More from Arp et al.

[antoniseb]

Here's a link to a paper from Halton Arp et al. about the 'periodicity' of quasar redshifts taken from 2dF and SDSS surveys.
Periodicities of Quasar Redshifts in Large Area Surveys

Personally, I don't think he made a strong case for what he's claiming, but as you know I think his whole line of reasoning about quasars is wrong.

[Paul21]

Their hypotesis is in agreement with the theory of interaction. But what is the cause of
ejection. Are these galaxies disturbed by recent collisions with other galaxies?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Paul21@Jan 7 2005, 02:32 PM
But what is the cause of ejection.

Arp et al. say they are simply ejected from 'active galactic nuclei'. They do not give a cause, or make a claim as to what makes a galactic nucleus 'active'. As I've said before, main stream astronomers have many good observations strongly suggesting that quasars are extremely active galactic nuclei themselves, and are at cosmological distances. Arp's model contains many self-contradictions, and claims that are repudiated by observation.

[VanderL]

Arp's model contains many self-contradictions, and claims that are repudiated by observation.

Really? Could you name some of them?

Cheers.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jan 7 2005, 05:27 PM
Could you name some of them?

I assume that you mean "could I list some of them", as these are not the sort of things thaqt acquire names.

For starters there is the fact that quasars ar seen to be in the center of galaxies with redshifts exactly matching the galaxy, yet Arp et. al say that quasars are emitted from galaxies and have an intrinsic redshift vastly different from the "host galaxy".

Arp ignores quasars with observed host galaxies, because they do not fit his outside-the-box model.

[Duane]

Another is his contention that "many" quasars are seen to be aligned with low redshift galaxies. A silly comment because there are literally billions of galaxies, so of course some will appear to be aligned with distant quasars. Further while "many" might like that way, "most" do not.

Arp's biggest failing, IMHO, is his reliance on 2-dimensional images to support a premise requiring three dimensions. He can say "it looks like" all he wants, but it does not change the fact that he has no other objective evidence to support his contention.

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by antoniseb@Jan 7 2005, 05:54 PM
For starters there is the fact that quasars ar seen to be in the center of galaxies with redshifts exactly matching the galaxy, yet Arp et. al say that quasars are emitted from galaxies and have an intrinsic redshift vastly different from the "host galaxy".

Arp ignores quasars with observed host galaxies, because they do not fit his silly model.

That's a common misconception. See here:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-bib_...417276a6f017562

Arp contends that quasars evolve into normal galaxies. The quasar is the nucleus of this evolving galaxy in his model just as in the standard model. Seeing surrounding galaxy structure is expected. He's not ignoring it.

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 06:00 PM
Another is his contention that "many" quasars are seen to be aligned with low redshift galaxies. A silly comment because there are literally billions of galaxies, so of course some will appear to be aligned with distant quasars. Further while "many" might like that way, "most" do not.

Arp's biggest failing, IMHO, is his reliance on 2-dimensional images to support a premise requiring three dimensions. He can say "it looks like" all he wants, but it does not change the fact that he has no other objective evidence to support his contention.

This is another common misconception. First, Arp is arguing that quasars are intrinsically low luminosity which means that most of the observed quasars must be local (within 100 Mpc - at least prior to surveys like SDSS) in his model. So you don't have billions of galaxies to choose from. You have the local sample.

Second, Arp model makes a very specific prediction - active galaxies such as Seyferts and starbursts should dominate the population of low redshift parent galaxies associated with ejected quasars - and that's what his results show. If you read his papers you find that the vast majority of his examples involve active galaxies.

The mainstream suffers from the opposite failing of what you're accusing Arp of - relying on a assumption (redshift = distance) that creates a 3-dimensional interpretation which may in fact be contradicted by the observations.

[Paul21]

"Arp contends that quasars evolve into normal galaxies. The quasar is the nucleus of this evolving galaxy in his model just as in the standard model. Seeing surrounding galaxy structure is expected. He's not ignoring it."

It very interesting how Arp and Savov come to similar models while walking in qualitatively different parts. There is has to something much more deep here than pure game of chance.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by DGR@Jan 7 2005, 06:11 PM
The mainstream suffers from the opposite failing of what you're accusing Arp of - relying on a assumption (redshift = distance) that creates a 3-dimensional interpretation which may in fact be contradicted by the observations.

First, there are no observations that contradict the correlation between redshift and distance.

Second, I assume that in this case you are referring only to quasars, and not to galaxies, when you suggest that there is some discrepency between redshift and distance. Quasars being Arp's biggest obvious difference from main-stream astronomers. Certainly there is very consistent and powerful evidence that galaxies have a very tight correlation between redshift and distance. This includes the galaxies that host quasars, such as 3C273.

So, the redshift=distance assumption [as you call it] is well tested and very reliable. This is very different from Arp's [it looks like...] assumptions.

[Duane]

This is another common misconception. First, Arp is arguing that quasars are intrinsically low luminosity which means that most of the observed quasars must be local (within 100 Mpc - at least prior to surveys like SDSS) in his model. So you don't have billions of galaxies to choose from. You have the local sample.

No, this is a common failing of Arp and those who support him. It is the argument of intrinsically low luminosity that is not supported by any of his research to date. These also leads to a failure in logic. Arp contends that QSO's show low luminousity, then shows two-dimensional images which he contends show association between QSO's and low reshift galaxies, then says see, this is why the QSO'as are low luminousity. (Josh, in the EU thread, gave a latin saying for this which fits perfectly) Arp is using his premise to arrive at a conclusion when the premise itself is the thing which is being argued.

Second, Arp model makes a very specific prediction - active galaxies such as Seyferts and starbursts should dominate the population of low redshift parent galaxies associated with ejected quasars - and that's what his results show. If you read his papers you find that the vast majority of his examples involve active galaxies.

Yes, but the "vast majority" of his models are based on a very small sampling of the objects in the sky. Furthermore, he does not address many more objects that do not show the association he claims for those objects he does include. Finally, the association he makes is still based on his initial premise, taken as true, that there is an association--a premise that he has not provided convincing evidence to support.

The mainstream suffers from the opposite failing of what you're accusing Arp of - relying on a assumption (redshift = distance) that creates a 3-dimensional interpretation which may in fact be contradicted by the observations.

Except that the "mainstream" as you put it, have shown convincing evidence that the redshift = distance correlation is strong. While it does remain a theory, in that the objects discussed are too far away to get a parallax measurement to prove it, the series of "standard candles" used by astronomers to get out to several hundreds of millions of light years do support the redshift contention out to that distance. Arp has no such quantifying support for his theory.

[VanderL]

I assume that you mean "could I list some of them", as these are not the sort of things thaqt acquire names.

Sorry, as I explained earlier, English is not my native language.

For starters there is the fact that quasars ar seen to be in the center of galaxies with redshifts exactly matching the galaxy, yet Arp et. al say that quasars are emitted from galaxies and have an intrinsic redshift vastly different from the "host galaxy".

There is no contradiction in Arp's model.

Arp ignores quasars with observed host galaxies

In Arp's model quasars evolve into galaxies, where is the problem with host galaxies?

"many" quasars are seen to be aligned with low redshift galaxies.

Wrong, the quasars are aligned across a specific type of galaxy (Seyfert/disturbed galaxies), you don't seem to know what the model is about apparently.

Arp's biggest failing, IMHO, is his reliance on 2-dimensional images to support a premise requiring three dimensions.

We would all like to have more 3-D information, but Arp's model does not rely on 2-D images where did you get that idea? The distances to the parent galaxy of the individual quasars of a quasar pair can show if the axis of alignment is offset, I suggest you read more of his work.

He can say "it looks like" all he wants, but it does not change the fact that he has no other objective evidence to support his contention.

Again, read his work,

have fun.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jan 7 2005, 06:30 PM

because they do not fit his outside-the-box model.

Are you going to start this crap again? I strongly object to these kind of qualifications.

I have changed the post.
It is difficult to not be dismissive of Arp's model.

Again, read his work

I have read a represntative sample. I am entertained by his methods and disagree strongly with his conclusions.

[Duane]

Are you going to start this crap again? I strongly object to these kind of qualifications.

Get over it. I agree with Antoniseb on this--Arp's model is silly to those who take the time to review it in detail. The quantification fits, it is not a personal attack, and it's inclusion in the sentence states an opinion.

It is also my opinion that the theory is a load of bunkum, and is beyond silly.

In Arp's model quasars evolve into galaxies, where is the problem with host galaxies?

Ok, pay attention here. Arp says that QSO's are close, display low luminosity, and are ejected by nearby active galaxies. Images of QSO's with their actual associated galaxies show equal redshifts between the QSO and the associated galaxy, none of which are close. Now, does that make the problem obvious, or should I add more to help make it clearer?

We would all like to have more 3-D information, but Arp's model does not rely on 2-D images where did you get that idea? The distances to the parent galaxy of the individual quasars of a quasar pair can show if the axis of alignment is offset, I suggest you read more of his work.

See VanderL, this is a personal shot, and I take exception to it. You and I, with a host of others of course, have been discussing Arp's silly model for months now. Do you really think I haven't read the drivel he puts out to support it?

Not to make to fine a point on it, but you are wrong. Arp's only support are 2d images he has obtained, which he says show an association. There is no other quantitative support for his model

If there is VanderL, please point it out to me.

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 06:28 PM
No, this is a common failing of Arp and those who support him. It is the argument of intrinsically low luminosity that is not supported by any of his research to date. These also leads to a failure in logic. Arp contends that QSO's show low luminousity, then shows two-dimensional images which he contends show association between QSO's and low reshift galaxies, then says see, this is why the QSO'as are low luminousity. (Josh, in the EU thread, gave a latin saying for this which fits perfectly) Arp is using his premise to arrive at a conclusion when the premise itself is the thing which is being argued.

No, that's an improper characterization. Arp did not start with the premise that quasars are low intrinsic luminosity. That is an implication of his model. If they're nearby, then given their observed magnitudes - they're low luminosity.

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 06:28 PM
Yes, but the "vast majority" of his models are based on a very small sampling of the objects in the sky. Furthermore, he does not address many more objects that do not show the association he claims for those objects he does include. Finally, the association he makes is still based on his initial premise, taken as true, that there is an association--a premise that he has not provided convincing evidence to support.

I can't help you if you look at examples like NGC 7603 and NEQ3 and then claim that there is no convincing evidence that he's provided a scientifically viable scenario. Arp's been accused of falling into a trap of letting his eyes deceive him. It seems to me that in some cases, the mainstream position is allowing its theoretical expectations to deceive it. Intellectual self deception is no less plausible than sensory self deception.

[VanderL]

Antoniseb:
I have changed the post.

Thanks, much appreciated.

Cheers.

[Duane]

Originally posted by DGR@Jan 7 2005, 06:46 PM
No, that's an improper characterization. Arp did not start with the premise that quasars are low intrinsic luminosity. That is an implication of his model. If they're nearby, then given their observed magnitudes - they're low luminosity.

How else can I put this, except to say that you are dead wrong. Arp was imaging QSO's and noted a couple of them "seemed" to be associated with nearer (not nearby, btw) galaxies. He then went looking specifically for other images which he felt might also show an association.

So, he saw something he thought was odd, proposed a theory for the oddness, then set out to find examples of the theory he composed. In the process, he ignored several other lines of research which added weight to the redshift = distance theory, and has provided no evidence excepting images since.

I agree, if the objects are nearby, they are low luminosity. I do not agree, however, that they are nearby and I find the evidence of such an association as provided by Arp wholly unconvincing.

[VanderL]

Ok, pay attention here. Arp says that QSO's are close, display low luminosity, and are ejected by nearby active galaxies. Images of QSO's with their actual associated galaxies show equal redshifts between the QSO and the associated galaxy, none of which are close.

I did, and I don't know what you are saying.

Cheers.

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 06:28 PM
Except that the "mainstream" as you put it, have shown convincing evidence that the redshift = distance correlation is strong. While it does remain a theory, in that the objects discussed are too far away to get a parallax measurement to prove it, the series of "standard candles" used by astronomers to get out to several hundreds of millions of light years do support the redshift contention out to that distance. Arp has no such quantifying support for his theory.

Why - "as you put it"? That's what it is. Either something is the mainstream concensus theory or its not.

There is quantifying support for large deviations from the redshift distance relation - derived directly from standard candles. But to go into that will involve an investment in time that I don't have right now.

But let me add, that the basic picture in Arp's model is an underlying cosmological redshift component (defined by some value of the Hubble Constant) for which redshift increases with distance, with a superimposed intrinsic redshift component. So Arp accepts that the greater the distance, the greater its redshift. But he's suggesting that the intrinsic component can be large enough to produce false distances if it be assumed that the entire redshift component is cosmological.

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by Duane+Jan 7 2005, 06:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Duane &#064; Jan 7 2005, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-DGR@Jan 7 2005, 06:46 PM
No, that&#39;s an improper characterization.* Arp did not start with the premise that quasars are low intrinsic luminosity.* That is an implication of his model.* If they&#39;re nearby, then given their observed magnitudes - they&#39;re low luminosity.

How else can I put this, except to say that you are dead wrong. Arp was imaging QSO&#39;s and noted a couple of them "seemed" to be associated with nearer (not nearby, btw) galaxies. He then went looking specifically for other images which he felt might also show an association.

So, he saw something he thought was odd, proposed a theory for the oddness, then set out to find examples of the theory he composed. In the process, he ignored several other lines of research which added weight to the redshift = distance theory, and has provided no evidence excepting images since.

I agree, if the objects are nearby, they are low luminosity. I do not agree, however, that they are nearby and I find the evidence of such an association as provided by Arp wholly unconvincing. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps Duane, you could clarify which component of my quote above is "dead wrong"? You claimed Arp&#39;s premise is that quasars are low luminosity and on that basis he seeks evidence supporting the premise that they&#39;re low luminosity. On that you were dead wrong. Arp&#39;s basis for concluding quasars are low luminosity is a natural result of his interpretation of observations indicating they are local.

Since you are agreeing that we&#39;re they nearby, they would be low luminosity, I&#39;m mystified as to what you find to be "dead wrong" about the quote you&#39;ve selected.

[Duane]

Originally posted by VanderL@Jan 7 2005, 06:58 PM
I did, and I don&#39;t know what you are saying.

Cheers.

No problem, I&#39;ll try again.

Arp says QSO&#39;s are associated with objects that show a lower redshift. Those QSO&#39;s that have been resolved to the point where the host galaxy that they are associated with has also been resolved have all (as in each and every one) shown an agreed redshift.

There has not been one single instance of a QSO and the galaxy it is associated with which shows a difference in redshift, nor have any of them been closer than about z=/> 1.5.

If Arp&#39;s theory had any substance at all, there would be a least one QSO and its associated galaxy as close as the Seyfert galaxies Arp claims eject these things, somewhere in the sky.

See the problem yet, or do I need to add more?

[Duane]

DGR, sorry if I am not being clear. Arp is using his premise to prove his premise. To say that he is doing it differently is dead wrong.

[Paul21]

Harp&#39;s observations [1] are consistent with fundamental similarity across the scales of the universe.


"Evidence that companion galaxies are located along the minor axes of large disk galaxies is reviewed. It is reported here that quasars also tend to be preferentially aligned along the minor axes of active disk galaxies. Empirically there is a continuity of physical properties which suggests that the intrinsic redshifts of quasars decay as they evolve into more normal galaxies. The coincident alignment of companion galaxies plus their systematically higher redshifts then both become confirmation of their evolution from quasars which have been previously ejected along the minor axes of active spiral galaxies. The quantization of the redshifts of companions also supports their evolutionary origin from the quantized, intrinsic, quasar redshifts. [1]"

1. http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journ...36745/36745.pdf

Matter in form of polar wind lives planets along their minor axes. If Arp is right then there should be companion stars ejected from the much larger one. Are there any?

I wonder how one can argue against the fundamental similarity across the scales of
the universe, which very frequently observed and explained in Savov&#39;s theory of interaction and.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by DGR@Jan 7 2005, 06:59 PM
There is quantifying support for large deviations from the redshift distance relation - derived directly from standard candles.

It depends on what you mean by &#39;large&#39;. If you are talking about a few percent when discussing the closest galaxies where cluster gravitation provides an important component of velocity, then OK. But if you mean large in relation to the cosmic expansion, you are either mistaken, or reading fiction.

[Paul21]

"There is quantifying support for large deviations from the redshift distance relation - derived directly from standard candles."

Can you post a link to this?

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by Duane+Jan 7 2005, 07:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Duane @ Jan 7 2005, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-VanderL@Jan 7 2005, 06:58 PM
I did, and I don&#39;t know what you are saying.

Cheers.

No problem, I&#39;ll try again.

Arp says QSO&#39;s are associated with objects that show a lower redshift. Those QSO&#39;s that have been resolved to the point where the host galaxy that they are associated with has also been resolved have all (as in each and every one) shown an agreed redshift.

There has not been one single instance of a QSO and the galaxy it is associated with which shows a difference in redshift, nor have any of them been closer than about z=/> 1.5.

If Arp&#39;s theory had any substance at all, there would be a least one QSO and its associated galaxy as close as the Seyfert galaxies Arp claims eject these things, somewhere in the sky.

See the problem yet, or do I need to add more? [/b][/quote]
Duane, Arp is saying that QSO&#39;s are ejected from active galaxies. In his model as the quasars evolve - they become normal galaxies. He expects that the galactic material surrounding a quasar will have the same redshift as the quasar nucleus - because its all ejected material in his model&#33;

You&#39;ve created an expectation for Arp&#39;s model (quasar and surrounding galaxy should have different redshift) that isn&#39;t an expectation of Arp&#39;s model.

Now you think he&#39;s wrong - that&#39;s fine. I could care less whether you think he&#39;s right or not. But your characterization of what he is saying is incorrect. If you&#39;ll notice I&#39;m not wasting my time trying to convince you he&#39;s right. I&#39;m simply clarifying for you where you&#39;ve incorrectly interpreted what he is saying.

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 07:14 PM
DGR, sorry if I am not being clear. Arp is using his premise to prove his premise. To say that he is doing it differently is dead wrong.

How about an example of Arp doing this?

[dgruss23]

Originally posted by antoniseb+Jan 7 2005, 07:58 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (antoniseb @ Jan 7 2005, 07:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-DGR@Jan 7 2005, 06:59 PM
There is quantifying support for large deviations from the redshift distance relation - derived directly from standard candles.

It depends on what you mean by &#39;large&#39;. If you are talking about a few percent when discussing the closest galaxies where cluster gravitation provides an important component of velocity, then OK. But if you mean large in relation to the cosmic expansion, you are either mistaken, or reading fiction. [/b][/quote]
I&#39;m not talking about cluster velocity dispersions. And I&#39;m not mistaken, and I&#39;m not talking about fiction. And I have my reasons for saying no more about it at this time. Since you think all this is "silly" anyway, there&#39;s really no need for you to worry about it.

[Duane]

He expects that the galactic material surrounding a quasar will have the same redshift as the quasar nucleus - because its all ejected material in his model&#33;

You&#39;ve created an expectation for Arp&#39;s model (quasar and surrounding galaxy should have different redshift) that isn&#39;t an expectation of Arp&#39;s model.

Hold on a minute. That is not what I got out of the 5 or so articles I have read by Arp, although going back and looking a couple again, I suppose you have a literal point.

It leads to a an illogical conclusion though, because part of Arp&#39;s argument is that once the QSO has become a "normal" galaxy, it no longer displys the extreme redshift seen when it was a QSO. In other words, it shows redshift equal to its "actual" distance from the MW.

So even if you accept the argument that the red-shifted galactic material shows an equal redshift to the QSO because of its association to the QSO, it still begs the question, where are the transitional phases? I also find it highly suspect that when an image of a QSO with a galactic host is produced, the only reply from the Arp camp is that it is associated with the QSO.

Now you think he&#39;s wrong - that&#39;s fine. I could care less whether you think he&#39;s right or not. But your characterization of what he is saying is incorrect. If you&#39;ll notice I&#39;m not wasting my time trying to convince you he&#39;s right. I&#39;m simply clarifying for you where you&#39;ve incorrectly interpreted what he is saying.

To be perfectly frank, I don&#39;t know if he is wrong. What I do know is that he gives almost no factual underlying basis for the arguments that he makes. Worse, he fends off critiques of his ideas by saying "well it looks like..." and essentially nothing else. Even his staunchest supporters point to exactly the same evidence--that is, such and such an image looks like it is A, therefore A must be right.

Well excuse my skepticity, but I see much more diverse and factual evidence from the redshift researchers providing evidence beyond just "it looks like".

How about an example of Arp doing this?

His whole method is based on this. He says, this image looks like blah blah blah. Now looking at this image, it looks like blah blah blah. Now because I know that A is right, it is clear from the images that A is right.