Then you are disagreeing with Consensus cosmology, and not with me. They are the ones who consider such connections to be "anomalous".
I'm not disagreeing with the current understanding of our universe.
Thats not what disproves it.
Consensus Cosmology is of the view that two objects that are billions of light years apart should not be connected.
I did not realize that those images you provided was showing connected objects that are billions of light years apart. Could you provide a link?
Flying apart may explain the difference in redshift, but it does not explain the connection.I agree with the shot out part, but I dont agree with the dark energy part.
Flying apart explains the difference in redshift. It could be the "elasticity" of the dark matter structure that allows the visible matter of the galaxies to remain connected for a while.
Dark energy is hypothetical, there is no evidence for it other than assumption, so I dont believe it does anything unless it can be empirically verified that it does.
The evidence for dark energy is the fact that the universe is speeding up in its expansion. The assumption was that eventually the collective gravity of the universe would start to slow expansion or even reverse it. "Dark energy" is an explanation as to why the universe is acting in a manner that contradicts our understanding of gravity. I agree that dark energy is a hypothetical, yet it is still the best explanation as to why.
Electrical discharge can be empirically verified, and does stuff, and would likely be the cause of the shot out, since galaxies are electrically driven, as was illustrated before.
You mean that illustration that was created using "mathemagic"?
Objects are shot out from galaxies similar to how mass is ejected from the sun during coronal mass ejection Electrical discharge.
Are you aware that it is Consensus Cosmology that considers it to be anomalous, and not me? So it would seem like you are disagreeing with them, since you have an explanation and they dont.
The question I would think would need to be answered is why are galaxies flying apart in such a manner?
We are in agreement here on the most part, except for the dark energy stuff.
Dark energy is just the best explanation at the moment. Once we find out what it is, I hope the name will be changed.
What you are missing is that two objects separating is not what disproves it. It is the connection of those two objects that disproves it.
In Consensus Cosmology, two objects that are billions of light years apart being connected is considered to be impossible.
Again, could you provide a link that says the "anomalous" objects are billions of light years apart?
In Plasma Cosmology, all galaxies in the Universe are electrically linked through electrified Cosmic Plasma, similar to how all planets in our solar system are electrically linked to the sun.
So how would plasma cosmology explain Einsteins theory of general relativity and the fact we can observe gravitational lensing?
All Planets are electrically linked to Stars, All Stars are electrically linked to Galaxies, and All Galaxies are electrically linked through Cosmic Plasma, which makes up more than 99% of the Universe, the Electric Universe.
If this cosmic plasma existed, could you propose a way we could observe it? What would we have to look for.
In addition:
Redshift:
"Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt.Palomar and Mt.Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance...
Arp believes that 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. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps.
He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent redshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings.
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."
I still cannot see how this disproves the Big Bang.
Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however,
telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the
Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter
telescopes (such as those at
Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as
CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the
Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be
normal galaxies like those found nearby.
[5] Moreover, the
spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from
X-ray to
radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of
star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.
[6][7][8]
This explains why objects of two different redshifts are seen to be connected. One is the baby quasar (higher redshift), and the other is the parent galaxy (lower redshift). The baby quasar was "shot out" or ejected from the core of the parent galaxy.
I have no problem with that.
As the quasar speeds away by the ejection, a plasma tail trails behind that connects it to its parent galaxy. Eventually the quasar slows down, settles, and cools, becoming a part of a galaxy cluster family. This is how galaxies are born.
So you believe it is the electrostatic force that holds galaxies together? If so, what predictions could you make as to what we would find if this were true?
Mr. Arps scientific observations did not go down well with the Big Bang theologians. His scientific observations did not fit their religious belief in the Big Bang model, so he was subsequently excommunicated from among the Consensus.
Arp's hypothesis that quasars are local and contain large intrinsic redshifts has never gained any significant support in the astronomy research community. Arp's work is based on a limited number of specific quasar-galaxy associations. Most astronomers believe these associations are simply the result of chance and point to the hundreds of thousands of quasars documented in more recent
redshift surveys. These surveys show quasars to be distributed randomly over the sky, rather than associated with radio galaxies[
citation needed]. Furthermore, there is now a detailed model of quasars as the ultraluminous cores of
active galactic nuclei, effectively the centers of
Seyfert galaxies. This model is consistent with the results of more sensitive observations which have been able to resolve host galaxies around quasars with the same redshift as the quasar. The consistency of the standard quasar model with the assumption that all quasars are at cosmological distances leads most astronomers to apply an
Ockham's razor conclusion that intrinsic redshifts do not exist.
I told you earlier that galaxies are not held together or driven by gravity, its done by electromagnetism, which is 1000, billion, billion, billion, billion times more powerful than gravity. The infinitely weak force of gravity is secondary to the infinitely powerful force of electromagnetism.
So what evidence would we find of this?
It is the flawed Big Bang model that requires so much non-existent gravity. This is why they have to make up hypothetical dark stuff to account for what they consider to be missing. There is nothing missing. Its all electromagnetism.
Electromagnetic force move things around. It has been empirically verified to do so in the lab. Dark matter and dark energy has not.
So electromagnetism causes galaxies to appear to have more gravity than the really have? Is it electromagnetism that keeps us on the earth? Is it electromagnetism that causes gravitational lensing?