Found this article on the web and am curious about any comments you guys might have.
LINK
copyrighted material deleted by The Bad Astronomer
Member
Found this article on the web and am curious about any comments you guys might have.
LINK
copyrighted material deleted by The Bad Astronomer
Established Member
Welcome to the BABB, Brian!
I don't place a huge amount of stock in this article.
- Although Arp has done decades of excellent work with peculiar galaxies, frankly I have always found his links between quasars & 'closer' galaxies somewhat tenuous (pardon the pun.) I am sure ToSeek will be along shortly with appropriate links!
- The Big Bang theory does not rest on one plank alone. Even if a link is established between quasars and objects of differing redshift values (a very big 'if'), this still leaves a lot of evidence in favour of the BB to explain.
- People who argue that the evil gub'mint is out to suppress public knowledge always seem to ignore the fact that the world does not begin & end at the US borders, or the borders of any specific nation for that matter. Unless there is a global conspiracy of cosmologists, physicists and other assorted scientists, theoreticians, mathematicians and a whole swag of other -icians, then the argument is questionable.
When a person who freely admits that they have no scientific knowledge comes out and openly refutes decades of theory and observation by hundreds (if not thousands) of researchers worldwide, then a large grain of salt does need to be on hand.
Established Member
Thunderbolts.info is not a reliable information source.
Established Member
Cosmologists can't even get along with each other half the time. There's no way they've come together to repress public information.
Banned
Hi Brian and welcome to the BABB!
Do I finally get to use the wave?
Established Member
I visited the website but I couldn't see the above essay. I think the essay is actually well-written, and closer to being true than being false. Where he gets into trouble is with the conspiracy idea. It's not so much conspiracy as a pervasive 'group-think' that is retarding modern science in some specific areas. Cosmology is the most glaring example. I have friends and relatives who sincerely believe in the Big Bang. No one is fooling them - they just honestly believe in it, sometimes passionately. I have a friend who is a history of cosmology professor. He's just too swayed by the math of GR and the whole weird BB scenario. I can't budge him off of it. He's not part of a conspiracy - he's just bought in. So his students don't for example hear a lot about the static cosmology alternative. At this level he's not doing a tremendous amount of damage. His students need to know what the mainstream theory is. But at higher levels, where funding is involved, the real damage starts. Imagine not a penny for static cosmology, when best evidence is all supportive of it. And when a static cosmologist doesn't get his grant, who's to say that conspiracy isn't involved then.
Vulcan Administrator
This is a crock. Anyone has access to Hubble data (after a year, at least); anyone has access to Sloan Digital Sky Survey data. There are plenty of other examples. Astronomical data is getting more available, not less.Originally Posted by BrianStewart
By the way, you might also want to remove the full contents of the article and just post a link ( http://www.rense.com/general58/darkage.htm ) and possibly excerpts. Posting the entire article is a violation of copyright and could get both you and the BA in trouble.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Vulcan Administrator
And, for that matter, the hysteria about "Internet 2" is nonsense:
- http://www.internet2.edu/about/faq.htmlIs Internet2 a separate network? Will Internet2 replace the current commercial Internet?
Internet2 is not a separate physical network and will not replace the Internet. Internet2 brings together institutions and resources from academia, industry and government to develop new technologies and capabilities that can then be deployed in the global Internet. Close collaboration with Internet2 corporate members will ensure that new applications and technologies are rapidly deployed throughout the Internet. Just as email and the World Wide Web are legacies of earlier investments in academic and federal research networks, the legacy of Internet2 will be to expand the possibilities of the broader Internet.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Established Member
Nor is Rense.com. These websites are internet tabloids. They mix fact, fiction and opinion. One article may be entirely reasonable. The next may be a total hoax. The rest are a mix. But since it's almost impossible to make the distinction without indepth review there's a real danger taking any of it at face value. The articles are designed to be sensational so it's no wonder why they draw the attention of anyone looking for a conspiracy.Thunderbolts.info is not a reliable information source.
Member
I agree with you that there isn't a conspiracy to "insulate themselves from criticism by 'outsiders.'" However, I would like to know if the science behind Halton Arp et al's theories mentioned in the above article and the one in the following link are valid. If not, can you help point out the flaws? If the science is valid, what are the implications to the Scientific community?This is a crock. Anyone has access to Hubble data (after a year, at least); anyone has access to Sloan Digital Sky Survey data.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
Thanks
Order of Kilopi
Michael Goodspeed is a self-professed "radio personality and journalist" from Portland, Oregon. It seems he may have recently read Arp's Seeing Red. He certainly has that sense of a huge conspiracy pervading all of science, as well as the slant of the supporting data while ignoring all observations that go against his assertions.
Perhaps if he could give us his background in astronomy and cosmology, what degrees he has, what are his specialties, one might be slightly more inclined to find credible his contradiction of 99% of the scientific community.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Order of Kilopi
First, let me say that the original article above goes way too far in characterizing the situation. Arp & supporters may face additional difficulties getting research published, but the characterization in the OP is absurd in places.I agree with you that there isn't a conspiracy to "insulate themselves from criticism by 'outsiders.'" However, I would like to know if the science behind Halton Arp et al's theories mentioned in the above article and the one in the following link are valid. If not, can you help point out the flaws? If the science is valid, what are the implications to the Scientific community?This is a crock. Anyone has access to Hubble data (after a year, at least); anyone has access to Sloan Digital Sky Survey data.
http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/BIGBANG/Bigbang.html
Thanks
We've had quite a few discussions on Arp's work. Here is the most recent one. This was another. You should definitely look at some of the papers I've linked to in those and other threads (just do a BABB search on "Arp") if you're interested in this topic. You can judge for yourself how strong you think the evidence is - and I'll try answering any questions you have.
This paper is one I recently had accepted at Astrophysics&Space Science that deals with the topic of intrinsic redshifts in normal spiral galaxies and here was a related paper (but not on intrinsic redshifts) published in ApJ this May (click on "PDF" to see the papers.
Order of Kilopi
BrianStewart, do not cut and paste copyrighted material on this board. Read the FAQ.
Member
Yes, I do agree with you here.
dgruss23, okay, I went through the above threads, "Anomalous red shifts ..." and "Questions about Arp's model". Actually, I went through the "red shifts..." thread a few times to try and determine if you or gritmonger were supporting or disproving Arp's model. From a layman's view, that determination was difficult. I came away with the impression that you found Arp's model as valid, but needs some more work. Is this correct? I apologise for being naive, but my original question wasandwhether the science [Arp's model] is validGoing through your abstacts and the above threads, it does look like the science is valid, but are the conlusions regarding the Big Bang Theory legitimate. Again, from a layman's point of view, if the science is valid, the conclusions seem to follow correctly.what are the implications to the Scientific community?
Order of Kilopi
That's a great question. For clarification, its important to distinguish between an empirical model and a theoretical model. Arp's observational evidence points toward the hypothesis that active galaxies such as Seyferts are ejecting quasars. He proposes that over time the excess redshift decreases. I consider this empirical model a viable scientific model with observational support.
The major work Arp's model needs from my point of view deals with the theoretical explanation underlying this model. There are two major questions: (1) What is the mechanism for the ejections - and (2) What is the mechanism for the intrinsic redshift. These are questions that require a theoretical model.
That is the distinction I was trying to explain to gritmonger. He said that there is no predictive element to Arp's model. I disagree and gave him quite a few examples of predictions that Arp's model makes on that thread. He seemed to be asking for a predictions that Galaxy A will eject quasars at time B along ejection line C ... That specific a prediction cannot be made without a mechanism.
It is a difficult distinction to see at first, but once its recognized its easy to put all the evidence in proper perspective. Arp has compiled a large body of evidence that ejection of quasars is happening. But nobody has yet to develop a satisfactory theoretical explanation as to the mechanism for how its happening. The best analogy is Continental Drift theory. Wegener gathered pretty good evidence that the continents had been moving in 1915, but he couldn't explain how the continents were being moved.
What some people have argued is that because a satisfactory mechanism has not been put forward, Arp's entire model must be wrong. I've had to repeatedly make the point that you can gather evidence for a phenomenon happening without understanding why it happens. The lack of the "why" explanation does not invalidate that it happens.
Imagine if Doctors took that approach to medicine... "Well, we don't know what causes this disease, so the disease must not be happening." Of course that's not a perfect analogy (a failing of almost every analogy). You could argue that the level of evidence for a disease is much higher because you can definitively diagnose that a person has the condition. In the case of Arp's ejections, there is much more debate as to just how strong the evidence is.
That's why I say every person should judge for themselves how strong they think the evidence is. I consider the NGC 7603, NEQ3, and NGC 1232 cases to be some of the strongest examples, but there are many others.
Another great question. I think the intrinsic redshift evidence does not invalidate the Big Bang theory for a simple reason: We cannot rule out the possibility that there are intrinsic redshifts and ejections of quasars, but that the intrinsic redshift is added to the redshift from expansion. I suspect the answer regarding the validity of the BBT so far as Arp's model is concerned will come with the discovery of the mechanism for the ejections and intrinsic redshifts.Going through your abstacts and the above threads, it does look like the science is valid, but are the conlusions regarding the Big Bang Theory legitimate. Again, from a layman's point of view, if the science is valid, the conclusions seem to follow correctly.
So I'd say that any claim that Arp's redshift evidence invalidates the BBT is beyond what the evidence supports at this time. On the flipside, claims that Arp's ejection hypothesis has been disproven are just plain wrong. As a layman, you can judge that for yourself from the images in the papers and other evidence that can be relatively easily explained.
Order of Kilopi
A good example from the original article that started this thread: The author notes that NGC 7319 appears to have a quasar in front of it. This is a point we discussed on another thread and it supports Arp's empirical model. He then notes that the redshift of the quasar must be mostly caused by something unexplained - that unknown mechanism I was mentioning. If Arp's interpretation of ejected quasars is right, then this interpretation naturally follows.
But then he goes on to say that astronomers "assumptions about redshift" and everything that follows are false. That is where the reasoning breaks down. As I already pointed out - perhaps the redshift interpretation breaks down entirely for quasars and partially for galaxies, but with an underlying redshift component from expansion. If that were the case, then it would be wrong to say that everything that follows from the standard views is wrong - much of the BBT expectations could still be right.
Order of Kilopi
Like the conclusions Arp draws from his observations, "looks" may not always lead one to the correct determination.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
dgruss, I now finally think I understand this hypothesis (Arp's model). Thanks! I couldn't quite wrap my brain around that long thread before, but once you summarized it, I can see the things working together much better.
I'm still not convinced on intrisic red shift, but at least I understand the idea now.
Order of Kilopi
Thanks Kesh!I appreciate the feedback. I usually don't know what people that aren't jumping in on the conversations are thinking. I'll be glad to try and answer any questions you might have.
Established Member
This quote is quite telling:Why bother with an astronomy degree or two or three when you don't have to know anything to know something? BA wasted a decade or so of his life... 8-[I am not a scientist, and have no exotic theory to peddle. But even I -- a common man with no training in the sciences -- know that the big bang theory is false. I repeat, I KNOW this...and so do many in the Establishment. They just haven't gotten around to telling you yet.
And insinuating conpiracy is a dead giveaway for crackpottery.
Established Member
I think it is quite possible for the layman to see when he or she is being sold a phoney story. It can come through in the way the story is told, the number of times one is asked to suspend one's common sense, to trust in the knowledge of the pros. By contrast, you can tell from reading Seeing Red that this is honest and straightforward.
Established Member
I don't think the critics of the Big Bang deny that there is LOTS of both compelling and consistent evidence.
That does not mean that the evidence is not consistent with other theories.
But any criticism of the Big Bang is generally met with anything other than an objective discussion.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Proponent The Electric Unvierse
Established Member
Of course Arp was denied access to telescope time to check out his quasars, (no doubt there is an official reason).
I also heard a story of an astronomy using Hubble to photograph NGC 4319/Mark 205 and the bridge between them; the Hubble telescope time allotment committee responded by canceling the amateur program completely.
I can't help but the similarity to the Church refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Vulcan Administrator
That's a completely different issue - I was responding to the claim that the raw data was being kept for the use of mainstream astronomers only and not available to the general public. Getting observatory time is a separate matter (and, I think, one that's been brought up on these boards before, though I'm not sure where offhand).Of course Arp was denied access to telescope time to check out his quasars, (no doubt there is an official reason).
I also heard a story of an astronomy using Hubble to photograph NGC 4319/Mark 205 and the bridge between them; the Hubble telescope time allotment committee responded by canceling the amateur program completely.
I can't help but the similarity to the Church refusing to look through Galileo's telescope.
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Order of Kilopi
Well, my opinion would differ, but in any case, if someone has evidence that supports an alternative theory, "criticizing the Big Bang" really has nothing to do with it. That's like someone criticizing the theory of evolution in the hopes of strengthening their idea of intelligent creation. A theory must stand on its own. Denigrating Theory A does not add support to Theory B. In politics, maybe. But not science.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Established Member
I agree, but it seems that you have to have a new theory that completely replaces an older one, before you can criticise an older theory.
There is no reason why the Big Bang can not be criticised, and if that 'denigrates' it, so be it. Whether that supports another theory is immaterial.
The Electric Universe requires much development, and most people won't give it a glance until it appears in a peer reviewed journal. But I'm happy that there are aspects of it that show merit, regardless of its shortcomings in other areas.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Established Member
Well, that's an understatement. The reason people don't give the electric universe more than a glance is that it only takes a glance to see that it's wrong.
One thing to realize, Ian, is that criticisms of particular implementations of big bang cosmology do not necessaryily imply dismissal of the entire concept. As dgruss said, measurements of intrinsic redshifts in quasars (and it's still not certain that they occur) do not rule out expansion of space as the source of other redshifts. As another example, one need only look at the variety of dark matter/energy concepts out there to realize that they can't all be right. But even if none of them are correct, there's no denying that the evidence shows that the universe was once smaller, and hotter than we currently observe. That's the big bang.
As an analogy one could look at the various interpretations of evolutionary theory such as gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. Creationists often point to these disagreements as evidence against evolution with the "just a theory" claim. While these theories give different descriptions of how evolution occurred they don't disagree that evolution does occur, and continues to occur. It's the same with the big bang. There are different ideas of how it occurred. These are continually modified as additional data is obtained. What is not in doubt, however, is that expansion of the universe has occurred, and continues to occur.
Order of Kilopi
No it doesn't. As John Keirien has pointed out, the density of galaxies we see looking into the HUDF (setting reasonable error bars to attentuation factors) does not demonstrate a smaller universe, nor a hotter one: That hot dusty areas exist is a fact, but there is no evidence they were hotter or more common in the past.
The supernovae Ia we are looking at in the distant past appear to be the same size as local Ia, but they also appear to be not as bright, nor have as long of light curves as the brightest local events. In fact if we use the brightest local events as the standard, the most distant supernovae observed have the same size light curves as local events - completely nullifying the theory of expansion. Why wouldn't at least some of the most distant events we observe be as bright as the brightest local events?
Established Member
I agree totally, and I don't base my cynicism of the Big Bang on just one item of contention.
It's not just me being radical, uneducated, irrational, etc. It's been mentioned here before at www.cosmologystatement.org
There we shall have to disagree.
Regards,
Ian Tresman
Established Member
On the contrary. It is well-researched and intelligently presented. What problem exactly do you have with it?
Posting Permissions
