=' it's a bit beyond discussion here, but as you have so much to say on the issue I'd suggest you read something like:

 

Cosmology: The Science of the Universe

By Edward Robert Harrison[/quote']

 

I have that book and recommended it to others.

 

You will notice that he devotes several pages to the ARP Red Shift anomaly also that most books do not include.

So my replacement fot the BBT soace expansion red shift is written because it explains the CosRedShift better than the BBT does.

Need I say more?

 

NS

[D H]

The phrase "space as an ether" makes absolutely no sense. Aether hypotheses are about some hypothetical substance that fills space. Aether is not space.

You are right.

Well, finally. You and I are in complete agreement that what you write is utter nonsense.

[Klaynos]

You are right. That is what I am trying to explain.

So how do you explain the cosmological red shift as a space expansion in the BBT?

 

NS

 

 

 

I have that book and recommended it to others.

 

You will notice that he devotes several pages to the ARP Red Shift anomaly also that most books do not include.

So my replacement fot the BBT soace expansion red shift is written because it explains the CosRedShift better than the BBT does.

Need I say more?

 

NS

 

The red shift is observed, expansion is the solution. The big bang predicted it. The surprising thing really is the acceleration.

 

Well that's a good start it's not a very mathsy book though, and not wonderful imo as you're discussing this I'm going to assume you've read most of the further reading?

[swansont]

Nineteenth century physicists realized that the wave phenomena with which they were familiar propagate through some physical medium. Newton's concept of light as particulate had been abandoned in favor of light as a wave phenomenon. The luminiferous aether was posited as the unknown physical substance through which light waves propagated. As a physical medium, a frame should have existed that was at rest with respect to the medium. The Michelson-Morley experiment was designed to identify the luminiferous aether rest frame. The experiment instead yielded a null result.

 

Another thing that's often overlooked is that stellar aberration, first observed by Bradley ~1725, indicated that we must be moving through the purported ether. The M-M experiment was supposed to be a formality — a slam-dunk confirmation of the speed.

[D H]

The M-M experiment was supposed to be a formality — a slam-dunk confirmation of the speed.

Instead of a slam-dunk it was a brick -- and they still published their null results. This is at the core of what distinguishes a scientist from a quack. Good scientists will realize that having their life's work on some theory utterly destroyed by reality is not necessarily a bad thing. It means there must be a lot of new shiny toys to play with out there somewhere. A quack cannot let go. Unfortunately, some formerly good scientists develop too strong an emotional investment to their work and turn into quacks. The work of one such quack former good scientist is the subject of this thread.

[New Science]

Mike,

 

I think you really need to work on getting your work published. Perhaps Baen would be interested...

 

I am not familiar with that site. Will check it out later. Thanks.

 

NS

 

The red shift is observed, expansion is the solution. The big bang predicted it. The surprising thing really is the acceleration.

 

Well that's a good start it's not a very mathsy book though, and not wonderful imo as you're discussing this I'm going to assume you've read most of the further reading?

 

Regarding the first paragraph, the BBT did not predict it. It was the result of Hubbles observations and his association with the observed redshifts as increasing with their reducing magnitudes or angular diameters.

 

So these observations instilled the idea of space expansion as Lemaitrae proposed.

Hubble, himself, did not accept the idea of expansion.

 

NS

[D H]

Regarding the first paragraph, the BBT did not predict it. It was the result of Hubbles observations and his association with the observed redshifts as increasing with their reducing magnitudes or angular diameters.

Try again. The Big Bang theory has its beginnings in 1912. In 1922, Friedmann derived a set of equations from general relativity that showed the universe might be expanding. Hubble discovered the expansion in 1924. Lemaître independently derived Friedmann's equations in 1927. Lemaître is widely deemed as the originator of the Big Bang theory. Hubble did not publish his work on the expansion of the universe until 1929, two years after Lemaître predicted it.

[New Science]

Try again. The Big Bang theory has its beginnings in 1912. In 1922, Friedmann derived a set of equations from general relativity that showed the universe might be expanding. Hubble discovered the expansion in 1924. Lemaître independently derived Friedmann's equations in 1927. Lemaître is widely deemed as the originator of the Big Bang theory. Hubble did not publish his work on the expansion of the universe until 1929, two years after Lemaître predicted it.

 

Freidmans equations do not predict an expanding universe.

They just postulate that space can be open, closed or flat.

 

My guess is that he derived his equations from the way you slice a cone by the angular cut such as 90 degrees to the axis for a flat circular orbit and angular cuts for open and closed orbits of solar orbitting bodies.

 

This is true of the orbiting bosies around the Sun that approaching bodies can spiral into the SUN if the angle of direction and velocity will determine the type of orbit that would be closed or open.

 

I am sure Lemaitrae was aware of the Slipher observations as well as Hubbles and Humasons.

His ideas were coincidental to the Slipher observations IMO.

 

NS

[Reaper]

Freidmans equations do not predict an expanding universe.

They just postulate that space can be open, closed or flat.

 

Actually, D H is correct.

 

My guess is that he derived his equations from the way you slice a cone by the angular cut such as 90 degrees to the axis for a flat circular orbit and angular cuts for open and closed orbits of solar orbitting bodies.

 

This is true of the orbiting bosies around the Sun that approaching bodies can spiral into the SUN if the angle of direction and velocity will determine the type of orbit that would be closed or open.

 

Nope, wrong.

 

I am sure Lemaitrae was aware of the Slipher observations as well as Hubbles and Humasons.

His ideas were coincidental to the Slipher observations IMO.

 

NS

 

They all were, and Hubble and Lemaitre both came to the same conclusion we did and the one that is now taught in textbooks, that the Universe was expanding and the Big Bang did happen. In fact, Lemaitre was the one who proposed the Big Bang Theory in the first place.

[New Science]

Actually, D H is correct.

 

 

 

Nope, wrong.

 

 

 

They all were, and Hubble and Lemaitre both came to the same conclusion we did and the one that is now taught in textbooks, that the Universe was expanding and the Big Bang did happen. In fact, Lemaitre was the one who proposed the Big Bang Theory in the first place.

 

Lemaitare also predicted the universe as starting from a 'primeval' atom.

 

Of course, this idea was discarded.

So the BBT started from what?

It is cosmoGONY. Not science.

 

The BBT is just a lot of questions with NO answers.

 

NS

[Reaper]

Lemaitare also predicted the universe as starting from a 'primeval' atom.

 

Of course, this idea was discarded.

So the BBT started from what?

It is cosmoGONY. Not science.

 

The BBT is just a lot of questions with NO answers.

 

NS

 

 

The "primeval" atom was just a conceptual crutch. It didn't attempt to address what happened at that particular stage, but the concept still remains, especially since there is now a great deal of evidence that the Universe was very small way back then.

 

As such, the idea was never discarded, and science has since then moved to incorporate the BBT into other models, such as inflation.

 

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence or math whatsoever with your assumptions.

 

And, science can only provide answers to how questions; it's usefulness to supplying answers to "why" questions is quite limited in general.

 

So, are you going to actually admit your errors and start addressing the flaws in your reasoning, or are you just going to simply continue ducking our posts and beat yourself up?

[New Science]

The "primeval" atom was just a conceptual crutch. It didn't attempt to address what happened at that particular stage, but the concept still remains, especially since there is now a great deal of evidence that the Universe was very small way back then.

 

As such, the idea was never discarded, and science has since then moved to incorporate the BBT into other models, such as inflation.

 

You, on the other hand, have provided no evidence or math whatsoever with your assumptions.

 

And, science can only provide answers to how questions; it's usefulness to supplying answers to "why" questions is quite limited in general.

 

So, are you going to actually admit your errors and start addressing the flaws in your reasoning, or are you just going to simply continue ducking our posts and beat yourself up?

 

Did you read the entire article?

 

I provided two sources of evidence.

 

One - Those simple FIELD patterns between the Magnetic poles and the Electric charges. Notice that between the poles and charges, there is a central bulge.

This is due to the repulsion between the field lines and it is lateral to the lines that creates this expansion.

 

Two - The ARP Redshift Anomaly is real. It is not a chance alignment.

The best 2 examples are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210 in the southern hemisphere. See Sky and Tel April 1983, page 307.

Most majot libraries should have a copy in their archives.

 

See.................http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

 

These 2 different aomalies are connected by a bridge of stars that definately prove both objects at the same distance.

The quasars have larger redshifts because of the difference in the readioation where the quasars radiate at higher temperatures.

This proves that these temperatures are the facto for the different RS's.

Subsequently, the expansion is intrinsic to the radiation itself .

 

NS

[Reaper]

Did you read the entire article?

 

 

I provided two sources of evidence.

 

 

I did not, as earlier before you didn't provide anything.

 

One - Those simple FIELD patterns between the Magnetic poles and the Electric charges. Notice that between the poles and charges, there is a central bulge.

 

 

This is due to the repulsion between the field lines and it is lateral to the lines that creates this expansion.

 

What does this have to do with anything? The field lines will never touch another line with the same charge, it has nothing to do with expansion. Besides which, all the charges in the Universe mostly cancel out each other because of equal and opposite charges.

 

 

Two - The ARP Redshift Anomaly is real. It is not a chance alignment.

The best 2 examples are NGC 7603 and AM 2054-2210 in the southern hemisphere. See Sky and Tel April 1983, page 307.

Most majot libraries should have a copy in their archives.

 

See.................http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm

 

These 2 different aomalies are connected by a bridge of stars that definately prove both objects at the same distance.

The quasars have larger redshifts because of the difference in the readioation where the quasars radiate at higher temperatures.

This proves that these temperatures are the facto for the different RS's.

Subsequently, the expansion is intrinsic to the radiation itself .

 

NS

 

Woohoo, you actually provided references! Very good. Now, there are serious problems with them, but hey, everyone has to start somewhere .

 

 

Now then, lets see what Wikipedia has to say about intrinsic redshifts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift

 

Arp's hypothesis that quasars are local and contain large intrinsic redshifts has never gained any significant support in the astronomy research community. Arp's work is based on a limited number of specific quasar-galaxy associations. Most astronomers believe these associations are simply the result of chance and point to the hundreds of thousands of quasars documented in more recent redshift surveys. These surveys show quasars to be distributed randomly over the sky' date=' rather than associated with radio galaxies. [b']Furthermore, there is now a detailed model of quasars as the ultraluminous cores of active galactic nuclei, effectively the centers of Seyfert galaxies. [/b]This model is consistent with the results of more sensitive observations which have been able to resolve host galaxies around quasars with the same redshift as the quasar. The consistency of the standard quasar model with the assumption that all quasars are at cosmological distances leads most astronomers to apply an Ockham's razor conclusion that intrinsic redshifts do not exist.

 

Well, ok, maybe wikipedia may not be the best source, so how about an abstract on the subject, we will pick NGC 7603 for this one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986ApJ...302..245S:

 

The bright galaxy NGC 7603 has an extended spiral arm which appears to end exactly on a small' date=' high surface brightness companion (referred to here as NGC 7603B). However, the companion has a much larger redshift than that of NGC 7603, placing it conventionally almost twice as far away.....

.........[b'] No strong anomalies have been found which would force the acceptance of the existence of a noncosmological redshift. [/b]

 

So, in conclusion, it isn't mainstream science. There is very strong evidence that these intrinsic redshifts simply do not exist. Nice try though. Hopefully, next time you will force me to have to actually get out my textbook on the subject .

[New Science]

Reaper

 

That anstract you provided just provided their opinion that resulted in a non clear answer.

 

These establishment scientists all swallow the BBT and so they will spend their time to refute any evidence to the contrary.

 

When it comes to the BBT, they do not provide any answers like the 'initial conditions'?

 

No answer for 'what drives the EoS since it is not an explosion?

 

I can bring up a dozen questions that have no answers. If you would like to test yourself , let me know and I will post them.

 

NS

[D H]

Reaper

 

That anstract you provided just provided their opinion that resulted in a non clear answer.

You could have gone to the link and followed that to the paper. From page 8 of that paper,

DISCUSSION

This is an interesting and unusual system. When it was first discussed (Arp 1971)' date=' the southeast arm of NGC 7603 seemed to end almost precisely on the anomalous companion. The current deep pictures have revealed that [the southeast arm of'] NGC 7603 in fact continues well beyond NGC 7603B.

 

These establishment scientists all swallow the BBT and so they will spend their time to refute any evidence to the contrary.

You have this exactly backwards. These so-called "establishment" scientists love new discoveries because it gives them new problems to solve. It is the quacks such as Arp and Van Flandern and not the "establishment scientists" who refuse to revise their thinking or to look at evidence. It is the quacks, not the "establishment scientists", who cling to their old, disproven theories and their old, fuzzy photographs. The "establishment scientists" know their theories are not perfect, constantly look for ways to improve them, and develop newer and better techniques to better delve into the unknowns.