Red shift measurements threaten Big Bang

So are you saying that the bridge between stellar objects is never evidence they are close.

What do you mean by active galactic nuclei.

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question quasars.

__________________
Micaiah

Active galactic nuclei = the active nucleus of galaxies. I'm not sure how to put it any more simply.

I'm trying to work this out.

Arp claims that the galaxy has redshift X, indicating velocity A relative to the earth.

The quasar has redshift Y, indicating velocity B relative to the earth.

Y is many times larger than X - 12 times, according to AiG, so B is many times larger than A.

It follows that the quasar and the galaxy are moving apart at 11/12 of B.

Yet there's a bridge between them, he claims. How is this bridge being maintained when these bodies are seperating so fast?

I'm sure Arp has an answer for this, but from what AiG have presented, I can't see an obvious one. Most strange.

__________________


And the pledge and the vow as you find if you seek
But what if you try and find nothing but bleak?

When faith lost its promise I stood there deep blue

Active Galactic Nuclei = galaxy with a central massive black hole that is actively accreting gas and emitting radiationClassification of the various AGN depends on the anount of emission and the viewing angle we observe the AGN. If we see the AGN at low inclinations then it is a Seyfert galaxy of type I or type II depending on the spectral lines we see. If we see the AGN nearly face on then it is usually termed a quasar. Also quasars are usually when the accretion is more active and the luminosity is larger. Quasars are also much more prevalent in the early universe. There is a huge peak in the space density of quasars at a redshift of approx. 3 which corresponds to 10-11 billion years ago.

Arp's contention has always been that the redshifts indicated by quasars are partially cosmic in nature (a la Hubbles law) and partially intrinsic caused by some other mechanism such as gravity. Thus he argues that quasars are objects emitted by galaxies and are nearby to them but their discrepant redshifts as compared to the nearby galaxy is caused by this extra redshift they have by their exotic nature (i.e. strong gravitational field or some unknown mechanism). Thus his search for quasar galaxy pairs joined by bridges of luminous matter or the statistical coincidence of bright galaxies and nearby quasars that he says are not chance alignments as standard cosmologists believe but are real associations that prove that quasars have false redshifts and are not much farther away.

The problems of this are several fold and the reason Arp has become almost ostracised by the astrophysical community:

1) The so called bridges upon investigation have turned out to be false indicators. The most famous examples (mentioned in the AIG link on page 1 of this thread) are known not to be connecting bridges. It is chance alignment of a distant quasar being behind a tail of luminous matter of the foreground galaxy. On more detailed modern observation the luminous bridges are seen to pass beyond the quasar. Nowadays the host galaxy of these quasars is observable and it too has the quasar redshift and not that of the foreground galaxy and luminous "bridge".

2) As for the statistical analyses of quasar/galaxy alignments Arp just flat out did the statistics wrong. This has been shown time and time again by other observers. This is why Arp is really not taken seriously anymore. His arguments are 25 years old and the community feels his arguments have been so refuted they are looked at as silly.

3) The most common argument for the extra redshift intrinsic to the object that Arp requires is gravitational redshift. He cannot have it be velocity related since there are no blueshifts from objects ejected along our direction that you would see if quasars were just small objects ejected at high speed from a galaxy.

4) The problem with the gravitational explanation is that from general relativity there is no stable object with an intrinsic redshift greater than 0.5 possible. This is a direct consequence of the equations of state for relativistic matter. Greater than 0.5 implies it becomes a black hole. Thus a quasar with a redshift of 5 still needs 4.5 of that to be cosmological which still means it is very distant.

5) Another fact to bear in mind with quasars is that in the cases where the host galaxy is observed no host galaxy and quasar are observed to have different redshifts. They are always the same.

6) In the well known cases of gravitational lensing of quasars by an intermediate galaxy every single example has the intermediate galaxy with a lesser redshift then the quasar. Not a single discrepant case.

In short, the cosmological argument for quasar distances holds up and the Arp model does not, it's really that simple. Thats enough typing but there are many other arguments I could list (for several pages I don't want to type) that support the standard view of quasars and do not support the Arp hypotheses.

The same thing I do when most historians assert that the Inquisition, pogroms and centuries of atrocities by Christians proves that Christianity does not contain the truth. I point out that their conclusions regarding the evidence are wrong, even though the evidence itself is true.

You seem to want to continue equating evolution with atheism, no matter how many times you are shown that this is not true. The fact that there are atheists who accept evolution does not mean that evolution is atheistic.

There are atheists who believe in photosynthesis, should we conclude that photosynthesis does not occur?

__________________
In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different Interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. - St. Augustine, in his analysis of Genesis.

There is a big difference between the process of photosynthesis and the notion that 'scientist evolved from slime', in case you hadn't noticed. If you are unable to accept that, further discussion on the topic is futile.

__________________
Micaiah

Amalthea

Please provide references for your assertions. Are these your own words? If so, congratulations on a well written post.

__________________
Micaiah

Yes I wrote it off the cuff that is why no references. I shall be back tonight with some.

So you're saying the bridge exists, but doesn't connect to the galaxy in question.

Here is a link to a web site with discussion on the topic. The name of the site is Halton Arp. Not sure if this is supported by the man himself though.

http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts&ArticleId=6

The photograph of shows the alleged bridge between NGC4319 and the quasar Markarian 205. I'm no astronomer, but it appears to me a natural conclusion from the photograph images. It seems a bit coincidental that the bridge should be linked to something behind the galaxy.

__________________
Micaiah

Micaiah I shall provide up to date info on this stuff tonight. Older images can be misleading. Not only that there are other reasons why these "bridges" are not links.

The above site makes the following claim:
http://www.haltonarp.com/?Page=Abstracts

That would indicate that the comments are from the man in question.

__________________
Micaiah