Modern Cosmology: Science or Folktale?

Tiberius said:

Then I assume that he has provided an explanation for why these two objects have vastly different redshifts? If it isn't related to the distance from earth or how fast they are moving away from earth, what does cause it?

Click to expand...

Well, the fact that inherent redshift exist, and that two, and sometimes four, vastly different redshifted objects physically interact with each other, falsifies the big bang:




But in response to your question, the article on 'Redshift' gave the explanation:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"The observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object ([/FONT]like mass or charge, and can change over time)[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]...[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of a quasar's total redshift.[/FONT]"

laconicstudent said:

I'm still waiting to see a reliable source for this electric universe nonsense

Click to expand...

Evidently you are thinking that peer-reviews on big bang cosmology is a reliable source. It isn't. It is just consensus ignorance --> .

Thistlethorn said:

That is called "gravitational lensing". It occurs because the gravitational force of the object is so massive that it bends light. This is exactly what falsified Arp's original hypothesis. Thanks for bringing it to light.

Click to expand...

Gravitational Lensing?--Yeah, right.

Gravitational lensing became fashionable when astronomers discovered an excess number of quasars around bright galaxies. They argued that the quasars, which were assumed to appear faint because they were distant, became visible due to the bending of light by the gravity of the nearby bright galaxy. Every quasar in the vicinity of a galaxy could then be attributed to multiple lensed images of only one distant quasar, reducing the excess of quasars to an acceptable number. (Of course, this subterfuge was never tested.)

Arp wrote, "When I heard that the gravitational microlensing calculations required a steep increase of quasar numbers with fainter apparent magnitudes, …I protested that the observed numbers flattened off as they became fainter." Arp's schema predicts that quasars will be distributed in the same way as bright nearby galaxies. He found that the match was "extraordinarily good" and "even the details fit well." His paper* detailing his analysis "lists five independent reasons why gravitational lensing cannot account for the excess number of quasars around bright galaxies. But most decisively, it demonstrates that the observed number counts for quasars can only be accounted for by their physical association with bright nearby galaxies." * Astronomy and Astrophysics, 229, 93, 1990.

The most celebrated case of "gravitational lensing" is that known (for obvious reasons) as the Einstein Cross.


>>Credit for dated inserts: Geraint Lewis and Michael Irwin, William Hershel Telescope [Click on image to enlarge]

In the mid-1980's, astronomers discovered these four quasars, with redshifts about z = 1.7, buried deep in the heart of a galaxy with a low redshift of z = .04. (The central spot in this image is not the whole galaxy but only the brightest part of the galaxy's nucleus.) When first discovered, the high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low redshift galaxy caused a panic. To save the redshift/distance conviction, gravitational lensing had to be invoked despite Fred Hoyle's calculation that the probability of such a lensing event was less than two chances in a million!

A change in brightness of the quasars was observed over a period of three years. Arp's explanation is that the galaxy has ejected four quasars, which are growing brighter with age as they move farther from the nucleus. The lensing explanation is that the bending of the light varies when individual stars pass in front of the quasar. If the lensing explanation were correct, the quasars should brighten briefly and then fade as the star moves out of alignment.


>> Hubble Space Telescope picture, in false color, of the Einstein Cross. At the wavelength of redshifted hydrogen Lyman alpha emission there is connecting material between the quasar D and the central galaxy core.

With access to the primary data, Arp was able to show (above) that the high-redshift quasar was connected to the nucleus of the low redshift galaxy. The image shows trails of material from ejection and the tendency for orthogonal ejection from the parent galaxy.


>> Theoretical calculations by Peter Schneider et al. of what gravitationally lensed quasars should look like. If resolved, the luminous isophotes should be extended by a factor of 4 or 5 to one along a circumference.

Instead of being extended along the circumference, the well resolved quasars are extended toward the galactic nucleus. They are not gravitationally lensed images.


In the image purported to provide "direct proof" of dark matter, the blue fuzz superimposed on the telescopic images was drawn to reflect the distribution of matter required to provide sufficient gravity to distort the images of background objects to form arcs...

But arcs are a natural phenomenon in clusters of galaxies. It was the high redshifts of the arcs that mandated the notion that they must be gravitationally lensed distant background objects. However, Arp realized that very small, nearby Abell galaxy clusters, that also exhibit arcs, had such low mass that it was impossible for them to act as a gravitational lens. He also mentions that a casual inspection shows that some of the arcs look like an ejected shell. But the shock comes when we see that some of the arcs are radial and not tangential!

Arp concludes from his observations that "active galaxies eject high redshift quasars and also eject diffuse material, some of which is in the form of arcs." The radial jets and tangential arcs have nothing to do with gravity and dark matter[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]

Dark_Lite said:

....

?

Click to expand...

Gravitational Lensing Used As Excuse Again

Recognizing the electrical behavior of plasma restores sensibility to a science dominated by “dark ideas” about undetectable (and therefore unscientific) matter.

Over 99% of the matter in the universe is in the form of plasma—aggregates of matter that contain charged particles. The charged particles move in response to electromagnetic forces, which can overpower gravity billions of times over. Through collisions, the charged particles carry neutral particles along with them. A very few charged particles can shape large amounts of matter into characteristic forms such as filaments, arcs and toruses. The electric currents flowing through plasma can heat it to high temperatures and accelerate particles to x-ray and cosmic-ray energies.

Unfortunately, the established institutions of astronomy are willfully blind to the existence of electricity in the universe. And so they must try to explain plasma phenomena with the weak force of gravity. Because there isn’t enough matter in the universe to accomplish this, astronomers have had to fantasize invisible, “dark” matter and energy.



In this image of Abell 1689, a cluster of small, faint galaxies in the Virgo Cluster, active galaxies have generated arcs of plasma with high redshifts, indicative of a young age for the highly excited material. Because conventional theory requires redshift to be solely a measure of distance, conventional astronomers are forced to believe that the arcs represent objects that are much farther away than the cluster. The only way to accomplish this with gravity is to have the cluster act as a lens that distorts objects behind the cluster as it warps those objects’ light around the cluster.

The caption to this image that appeared in the Astronomy Picture of the Day admitted: “The power of this enormous gravitational lens depends on its mass, but the visible matter, in the form of the cluster's yellowish galaxies, only accounts for about one percent of the mass needed to make the observed bluish arcing images of background galaxies. In fact, most of the gravitational mass required to warp space enough to explain this cosmic scale lensing is in the form of still mysterious dark matter.”

Because they refuse to see that 99% of the visible matter is plasma that defies their dogma, conventional astronomers must pretend that 99% of the matter is invisible but "dogmatically correct."

Dark_Lite said:

So, lightning bolts cause the visual effects of gravitational lensing. That's new.

Click to expand...

That's because not many people have taken the time to study Plasma Cosmology, and, as a result, not many people understands how the universe really works.

And doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

What doesn't make sense is big bang cosmology with all of its hypothetical dark matter, dark energy, and inflation, none of which has been, nor can be, empirically verified to exist.

Plasma exists:

laconicstudent said:

But you can cite .org's and unknown plasma wikis and other flashy websites as authoritative? The double standard you hold is breathtaking.

Click to expand...

The reliability of a source is in the fact that their claims are supported by empirical verification, and not by consensus assumptions. Jesus taught us that, remember?...John 10:37-38.

laconicstudent said:

Paintings and Artwork for all tastes

Click to expand...

I would be careful what I post on a Christian Forum if I were you. It's not "for all tastes" at all. I've had a few warnings on this forum for far less than this.