simple science no one excepts

[Tangointhenight]

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

 

Why isnt anyone stduying this?

 

Other proof, http://nowscape.com/big-ban2.htm, more http://www.seyfertgalaxies.com/ and even more, http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/500/2/596/37571.text.html

 

Somethings up.http://www.answersingenesis.org/TJ/v11/i3/quasar.asp

 

The objects are conected, via gas bridge, but each has diffrent redshifts.http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/Arp23.html I find this very odd.

 

Here is a evan more better example, wher eyou can see a bridge, http://pagesperso-orange.fr/lempel/les_os_du_redshift_02_uk.htm, http://www.aanda.org/index.php?option=article&access=standard&Itemid=129&url=/articles/aa/full/2002/30/aaea241/aaea241.right.html.

 

http://www.astr.ua.edu/keel/galaxies/arp.html

 

 

 

I am curently trying to invent a expriment where i want to mimic redshift and blueshift, anyone know where i can start?

Edited February 23, 2009 by Tangointhenight

[Daecon]

Your biggest problem is linking to an "Answers In Genesis" article and taking it seriously.

[Tangointhenight]

Your biggest problem is linking to an "Answers In Genesis" article and taking it seriously.

 

Facts dont lie from what ever source it comes from.

The picture prooves it. how much more facts do you need?

[Mokele]

Answers In Genesis is a creationist website. They've put outright false information up there, and basically everything on that site is bullshit.

 

If your ideas agree with anything creationists say, it's time to re-evaluate your ideas.

[D H]

The picture prooves it. how much more facts do you need?

Go out into a forest at night and take pictures of the night sky as you wander through the forest. In some of those pictures tree branches will appear to be connected to the Moon or to stars. That connection is not real, of course. To get a good, clear picture of the Moon in this forest you will have to search hard for a gap in the trees.

 

Suppose on the other hand you searched for a view in which the very end of tree branch seems to touch the Moon. Does this picture prove that the Moon is a glow ball attached to the end of the branch? Of course not.

 

This is just what Halton Arp has done. He searched for images where objects appear to be connected. Seek and ye shall find. Just because he found objects that appear to be connected does not mean they are connected. Just because two objects appear to be connected in a photograph does not mean they are. The Moon is not a glow ball attached to the end of a tree.

 

Arp is using the logical fallacy of hasty conclusion. The null hypothesis here is that the connection is not real. That null hypothesis must be rejected to prove that the objects are connected based solely on imagery rather than on physics. Arp has not rejected this null hypothesis and he has not provided a physical model that can explain the phenomena he purports to have seen. He has merely provided images of apparently connected objects.

 

We have now discovered 120,000 quasars, thanks largely to the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. Spread over less than 4 pi steradians (the Milky Way blocks our view of a good chunk of the remote universe), some of those quasars will by chance appear to be close to nearby objects. They aren't. The apparent connection between nearby galaxies and some quasars is no more real than the connection between the Moon and a tree in a forest.

Edited February 23, 2009 by D H
Used wikipedia as source, which claims 200,000 quasars.

[Tangointhenight]

Answers In Genesis is a creationist website. They've put outright false information up there, and basically everything on that site is bullshit.

 

If your ideas agree with anything creationists say, it's time to re-evaluate your ideas.

 

Thats not the point, the point is that the bridge is there, and the objects have two completly difrent redshifts, this goes agianst hubbles law.

 

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

[D H]

Thats not the point, the point is that the bridge is there, and the objects have two completly difrent redshifts, this goes agianst hubbles law.

 

http://heritage.stsci.edu/2002/23/supplemental.html

 

Did you (1) read the article you posted, and (2) look at the date?

 

From the article,

In the view of most astronomers, the juxtapositions are just due to chance. The filamentary connection became less convincing as better images became available. John Bahcall and collaborators made a noteworthy contribution when they showed that NGC 4319 absorbs some of the light from Mrk 205, just as expected if NGC 4319 is projected in front of Mrk 205 (Astrophysical Journal 1992). In time, many quasars were found to lie in galaxies with exactly the same redshift, providing powerful evidence that quasars are an event that occurs in the nucleus of galaxies.

 

Today the redshift controversy has almost faded from view. Only a few astronomers still think there is reasonable evidence for noncosmological redshifts; a recent summary making their case was published by Geoffrey Burbidge (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific 2001). The vast majority of astronomers think that the evidence is overwhelming that redshifts show distances to objects in the expanding universe.

 

The date of the article is also important. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey (2000-2005), released after this article was published, has found over 120,000 quasars. The redshift controversy is explained solely as coincidence.

[Sayonara]

I am curently trying to invent a expriment where i want to mimic redshift and blueshift, anyone know where i can start?

I think this might be better off as a separate thread, because it is going to be overwhelmed in this one by discussion of the other parts of your post.

[iNow]

Also, it's spelled "accepts," not "excepts."

[ennui]

One of the big problems here is that Tangointhenight is not considering the quality of his references. Cherry-picking a selection of URLs from the Internet does not count as evidence, nor does it shake the foundations of physics.

 

I could have a browse around the Internet and find hundredsof URLs saying that unicorns exist; there are faces on Mars; Satan runs the world governments; Jehovah was a UFO, etc. but it wouldn't make them true.

 

I'll use one of the worst links provided as my case-in-point.

 

Answers in Genesis is not a science website. It's a website for religious rhetoric. This isn't to say that something isn't true just because it comes from an ill-researched site: it means that the overall quality of their scientific writing is poor, and the likelihood of them producing an erudite scientific article is low.

 

As an example, look at the writer's references. They're mostly in the early 1980s: physics is a fast paced field, and unless the paper was groundbreaking or seminal, it's not a good idea to go for journals or books these old. The only good use for them is to track progress of ideas and concepts, or for antiquarian use.

 

Moreover, he cites H. Arp. This is a man who supports a great deal of fringe ideas and refuses a stack of contemporary evidence contrary to his theories.

 

When you scout the Internet looking for these controversial physics websites, it might be a good idea in future to be a little more critical of the sources.