Big Bang Busted?

[dgruss23]

...people are capable of evaluating the evidence for themselves independent of the prevailing opinion.

I would say not too many people are capable of doing this well -- without the amount of studying, learning, experience, and thought invested by those others who have established the prevailing opinion.

Then apparently all of the analysis and defense of the BBT witnessed here is unwarrented since most of the people doing it here are not the "experts" that have "established" the prevailing opinion. Why is it that people are capable of analyzing and defending the BBT, but not capable of analyzing and defending Arp's theory? All of the sudden when the theory is ATM it is too tough a job that requires the help of the learned few?

If they come to the conclusion that the mainstream position is mistaken re Arp, that does not mean they have been misled by clever writing on Arp's part.

Cougar: Nor does it mean their conclusion is correct.

Is that what I said?

Arp's model is not "assuming" intrinsic redshifts exists.... He's found evidence that some high redshift objects are associated with nearby low redshift objects (eg NGC 7603, NEQ3 ...).

And of course the major question is, what is the nature of this "association"? Arp must stretch in his attempt to prove the association is something other than coincidental alignment.

Right, he must look for additional tests that go beyond statistical argument - such as connecting bridges(NGC 7603,NEQ3...), lack of reddening in objects such as NGC 1232B (still waiting for a response to that one), quasars superimposed in front of a galaxy (NGC 7319), lack of time dilation in quasar samples (Hawkins paper) ...

Its not just statistical evidence.

Apparently most of the astronomical community think this stretching results in a very thin argument. But others, such as yourself, have joined in the effort to thicken the argument. Nonprofessionals such as Russ and myself would take a LOT of time and effort to independently reach a well-informed decision on the matter. We are helped by those with much more experience in this area, such as Ned Wright and Phil Plait, not to mention Stephen Weinberg and John Baez.

Yes, it most certainly does take time - and I'm here to answer questions in an effort to help people's learning curves. I don't have all the answers and continue to spend significant time learning for my part. Personally, I think you underrate the ability of people to analyze the evidence for themselves. The key points can most of the time be reduced to non-technical terminology suitable for a popular article in magazines such as Astronomy, S&T, or Scientific American. If it can be put into those formats, then there is no reason why the "nonprofessional" cannot take a look at the evidence and make their own judgements as to the viability of Arp's model.

[Cougar]

...Tsizlard... Nilsson... Einstein...

It's pretty easy to cherrypick anecdotal support. But stereotyping behavior onto a whole group is taught to be an invalid inference in elementary school.

[dgruss23]

Thunderbolts.info is not a reliable information source.

Nor is Rense.com. These websites are internet tabloids. They mix fact, fiction and opinion.

For me the issue is not Rense.com, which is just one of several sites that have posted the Goodspeed articles. I’m most interested in two things: clarity on the status of the big bang in the wake of Arp’s work; and the reliability of information presented on the thunderbolts.info website...

The big bang is the reigning Queen of Cosmology.

Careful ... we know what happens to Monarch's that do not treat their people well.

Cougar: Arp has not been able to shed his costume that depicts him as Court Jester or Fool.

I continue to be amazed at the lengths you'll go to characterize Arp as a loony toon. Odd though since you just said:

I would say not too many people are capable of doing this well -- without the amount of studying, learning, experience, and thought invested by those others who have established the prevailing opinion.

How can you characterize Arp as cosmology's Jester when you've taken the position that it is too hard for nonexperts to analyze the issue and make their own judgements. Surely you would have to first analyze the issue (a very hard thing to do - right?) before you could come to the conclusion that Arp is wrong and thus a "fool" (ad hominem on your part - but I'm not taking it too seriously because it was in jester with a Kingly analogy! ).

The information on thunderbolts.info is unreliable, as many have mentioned, including dgruss.

What I pointed out was that in the case of the NGC 7319 POD they claimed it disproves the BBT which it does not. Overreaching on the argument is something we much watch for on both sides. The thunderbolts claim I criticized was similar to the mainstream treating expansion as an observation instead of an interpretation.

[dgruss23]

Here is the opinions of one researcher that has published alternative research. Each person can form their own judgements about it.

Lopez-Corredoira wants "to tell of my impressions about the world of research in astrophysics, which I know from close observation." In other words, he wants to give his opinion. Certainly other astrophysicists' opinions will differ. Such a paper seems highly nonscientific. Maybe Time-Life will pick it up. :roll:

Uh ... Cougar that's why I said "Here is the opinions of one researcher ..." Obviously there will be disagreement on his points. Its another point of view.

[JMB]

I explain here,
- First two topics of spectroscopy:
1)The CREIL as simply as possible.
2)Gases allowing CREIL
3)How an UV continuous spectum light propagates excited atomic hydrogen.
- Then applications to astrophysics:
4) How the CREIL applies to astrophysics
5)How the largest part of the redshift of the quasars is produced by CREIL
6) Why the Pioneer' frequencies are shifted while the frequencies of the other probes are not.

1)The refraction is the result of the interference of a beam with light coherently scattered by a « dynamical polarisation » of the matter due to the beam.
It is generally assumed that several dynamical polarisations are independent. They are not if conditions set by G. L. Lamb are fulfilled. These conditions are easily fulfilled using femtosecond lasers, but generally the power of these lasers is so large that the index of refraction is not constant; this effect, easily observed is named ISRS. With ordinary light, a low pressure gas is needed, which has at least a quadrupolar electric (or dipolar magnetic) resonance at a frequency lower than 1 Ghz.
Transfers of energy (allowed by thermodynamics) between the polarisations induce frequency shifts.
2)It is not easy to find a gas having a convenient resonance. Atomic hydrogen, in its state of principal quantum number n=2 has such spin resonances.
This hydrogen, (H*) is obtained either:
- in an electric discharge
- at a temperature of the order of 100 000 K
- at a temperature of the order of 20 000K which makes atomic hydrogen, and a Lyman alpha pumping
3)The absorption of UV light by atomic hydrogen at the Lyman alpha frequency makes H* which shifts the spectrum, renewing the energy at the Lyman frequency. Therefore, the Lyman and other absorptions by shifting lines are not visible.
When an absorption line written in the UV spectrum is shifted at the Lyman alpha line, the frequency shift stops, all lines (in particular the Lyman beta and gamma) are written into the spectrum. The shift restarts from residual CREIL (decay of states n>2 to n=2, ...) until the Ly beta is shifted to the alpha, and so on. If all lines are considered as shifted alpha, they are characterised by z values which have a periodicity 0.062.
4)To apply CREIL to astrophysics, search H*, using the conditions of 2). The CREIL redshifts the high frequencies, and uses the energy to heat isotropically the thermal radiation.
5)The periodicity 0.062 observed in the Lyman forest of the quasars is characteristic of hydrogen. Therefore the Ly forest is produced by CREIL in the neighbourhood of the star which, therefore is not far and big. The quasar may be a neutron star accreting a cloud of hydrogen.
6)The CREIL transfers energy from the solar radiation to the radiowaves modulated, at least, by the noise. The H* needed for CREIL appears at the limits of the Solar system by a combination of the protons and the electrons of the solar wind. Therefore it works for the Pioneers, not for the close probes.

A lot of applications are easily found using 4). See Jerry's text.

[dgruss23]

5)The periodicity 0.062 observed in the Lyman forest of the quasars is characteristic of hydrogen. Therefore the Ly forest is produced by CREIL in the neighbourhood of the star which, therefore is not far and big. The quasar may be a neutron star accreting a cloud of hydrogen.

According to Arp's evidence, quasars are ejected from active galaxies and thus are extragalactic objects. It would be interesting to see how CREIL would work on the larger scale of an ejected quasar. I don't see this neutron star explanation working.

[Jerry]

...Tsizlard... Nilsson... Einstein...

It's pretty easy to cherrypick anecdotal support. But stereotyping behavior onto a whole group is taught to be an invalid inference in elementary school.

Cougar, when you characterized the claim made by by EDM that new ideas are treated with contempt as

completely fabricated. Or ridiculous.

and I post very specific, documentable examples of new concepts being brushed aside by the mainstream physics community these are not ridiculous fabrications.

If you want to try an interesting exercise, go to one of the many gravity wave sites and try to find a paper that says "We expected to see gravity waves and we did not find them." What they say is "We have established new maximum contraints..."

Try to find a listing that accurately characterizes the light curves of high redshift supernova.

Find a paper that says we were wrong about the intensity of the secondary peaks in the microwave background.

Find any admissions we did not see what was expected in the Hubble Ultra Deep field.

The truth is, the observational evidence is at odds with major Big Bang predictions. Everyone in the field knows it. Why don't they come out and say it?

[JMB]

5)The periodicity 0.062 observed in the Lyman forest of the quasars is characteristic of hydrogen. Therefore the Ly forest is produced by CREIL in the neighbourhood of the star which, therefore is not far and big. The quasar may be a neutron star accreting a cloud of hydrogen.

According to Arp's evidence, quasars are ejected from active galaxies and thus are extragalactic objects. It would be interesting to see how CREIL would work on the larger scale of an ejected quasar. I don't see this neutron star explanation working.

The theory of the stars which is very reliable predicts the existence and a good visibility of accretors (accreting neutron stars) which are never seen. Searching the spectrum of an accretor, taking the CREIL into account, one finds a very complicated spectrum which is exactly the spectrum of a quasar. The identity of two very complex spectra usually leads a spectroscopist to the conclusion: they are produced by the same source.

I think that the problem is answering the question "what is a galaxy ?". I am not an astrophysicist, not a specialist of mechanics, but I suggest that an extremely heavy star becomes (a supernova containing) a neutron star which gets the shape of an ellipsoid as it turns fast, and that, vibrating, this ellipsoid breaks into the quasars observed by Arp, debris remaining as the galaxy. The whole system is embedded in dirty hydrogen; as the quasars are hotter than the galagy, their radiation produces more excited atomic hydrogen in the state of principal quantum number n=2, so that they are more redshifted than the galaxy

[Star Pilot]

The whole system is embedded in dirty hydrogen; as the quasars are hotter than the galagy, their radiation produces more excited atomic hydrogen in the state of principal quantum number n=2, so that they are more redshifted than the galaxy

Quasar in Front of Galaxy

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod-ar...-of-galaxy.htm

This case seem to fit your description.But also Arp`s point of view.

[Jerry]

5)The periodicity 0.062 observed in the Lyman forest of the quasars is characteristic of hydrogen. Therefore the Ly forest is produced by CREIL in the neighbourhood of the star which, therefore is not far and big. The quasar may be a neutron star accreting a cloud of hydrogen.

According to Arp's evidence, quasars are ejected from active galaxies and thus are extragalactic objects. It would be interesting to see how CREIL would work on the larger scale of an ejected quasar. I don't see this neutron star explanation working.

Jacque's explanations clearly demonstrate a causal relationship between the apparent periodic distribution of quasars and the observed spectra. This is missing in the mainstream version, which requires 'wormy clouds' of molecular gas that somehow avoid detection through the 'transfers proximity effect'.

If is sound like I am blowing smoke up your quasar, Cougar should feel the same sensation when he reads the Ned Wright chronicles.

...This is just what happens during an inflationary epoch in the early Universe, when the expansion was driven by a large Alpha energy density in empty space (which appeared for some reason that particle physicists will understand one day!)...
The Universe is expanding, but the space within it has a flat rather than curved geometry.
Observations today suggest that we may live in a Universe with say Omega=0.3.

In other words, the existing cosmology does not work without an Alpha term that was huge during the inflation epic, hid in the corner for a while, then re-emerged as a tiny inflation factor again in the more recent past, and we do not know what it is doing today.

One must respect N.W's openess and candor, and his willingness to admit our knowledge is limited. But in my opinion, the package in which they build this cosmology lacks causal theoretical development. Who is at the controls of this is mathematical accordion playing?

[dgruss23]

5)The periodicity 0.062 observed in the Lyman forest of the quasars is characteristic of hydrogen. Therefore the Ly forest is produced by CREIL in the neighbourhood of the star which, therefore is not far and big. The quasar may be a neutron star accreting a cloud of hydrogen.

According to Arp's evidence, quasars are ejected from active galaxies and thus are extragalactic objects. It would be interesting to see how CREIL would work on the larger scale of an ejected quasar. I don't see this neutron star explanation working.

Jacque's explanations clearly demonstrate a causal relationship between the apparent periodic distribution of quasars and the observed spectra. This is missing in the mainstream version, which requires 'wormy clouds' of molecular gas that somehow avoid detection through the 'transfers proximity effect'.

I'd like to see Jacque's explanation for periodicity in QSO spectra applied to a physically plausible model for quasars. Neutron stars are not it. In Arp's model quasars are being ejected. While the mechanism for ejection is uncertain - the interpretation of ejection is consistent with the observations.

Why would evolved stars such as neutron stars suddenly be ejected from the core of a galaxy? Why do some quasars show evidence of of spiral galaxy structure . That makes sense in Arp's hypothesis because he proposes that the quasars evolve into galaxies. How does a neutron star evolve into a galaxy? How do we even see these quasars as resolved objects at the distances of the parent galaxies if they're neutron stars? A neutron star is about the size of a city - right? Where is the hydrogen gas they're accreting coming from?

Perhaps hydrogen gas can behave as Jaques modeled - but neutron stars are not consistent with this picture.

[Jerry]

Perhaps hydrogen gas can behave as Jaques modeled - but neutron stars are not consistent with this picture.

Not the neutron stars we are aware of, but the verdict is still out on accreting neutron stars in high density, gas filled environments.

Morris Anderson's wave mechanical model predicts stars have the ability to accrete extremely dense matter without collapsing into a black hole. This means some, if not most of the redshift in quasars could be due to gravitational redshift, (This is still consistent with CREIL, and even more so with Jacques modeling of the Lyman forest.)

So there is a candidate model. What is best about these models that redefine general relativity is that it is now possible to assign causality: Time is not dilated, light is slowed as it enters dense enviroments.

[Cougar]

..

.1960s: Robert Dicke re-estimates a MBR (microwave background radiation) temperature of 40K (ref: Helge Kragh)

What's your point?

The point is the temperature of the CMB was predicted by many theorists working with GR and they missed - even the "correct" prediction was off almost a full degree Kelvin...

Anyone who understands the various estimates required to "predict" the temperature of the CMB would also understand that arriving at differing values is not at all remarkable.

[vorblesnak]

Since the topic of this thread is on the outer edge of accepted science, Arp would have a hard time finding funding and time to prove it.. the previous five pages not withstanding. However, if he could pen a best seller, covering the idea in a topical manner and sell it to the public, he will have both money and acknowledgement to work with. Now he could buy his own scope, his own research equipment and explorer the idea to the fullest.

The fringe may embrace his ideas looking for conspiracy, but it is a good marketing scheme and one I am supprised more do not use.

David Davis
Toledo, OR

[Jerry]

Since the topic of this thread is on the outer edge of accepted science, Arp would have a hard time finding funding and time to prove it.. the previous five pages not withstanding. However, if he could pen a best seller, covering the idea in a topical manner and sell it to the public, he will have both money and acknowledgement to work with.

Interesting prospective. DGruss and I have spent years plowing through the papers, and although we do not always agree on how much weight to assign to each family of opinions, we can readily speak of a contempt for Arp's work by many institutional researchers that is not in the best interest of science.

Book or no book, pictures of unreddened quasars inside the halo of galaxies at lower red shifts are definitive. So is the transverse proximity effect. So are proper motions that have been measured in quasars, and so it the lack of a correlation between the periods of quasars and their presumably redshifted time variation. Any one of these factors could raise doubts in the validity of the standard model. Together they are compelling beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether or not Arp's theories can hold water is not the over-riding issue: The failed interpretation of the standard model is much more important.

[Ari Jokimaki]

Morris Anderson's wave mechanical model predicts stars have the ability to accrete extremely dense matter without collapsing into a black hole. This means some, if not most of the redshift in quasars could be due to gravitational redshift, (This is still consistent with CREIL, and even more so with Jacques modeling of the Lyman forest.)

Would these stars be big enough to be visible in extragalactic distances? After all, there are some very convincing quasar-galaxy associations, which would have to explained if quasars were local. But, of course you could explain them as coincidences, that seems to work for current mainstream, too.

Another approach would be to divide quasars to two classes; small local quasars and big extragalactic quasars. To me this seems arbitrary unless quasars exhibit some properties that naturally creates this division.

One more option is to say that galaxies are local too, but then we would be in trouble with redshift-distance relationship (and with other distance indicators).

This brings a question to my mind: If quasars show proper motion, how close they have to be? Are there proper motions seen in galaxies?

[JMB]

According to Arp's evidence, quasars are ejected from active galaxies and thus are extragalactic objects. It would be interesting to see how CREIL would work on the larger scale of an ejected quasar. I don't see this neutron star explanation working.

I'd like to see Jacque's explanation for periodicity in QSO spectra applied to a physically plausible model for quasars. Neutron stars are not it. In Arp's model quasars are being ejected. While the mechanism for ejection is uncertain - the interpretation of ejection is consistent with the observations.

Why would evolved stars such as neutron stars suddenly be ejected from the core of a galaxy? Why do some quasars show evidence of of spiral galaxy structure . That makes sense in Arp's hypothesis because he proposes that the quasars evolve into galaxies. How does a neutron star evolve into a galaxy? How do we even see these quasars as resolved objects at the distances of the parent galaxies if they're neutron stars? A neutron star is about the size of a city - right? Where is the hydrogen gas they're accreting coming from?

Perhaps hydrogen gas can behave as Jaques modeled - but neutron stars are not consistent with this picture.

The periodicity is a consequence of the propagation of a continuum spectrum, rich in UV in atomic hydrogen: The UV, absorbed at the Lyman alpha frequency produces excited atomic hydrogen in its states of principal quantum number n=2 (named H*), which shifts the light frequencies continuously, so that the absorption lines make a continuous, constant, indetectable absorption. This process stops if it happens that an absorbed line comes at the Lyman frequency. During the stop, the Lyman beta and gamma lines are absorbed strongly. The shift restarts, either by other CREIL active molecules, or by decays of more excited states which produce H*. Stops occur when the beta or gamma lines newly written are shifted to the alpha frequency, the corresponding z values being 3*0.062 and 4*0.062 (elementary spectroscopy of hydrogen). This whole process continues until it does not remain hydrogen or enough UV light.

Making the spectrum of a very hot object(1 000 000 K) in a cloud of hydrogen, I find an extremely complicated spectrum which is just the spectrum of a quasar. Such a coincidence is astonishing.
The accretors (accreting neutron stars), found by the theory of the stars which is reliable, whose visibility should be good are NEVER seen. Supposing that they are seen as quasars solves this problem.

I am not an astrophysicist, so that what follows is very hypothetic:
A very heavy star becoming a big supernova may have a kernel rotating so fast that it gets the shape of an ellipsoîd. Vibrations of this ellipsoid may break it into the similar quasars (neutron stars) observed by Arp. It remains debris in the center of the system making the galaxy. The whole system is in dirty hydrogen produced by the explosion of the supernova. As the quasars are brighter than the galaxy, they radiate more UV, generate more H*, therefore are more redshifted than the galaxy.
The whole system is not very far, almost all the redshift being produced by CREIL in H* close to the kernel.

What is a galaxy ?

[JMB]

Another approach would be to divide quasars to two classes; small local quasars and big extragalactic quasars. To me this seems arbitrary unless quasars exhibit some properties that naturally creates this division.

One more option is to say that galaxies are local too, but then we would be in trouble with redshift-distance relationship (and with other distance indicators).

This brings a question to my mind: If quasars show proper motion, how close they have to be? Are there proper motions seen in galaxies?

See my previous message to dgruss23:
I think that the quasars are close, that the redshift distance indicator does not work because H* troubles it, and I do not know what a galaxy is.

[Ari Jokimaki]

One more option is to say that galaxies are local too, but then we would be in trouble with redshift-distance relationship (and with other distance indicators).

I think that the quasars are close, that the redshift distance indicator does not work because H* troubles it,

If redshift would be the only distance indicator, then there would be no trouble, but there are other distance indicators that agree with redshift distances. So if you think that both quasars and galaxies are local, as I understand from your post to dgruss23, then in my opinion you should explain why those other distance indicators give same distances than the redshift distance. As far as I know, the distance indicators don't reach quasar distances, so I think it is possible that quasars (and other very high redshift objects) are local, but with low redshift galaxies I don't think so.

There is some discussion about distance indicators in this thread.

And this webpage has some basic information on the subject.

...and I do not know what a galaxy is.

Do you mean that you don't know what a galaxy is in your hypothesis?

[JMB]

If redshift would be the only distance indicator, then there would be no trouble, but there are other distance indicators that agree with redshift distances. So if you think that both quasars and galaxies are local, as I understand from your post to dgruss23, then in my opinion you should explain why those other distance indicators give same distances than the redshift distance. As far as I know, the distance indicators don't reach quasar distances, so I think it is possible that quasars (and other very high redshift objects) are local, but with low redshift galaxies I don't think so.

...and I do not know what a galaxy is.

Do you mean that you don't know what a galaxy is in your hypothesis?

I think that the high redshifts are produced by H*, therefore not very far from very bright objects. I think that the Hubble law applies if these high redshifts are eliminated, probably because, except close to the stars, there is a constant density of molecules (maybe H*) which provide CREIL.

There are many types of galaxies, so that, being not a specialist, I am unable to discuss about them. I think that, in Arp's alignements, the galaxy is a small, close set of stars (evidently much smaller than the enormous star which produced the system), maybe something else (a white dwarf illuminating some gas ?). Remark that I was careful about this possible interpretations of Arp's alignements.

[dgruss23]

According to Arp's evidence, quasars are ejected from active galaxies and thus are extragalactic objects. It would be interesting to see how CREIL would work on the larger scale of an ejected quasar. I don't see this neutron star explanation working.

I'd like to see Jacque's explanation for periodicity in QSO spectra applied to a physically plausible model for quasars. Neutron stars are not it. In Arp's model quasars are being ejected. While the mechanism for ejection is uncertain - the interpretation of ejection is consistent with the observations.

Why would evolved stars such as neutron stars suddenly be ejected from the core of a galaxy? Why do some quasars show evidence of of spiral galaxy structure . That makes sense in Arp's hypothesis because he proposes that the quasars evolve into galaxies. How does a neutron star evolve into a galaxy? How do we even see these quasars as resolved objects at the distances of the parent galaxies if they're neutron stars? A neutron star is about the size of a city - right? Where is the hydrogen gas they're accreting coming from?

Perhaps hydrogen gas can behave as Jaques modeled - but neutron stars are not consistent with this picture.

The periodicity is a consequence of the propagation of a continuum spectrum, rich in UV in atomic hydrogen: The UV, absorbed at the Lyman alpha frequency produces excited atomic hydrogen in its states of principal quantum number n=2 (named H*), which shifts the light frequencies continuously, so that the absorption lines make a continuous, constant, indetectable absorption. This process stops if it happens that an absorbed line comes at the Lyman frequency. During the stop, the Lyman beta and gamma lines are absorbed strongly. The shift restarts, either by other CREIL active molecules, or by decays of more excited states which produce H*. Stops occur when the beta or gamma lines newly written are shifted to the alpha frequency, the corresponding z values being 3*0.062 and 4*0.062 (elementary spectroscopy of hydrogen). This whole process continues until it does not remain hydrogen or enough UV light.

I'm intrigued by this possibility, but I'd like to see it applied to a plausible set of conditions for an ejected quasar. Neutron stars are a different phenomenon.

Making the spectrum of a very hot object(1 000 000 K) in a cloud of hydrogen, I find an extremely complicated spectrum which is just the spectrum of a quasar. Such a coincidence is astonishing.
The accretors (accreting neutron stars), found by the theory of the stars which is reliable, whose visibility should be good are NEVER seen. Supposing that they are seen as quasars solves this problem.

What theory of accretors are you referring to?

I am not an astrophysicist, so that what follows is very hypothetic:
A very heavy star becoming a big supernova may have a kernel rotating so fast that it gets the shape of an ellipsoîd. Vibrations of this ellipsoid may break it into the similar quasars (neutron stars) observed by Arp. It remains debris in the center of the system making the galaxy. The whole system is in dirty hydrogen produced by the explosion of the supernova. As the quasars are brighter than the galaxy, they radiate more UV, generate more H*, therefore are more redshifted than the galaxy.
The whole system is not very far, almost all the redshift being produced by CREIL in H* close to the kernel.

I think your scale for this phenomenon is too small. Quasars - even at local distances proposed by Arp, should be much larger than a neutron star.

What is a galaxy ?

Galaxies are gravitationally bound systems of stars, star clusters, gas, and dust. Typical large galaxies can contain hundreds of billions of stars, a few hundred globular star clusters, thousands of open star clusters, and thousands of star forming clouds (emission nebula).

[dgruss23]

If redshift would be the only distance indicator, then there would be no trouble, but there are other distance indicators that agree with redshift distances. So if you think that both quasars and galaxies are local, as I understand from your post to dgruss23, then in my opinion you should explain why those other distance indicators give same distances than the redshift distance. As far as I know, the distance indicators don't reach quasar distances, so I think it is possible that quasars (and other very high redshift objects) are local, but with low redshift galaxies I don't think so.

...and I do not know what a galaxy is.

Do you mean that you don't know what a galaxy is in your hypothesis?

I think that the high redshifts are produced by H*, therefore not very far from very bright objects. I think that the Hubble law applies if these high redshifts are eliminated, probably because, except close to the stars, there is a constant density of molecules (maybe H*) which provide CREIL.

There are many types of galaxies, so that, being not a specialist, I am unable to discuss about them. I think that, in Arp's alignements, the galaxy is a small, close set of stars (evidently much smaller than the enormous star which produced the system), maybe something else (a white dwarf illuminating some gas ?). Remark that I was careful about this possible interpretations of Arp's alignements.

Any introductory Astronomy textbook can give you a good refresher on the different types of galaxies and their sizes. Arp's parent objects proposed to be ejecting quasars are much larger than what you're proposing.

[dgruss23]

If redshift would be the only distance indicator, then there would be no trouble, but there are other distance indicators that agree with redshift distances. So if you think that both quasars and galaxies are local, as I understand from your post to dgruss23, then in my opinion you should explain why those other distance indicators give same distances than the redshift distance. As far as I know, the distance indicators don't reach quasar distances, so I think it is possible that quasars (and other very high redshift objects) are local, but with low redshift galaxies I don't think so.

Some normal galaxies do show evidence of deviations that significantly differ from the predictions of the Hubble relation. But clearly they would have much less intrinsic redshift than quasars.

[Jerry]

I can see room for both Arp and Jacques' scenarios with a few speculative assumptions:

1st assume Morris Anderson is right, or close to right, and instead of black holes, the centers of galaxies are extremely dense solitons - very large sisters of the crab nebula. Also assume the rotational energy near the galaxy core generates a whopping,
massive magnetic field.

When a highly polar extremely dense rapidly rotating neutron star falls into this vortex, it is thrust out of the galaxy core. On it's way, it is tearing up stars and building a hydrogen mass - an accreting neutron star, that when it reaches a detectable size, we see it as a quasar, redshifted by both the intrinsic mass and the CREIL process in the accreting hydrogen gas. If It can continue to find hydrogen to absorb, it grows more massive and eventually becomes the core of a new, baby blue galaxy. As the mass becomes less and less dense, the redshift we see becomes less and less. This would explain why the most massive galaxies in a cluster have the lowest net redshift: If we were still looking at the unencumbered core, it would not have changed.

Where does all the hydrogen, the primal energy to do this? Can anyone figure out how to grow the energy in this speculative assumption?
The nexis? I would prefer something that does not rely on other dimensions, but everything I can come up with has to cause a point violation in the 2d law of thermodynamics...Are galaxies constantly scavaging hydrogen from each other? Is everything winding down?

[dgruss23]

I can see room for both Arp and Jacques' scenarios with a few speculative assumptions:

I would love to see this explored. My problem is not with possibility that CREIL has something to offer. My issue is that CREIL is being applied over too small a scale to explain the various intrinsic redshift phenomenon.

When a highly polar extremely dense rapidly rotating neutron star falls into this vortex, it is thrust out of the galaxy core. On it's way, it is tearing up stars and building a hydrogen mass

I see several potentially fatal problems for this scenario. First, how is it tearing up stars? It would have to pass extremely close to the star to disturb the hydrogen envelope. Stellar collisions are not that frequent - even in dense environments. It would have to disturb a huge number of stars to account for the build-up of hydrogen in this fashion. And is it able to carry the hydrogen with it at ejection velocities of 0.1c?

But there are outflows of hydrogen from galaxies ... perhaps this would be a better source of the hydrogen.

- an accreting neutron star, that when it reaches a detectable size, we see it as a quasar, redshifted by both the intrinsic mass and the CREIL process in the accreting hydrogen gas. If It can continue to find hydrogen to absorb, it grows more massive and eventually becomes the core of a new, baby blue galaxy.

It would take a tremendous amount of mass to account for the development of a galaxy. I don't think accretion is the answer. It still seems that Arp's matter creation hypothesis is required.

As the mass becomes less and less dense, the redshift we see becomes less and less. This would explain why the most massive galaxies in a cluster have the lowest net redshift: If we were still looking at the unencumbered core, it would not have changed.

ScI galaxies are some of the most massive galaxies in clusters - and they have the largest excess redshifts in clusters such as Virgo. I'm interested in Jacque's CREIL because it involves hydrogen gas. But he's got to get on to demonstrating how it would work on the scale of a full sized spiral galaxy because there is evidence for intrinsic redshifts on that scale too. What is known is that Sc spirals are generally more gas rich than Sa/Sb galaxies. If hydrogen is part of the intrinsic redshifting, then it is not surprising that ScI galaxies have the most excess reshift. But Jacques needs to show that this could work.

[Star Pilot]

I can see room for both Arp and Jacques' scenarios with a few speculative assumptions:

I would love to see this explored. My problem is not with possibility that CREIL has something to offer. My issue is that CREIL is being applied over too small a scale to explain the various intrinsic redshift phenomenon.

Here something to consider....
LaViolette proposes that quasars and blazars are the bright cores of spiral galaxies in which the light from the core is so bright that it masks the dimmer light coming from the galaxy's disk.

He suggests that quasars and blazars are essentially the same core explosion phenomenon that is seen in Seyfert galaxies and N-galaxies.
This was verified ...
in 1982 a group of astronomers had resolved galactic light fuzz around quasar 3C273 using a special imaging technique
Edited:
Images from Hubble telescope
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/HST/Quasars/3c273.html

Edited ( I have stated incorrectly than it have the greatest redshift observed wich is wrong.)
Corrected sentence:
As you know this Quasar is the optically-brightest quasar in our sky (m ~ 12.9), and one of the closest with a redshift, z, of 0.16.
Source
http://www.all-science-fair-projects...clopedia/3C273

http://www.google.com/search?q=quasa...8&oe=utf-8

So lets apply CREIL effect to a special class of very active core of Seyfert galaxie.
Possible scenario:
The core ( Quasar) is so bright because of the interaction with hydrogen.
When the hydrogen is consumed the Quasar loose gradually his hight luminosity and redshift (caused by CREIL effect) and became visible as a ordinary Seyfert Galaxie.

This scenario don`t need the ejection phenomena and don`t need the new matter creation like proposed by Arp.

[dgruss23]

Another approach would be to divide quasars to two classes; small local quasars and big extragalactic quasars. To me this seems arbitrary unless quasars exhibit some properties that naturally creates this division.

Interestingly there was one early paper that discussed the possibility of two quasar classes...but it appears little came of it.

[JMB]

So lets apply CREIL effect to a special class of very active core of Seyfert galaxie.
Possible scenario:
The core ( Quasar) is so bright because of the interaction with hydrogen.
When the hydrogen is consumed the Quasar loose gradually his hight luminosity and redshift (caused by CREIL effect) and became visible as a ordinary Seyfert Galaxie.

This scenario don`t need the ejection phenomena and don`t need the new matter creation like proposed by Arp.

I am happy that you, Jerry and others who know much more astrophysics than me, take the CREIL into account to obtain explanations without new, strange physical laws.

[Star Pilot]

So lets apply CREIL effect to a special class of very active core of Seyfert galaxie.
Possible scenario:
The core ( Quasar) is so bright because of the interaction with hydrogen.
When the hydrogen is consumed the Quasar loose gradually his hight luminosity and redshift (caused by CREIL effect) and became visible as a ordinary Seyfert Galaxie.

This scenario don`t need the ejection phenomena and don`t need the new matter creation like proposed by Arp.

I am happy that you, Jerry and others who know much more astrophysics than me, take the CREIL into account to obtain explanations without new, strange physical laws.

You are welcome.Note than I would be glad if you mention my name in a possible futur paper about the scenario I propose. :wink:
_______________
Donald Jean

[JMB]

You are welcome.Note than I would be glad if you mention my name in a possible futur paper about the scenario I propose.

OK, but It becomes more and more difficult to publish on the CREIL. Even arXiv rejects the papers now.