Click here if you are having trouble logging into the forums
Privacy Policy |
Please read our Terms
of Service | Signup and
Troubleshooting FAQ | Problems? PM a Red or a Green Gu.... uh, User
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 754
|
|
At long last I have a copy of this book. Arp is my personal hero, and a great, great astronomer. I didn't get past page 1 of the introduction without finding a statement that made my heart sing - he's describing the utter refusal of mainstream academia to even read his work, much less publish it, while at the same time, finding a very positive reaction from teachers in small colleges, lay people, students, and particularly, amateur astronomers:
"The amateurs in particular amazed and delighted me, because it quickly became clear that they really looked at pictures, knew various objects and reasoned for themselves, while maintaining a healthy skepticism toward official interpretations.."
No higher praise of the amateur community could be found.
Here, have a look at some of Arp's menagerie that to this hour, defy all explanation:
http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/frames.html
How many of these 338 objects have even been imaged by the Hubble telescope, not to say, exhaustively studied?
Eighteen. And those 18 are far from the most interesting objects in the catalog.
In these objects lies the key, not only to astrophysics and a correct cosmology, but new physics itself, as that we are presented with today is utterly incapable of providing even a bad answer, much less a correct one.
For this work, Arp has been all but ostracized. It is a crime on the level of the forced recantation of Galileo.
I will have an exhaustive review of this book, and his earlier work, "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies", to appear fairly soon I hope. In the meantime, go forth on the Net and learn the story of Arp.
One link:
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm
-drl
|
Qkslvr
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 06/23/06
Posts: 1052
Loc: NE Ohio, US
|
|
Isn't it possible that the 2 object near NGC7603 are distant galaxies in the background?
--------------------
Mike
N8/CG-5/40D
Coming sometime/Maybe FrankenRebel
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Actually, the Hubble shot in the link looks to me like that's exactly what they are. You can see quite a few background galaxies around the two foreground ones, and the "anomalous red-shift" one on the left galaxy looks exactly like the other background galaxies to me. If I am looking at the right spot, the anomalous red-shift lump on the right galaxy looks like a smeared galaxy image due to gravitational lensing by the right hand galaxy.
Jarad
--------------------
Edited by Jarad (09/17/08 04:16 PM)
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
|
You folks have an outstanding eye for detail. I put the image through the DSLR processing I use and then magnified the result. It looks like a barred spiral background galaxy.
I believe TOS and Hubble allow posting of Hubble images here. If not, I'll quickly delete and slink away with dashed ego.
--------------------
Jerry
LX200ACF 14", Tak FS 152 & TOA 150
AP-1200 & Mach1
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 754
|
|
The only problem is, it has a quasar emission spectrum! It's definitely not a normal Sb galaxy. Both these objects have emission spectra characteristic of quasars.
-drl
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Um, quasars are background galaxies. I don't think you can see enough detail in that image to determine that it is a "normal sb galaxy". Either way, it would not be at the same distance as the foreground galaxy.
The lump I thought the image was referring to was actually the bright smear just above and to the right of the corner of the blacked out square, not the one that was magnified. It's a little hard to tell from these pics without the detailed positional data.
Jarad
--------------------
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 754
|
|
Quasars are not galaxies - that's why we call them quasars. As of now, their nature remains a mystery. If nearby, then explain their redshift. If distant, then explain their luminosity. Wherever they are, explain their peculiar spectra and associated X-rays.
It's just foolish to pretend that these objects are not on the filament. In any case, the two component galaxies themselves have wildly different redshifts (700 vs 17000 km/sec). Are you going to claim the filament connecting them is not there, or is a chance occurrence?
There is much observational evidence to support the notion that quasars are directly associated with nearby galaxies, and are not at cosmological distances. This evidence is not only ignored, the very act of investigating it is greeted with ridicule and contempt. Telescope time is denied. Famous astronomers are marginalized.
Look for yourself - forget the quasars - is that filament connecting those two foreground galaxies? Any reasonable person will say yes. Then, explain the divergent red shifts.
-drl
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Quote:
Quasars are not galaxies - that's why we call them quasars.
Quasar stands for "Quasi-Stellar Object". They were given that name when first discovered. The current best theory for what they are is that they are, in fact, distant active galaxies where the central black hole is swallowing large quantities of gas. While this is not 100% certain, it is the best current explanation of the data.
Quote:
As of now, their nature remains a mystery. If nearby, then explain their redshift. If distant, then explain their luminosity.
As I already noted, the current best theory is that they are distant, and their luminosity is explained by supermassive black holes actively accumulating large amounts of gas in their accretion disks. This has been modelled as being able to produce the amounts of energy seen. So far, no other model has been able to account for the energy level.
Quote:
Wherever they are, explain their peculiar spectra and associated X-rays.
As of now, the black hole theory best matches the observed spectra.
Quote:
It's just foolish to pretend that these objects are not on the filament.
Nobody is pretending anything, and calling the opposing theory foolish does not support it.
Quote:
In any case, the two component galaxies themselves have wildly different redshifts (700 vs 17000 km/sec). Are you going to claim the filament connecting them is not there, or is a chance occurrence?
I am not claiming anything, I am looking at the image and figuring out the possibilities. As I see it, there are several here:
1 - The galaxies are close together, linked by the bridge, and the small objects are part of the bridge. In this case, the redshifts are anomalous. I haven't heard a good hypothesis yet for how that could be explained, but it would require reworking a number of assumptions about how redshift works.
2 - The galaxies are near each other, and connected, but orbiting each other rapidly. The one with the lower redshift is moving toward us in the orbit, the one with the higher redshift is moving away. The small lumps with high redshifts are background objects. This fits how current redshifts are thought to work, but may require some unrealistically high orbital velocities of the two galaxies (I say may because I don't know - they may match what would be expected).
3 - The larger galaxy is a foreground object with a tidal tail (the bridge). The smaller one is a background galaxy somewhat more distant that is aligned with the tail by luck. The two small lumps are more distant background objects.
Which one is correct? I don't know. The best way to tell is to get some more data. The best data would be to spot a type 1a supernova in each of the two galaxies, to give a distance estimate independent of the redshift (note that the redshift estimates have been developed by observing such events in MANY other galaxies).
Quote:
There is much observational evidence to support the notion that quasars are directly associated with nearby galaxies, and are not at cosmological distances. This evidence is not only ignored, the very act of investigating it is greeted with ridicule and contempt. Telescope time is denied. Famous astronomers are marginalized.
I generally find it hard to believe claims of "my theory is being suppressed". It just doesn't work out in the long run. Funding is tight everywhere, so telescope time is limited. They give it to the most promising projects. Luckily for you, the raw data gets published eventually, so even if you don't get telescope time, if you wait someone else will get some to look at objects you are interested in, and you can test your hypothesis on the same data they collected for other use. So denying telescope time won't really stop someone from testing their hypotheses, it will only slow them down.
Quote:
Look for yourself - forget the quasars - is that filament connecting those two foreground galaxies? Any reasonable person will say yes. Then, explain the divergent red shifts.
Again, accusing anyone who disagrees with you of not being "a reasonable person" doesn't support the position. I gave three possible interpretations of that image above, any of which would be reasonable. The way to tell which is correct isn't to argue about which is "more reasonable", it's to get more data. Until then, I will retain an open mind.
From a scientific standpoint, extreme claims require extreme proof. A hypothesis that would require re-working large amounts of currently accepted theory with large amounts of supporting evidence (i.e. any hypothesis that starts with "all our interpretations of redshift are wrong") is going to need more than a single image that could be interpreted in multiple ways before it gets accepted.
Jarad
--------------------
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
|
Excellent response Jarad.
I especially like proposal "2". Really good thinking.
--------------------
Jerry
LX200ACF 14", Tak FS 152 & TOA 150
AP-1200 & Mach1
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 754
|
|
The facts of history, however, are that Arp's idea is so destructive to the received wisdom that one dare not even countenance it, much less give it a fair hearing. The evidence is all but conclusive to an unbias observer. The thing that is really damning, is the level of ignorance of relativity shown by the very people who invoke it out of context.
There is certainly a cosmological component to redshifts of distant galaxies. That comes straight out of the Friedman-Robertson-Walker solution. It is vastly unscientific to assume this is the only possible origin of redshift.
The specifics of Arp's ideas are not at issue. His ostracism is, as is the deliberate ignoring of evidence and denial of telescope time to him to study active galaxies, in favor of microlensing surveys and other nonsense. It is a great tragedy, that Arp has handled with characteristic humor and dignity - knowing that time is on his side.
-drl
PS - I will get to specifics of your points later. Supermassive black holes cannot explain the luminosity of quasars if one assumes they are at great distance. The argument is very elementary.
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Quote:
The facts of history, however, are that Arp's idea is so destructive to the received wisdom that one dare not even countenance it, much less give it a fair hearing.
What facts of history? Destructive to what? The facts of the lest few hundred years is that we have been through multiple major shifts in our understanding of the universe, lead by observations and data. As far as I can see, there has been no mass destruction as a result.
The scientific method by its nature invites challenges to the "received wisdom", which the rest of us call "current best theory". We use the word "current" because we know it is likely to change in the future. We use the word "theory" because it is supported by evidence (vs. "hypothesis" which is as yet unsupported), but not proven beyond doubt (nor will it ever be). Suppressing other hypotheses is pointless - if they are false, the tests will prove it. If they have merit, they will see their predictions bourne out.
Quote:
The evidence is all but conclusive to an unbias observer. The thing that is really damning, is the level of ignorance of relativity shown by the very people who invoke it out of context.
This thread was not about GR, it was about the red shifts in the Arp objects. Two different subjects. Note that GR does not require redshifts, an expanding universe does. GR can work equally well with an expanding or shrinking universe - one is an empirical measurement, the other is a theory of how time and space work. It does not require red-shift to be related to distance.
And again, you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of being "biased". If you want to convince scientists of something, do it by presenting a clear hypothesis, make measurable predictions that differ from current theory, and show data that match your hypothesis but not current theory. Making repeated claims of bias or suppression will not convince anyone.
Quote:
There is certainly a cosmological component to redshifts of distant galaxies. That comes straight out of the Friedman-Robertson-Walker solution. It is vastly unscientific to assume this is the only possible origin of redshift.
Who has made this assumption? Red shift (or blue shift) is due to the total relative velocity between the emitter and the observer. To get a good result, you need to take into account all sources of relative motion - including local motions (orbital, etc.) and large scale motions (expansion of the universe), as well as the effects of any gravity wells that the light has gone into or come out of in transit.
Quote:
The specifics of Arp's ideas are not at issue. His ostracism is, as is the deliberate ignoring of evidence and denial of telescope time to him to study active galaxies, in favor of microlensing surveys and other nonsense.
Here is where you are missing the point - the specifics of the ideas are the issue. You act as if access to expensive telescopes is his right that is being unfairly denied to him. It is not a right - it is a limited resource that is given out in a competitive process. You have to present well-reasoned hypotheses, and specific measureable goals. I have seen none of those here.
Quote:
PS - I will get to specifics of your points later. Supermassive black holes cannot explain the luminosity of quasars if one assumes they are at great distance. The argument is very elementary.
Ah, yes, I am sure it is. I will look forward to seeing it.
Jarad
--------------------
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 10441
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
I can plead guilty to foolishness and ignorance, because my education on all this is not up to date. However, I find the insistence on filaments "linking" two galaxies a bit suspicious. Spiral galaxies often have tails -- sometimes multiple "filaments". Galaxy clusters also tend to be arranged along linear "filaments" of cosmic structure. This architecture is obvious when one views expanded models of vast cosmic reaches: the bubbles, voids, and "nodes" that constitute galaxy clusters are often lined up like links on a chain. Therefore, it shouldn't be rare to have several galaxy clusters along a line of sight, with nearer galaxies being superimposed, or nearly so, on more distant ones.
This combination of circumstances should lead to a nonrandom distribution of redshifts along a line of sight, and with the number of streams emanating from many spiral galaxies, it's inevitable that a number of them will appear to overlap a more distant galaxy.
I'd also submit that Arp's denial of telescope time is a red herring. The database of existing observations is huge, and merely waiting to be mined. Arp's arguments should rest on statistical relationships, which are already available in the data, but what he is proposing is cherry picking of observations that would seem to support his thesis.
I'd say that he should formulate a good theory that addresses and overcomes the objections to his arguments, and test it against the existing database of galactic images.
If he's already done that, then refer to my first sentence.
--------------------
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye) 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Next Project: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 754
|
|
This forum software is so bad that I cannot formulate an answer in one place, so I will have to take them one at a time. It's clear that you are an honest person, but what you wish to believe about the workings of science, and how it really works, are two things with little in common. There is very little interest in getting the facts right and then making good theories around them. There is far more interest in defending reputations and protecting employment. Physics, astrophysics, and cosmology today, as practiced in the academic world, have more in common with the mediaevel church than they do with Bacon's ideal world of look-theorize-test.
-drl
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 754
|
|
"I'd also submit that Arp's denial of telescope time is a red herring. The database of existing observations is huge, and merely waiting to be mined. Arp's arguments should rest on statistical relationships, which are already available in the data, but what he is proposing is cherry picking of observations that would seem to support his thesis. "
This is untrue. Telescope time is dominated by fruitless searches for dark matter, microlenses, and vacuous redshift surveys of faint objects, while active galaxies and associations of them are ignored. How may Arp objects have made their way to the APOD?
Arp does have a theory - a weak one in my opinion - but that's not his job. His job is to collect observational evidence and reduce it. He won many accolades early in his career for doing just that, but later, when he saw things that didn't fit the pattern on which so many careers and reputations depended, his star fell.
-drl
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Quote:
It's clear that you are an honest person, but what you wish to believe about the workings of science, and how it really works, are two things with little in common. There is very little interest in getting the facts right and then making good theories around them.
Really? What exactly do you do that gives you such insight into how science works? My experience obviously doesn't count (never mind that I have actually worked in laboratory life science for the last 17 years...).
Quote:
There is far more interest in defending reputations and protecting employment.
Yes, there is. There is plenty of nasty, personal stuff that goes on. But not the way you are describing. When a high level scientist sees a grant proposal come by with an idea that could overturn current theories (his or otherwise), and he thinks it has a shot at working out, his base instinct isn't to prevent it from happening, it's to steal it. I know of several instances where a professor sees a good idea come across his desk, trashes it to prevent funding/publication, then immediately put 10 grad students to work copying it so he could publish it himself. If you were accusing someone of stealing Arp's ideas, I would find that plausible. But covering them up to maintain the status quo? Doubtful. They can polish their reputation a lot more by being part of a new idea that works out than by sticking to the status quo. They don't stay hot by having their old ideas unchallenged, they stay hot by getting their new ideas published. It very much a "but what have you done for us lately?" culture.
Jarad
--------------------
|
Jarad
Post Laureate
Reged: 04/28/03
Posts: 3850
Loc: Atlanta, GA
|
|
Quote:
Telescope time is dominated by fruitless searches for dark matter, microlenses, and vacuous redshift surveys of faint objects, while active galaxies and associations of them are ignored.
This is untrue on several levels. First, it has the basic assumption that all telescope searches for data other than your pet hypothesis are fruitless. There are a lot of astronomers with a lot of hypotheses competing for telescope time. The fact that some other people's good ideas get funded does not mean there is a conspiracy against you. Some of the "fruitless" surveys you referred to have already found useful data. The redshift data in particular will be crucial if Arp wants to prove that the current theory of what redshift means is wrong. The only way for him to demonstrate an alternate hypothesis is to use the same data that supports the current theory. If he can't account for that, his hypothesis is wrong.
As another note, active galaxies and galaxy collisions are major targets of current observation plans. Most of the recent dark matter observations are from colliding galaxyies or galaxy groups. Those objects are NOT being ignored, as evidenced by the Hubble shot in your first post (Hubble time is the most difficult to get, yet there is a shot of an Arp object by Hubble. Hardly a conspiracy to not look at them...).
Quote:
How may Arp objects have made their way to the APOD?
Two so far this year - http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080430.html
and
http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap080721.html
Given that there are only 365 days a year (and only about 270 so far this year), and that there are MANY BILLIONS objects to take pictures of, I'd say that's a pretty good percentage.
Quote:
Arp does have a theory - a weak one in my opinion - but that's not his job.
Um, I think you misunderstand the job of a scientist, then. Collecting observational evidence is step 1. Step 2 is to compare it against current theory, taking into account all possible explanations (like the 3 I suggested above). Step 3 is to make predictions about future observations that will allow you to distinguish between the possibilities. Step 4 is to go out and make those observations.
If all you do is step 1 and wait for other scientists to come in and do the rest of the work and congratulate for your discovery, you will be waiting for a long time.
You agree that his hypothesis is weak. The objects are not being ignored, as you can see by the multiple Hubble shots that you linked to and that I linked to. The reason his star is fading is precisely because his hypothesis is weak, and he has not collected enough evidence to support it over the current theories. The ONLY way to change that is with data.
As Dave pointed out, automated whole-sky surveys are producing more data than astronomers have time to go over. That's why dutch school-teachers are discovering new classes of objects through web-based surveys of astronomical data without ever getting telescope time. The data is available, anyone can see it. If he wants to convince people, he does have access to the data he needs, even without getting the Hubble to be his personal scope.
Jarad
--------------------
Edited by Jarad (09/20/08 07:31 AM)
|
deSitter
scholastic sledgehammer
Reged: 12/09/04
Posts: 754
|
|
Wow, there are a lot of topics here to follow and answer - perhaps we should break this into pieces.
Stay tuned here, I will answer these points one by one including examples from the book and later research by others who find themselves in a similar predicament. I am happy to see the interest shown!
-drl
|
JerryWise
Postmaster
Reged: 12/26/03
Posts: 6850
Loc: Lexington, SC
|
|
I congratulate you for bringing this up. Very, very interesting to ponder an alternative to the Big Bang. It certainly has generated some Wikipedia and Halton C. Arp website hits.
I can certainly see where more Hubble time is required to verify his propositions. His website has limited information with this page highlighting some arguments. I'll say two things up front; I'm no expert in this and I'm very disappointed in how the substantiating arguments are put forth.
On the link above NGC 4319 is shown in the Hubble image with Markarian 205. This image is from the Hubble site for NGC 4319 here. It is also on the Heritage site. I downloaded this image. In PSP-XI the image was contrast enhanced. Then split into Red, Green and Blue components. Something didn't look right with the component images, especially the blue image. It shows obvious signs of processing with smoothing and reduction of what were originally two separate images. Going back to the Hubble site a little research confirmed the obvious.... the images are processed with color added to enhance the image (per the Hubble site) "Creating color images out of the original black-and-white exposures is equal parts art and science." They explain how they add color and enhance the images to make them look better here. A proposal overturning established "theories" using a processed image really, really weakens his position. Raw data is available to support the argument and should be used.
The Hubble Heritage project site has the original raw data the image is composed from. The image in Arp's rebuttal is taken from this site instead of the raw components posted elsewhere. Below is the F(450) B image superimposed on the blue component of the Hubble image shown from the Hubble site above. There is a slight contrast enhancement showing the original raw images are obvious composites taken with different settings and at different times (if the settings are different the times will be different). The background Blue component image shows processing and smoothing in the upper right where the images were merged.
Maybe it's time to gather more evidence with more telescope time. With rebuttals like this an argument can certainly be made as to why telescope time is denied.
--------------------
Jerry
LX200ACF 14", Tak FS 152 & TOA 150
AP-1200 & Mach1
|
llanitedave
Humble Megalomaniac
Reged: 09/26/05
Posts: 10441
Loc: Amargosa Valley, NV, USA
|
|
Quote:
Yes, there is. There is plenty of nasty, personal stuff that goes on. But not the way you are describing. When a high level scientist sees a grant proposal come by with an idea that could overturn current theories (his or otherwise), and he thinks it has a shot at working out, his base instinct isn't to prevent it from happening, it's to steal it. I know of several instances where a professor sees a good idea come across his desk, trashes it to prevent funding/publication, then immediately put 10 grad students to work copying it so he could publish it himself. If you were accusing someone of stealing Arp's ideas, I would find that plausible. But covering them up to maintain the status quo? Doubtful. They can polish their reputation a lot more by being part of a new idea that works out than by sticking to the status quo. They don't stay hot by having their old ideas unchallenged, they stay hot by getting their new ideas published. It very much a "but what have you done for us lately?" culture.
Jarad
This is absolutely true. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and a lot of what happens is predatory and sleazy -- but nobody gets ahead just defending the status quo.
In fact, accusations that one's work is being suppressed in order to preserve some status quo worldview is almost a sure sign that the argument itself is weak.
There may be exceptions when the status quo is a political position held by a nonscientific establishment with economic or public policy ramifications, but that's hardly the case in cosmology.
--------------------
"S.O.E." (Sauron's Other Eye) 16" Royce conical mirror: A permanent work in progress.
10" Homebuilt dob, old Coulter mirror
Next Project: The "Eye of Sauron" Observatory!
Edited by llanitedave (09/23/08 11:02 AM)
|
jupiterzkool
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 05/08/06
Posts: 1329
Loc: Pasadena, CA
|
|
--------------------
Scott G. Edgington, Planetary Scientist
Cassini-Huygens: Mission to Saturn & Titan
Yes, Asia, John Wetton Fan
|
|
0 registered and 1 anonymous users are browsing this forum.
Moderator: llanitedave
Print Thread
|
Forum Permissions
You cannot start new topics
You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled
UBBCode is enabled
|
Thread views: 1062
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
[Re: 