Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

Red Shift (Death Knell for Big Bang, Starlight Distance,...)

46 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

Greetings,

 

My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan.  Rationale?  ....

 

(Genesis 3:1-4) "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?  {2} And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  {3} But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.  {4} And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:"

 

GOD tipped satan's hand and revealed his core tactics in Genesis 3:

1. Create Doubt
2. Outright Denial of the WORD

 

What "Establishment"/Organization on the Planet Earth and on a MASSIVE SCALE attempts to Cast the Most DOUBT and then Outright Denial of the Existence of GOD, Bar None???  "Secular" Science.

 

 

 

Well alrighty then, please watch this in it's Entirety (You Tube Documentary):  Universe - Episode 1 - The Cosmology Quest - The Electric Universe and Plasma Physics.

The Video Systematically, Comprehensively, and Unequivocally Renders:  The Big Bang, Science Search for Truth, "Light Year" Distances, Peer Review, et al:  A Laughing Stalk right BELOW 13th Century Alchemy and Phlogiston!!

 

Basically, A VERY LARGE BODY of Astronomy/Cosmology/Astrophysics has it's basis in Red Shift.  Red Shift or Hubble's Law states that Galaxies and the Universe is Expanding and Distances can be obtained by analyzing their Red Shift or shifts in their Color Spectra... the further away, the Larger the "Red Shift".

But in the 1960's Astronomers like Halton "Chip" Arp discovered QSO's (Quasar Stellar Objects) that are "Attached" to Galaxies with "Extremely" Different Red Shifts than their Parent/Neighbor Galaxies.
These data and research was subsequently "SQUASHED" by "Secular" science to defend the Big Bang and Light Year Distance fiasco. (Black Listing/Funding/Expelled et al)

 

"The Peer Review System and NASA itself which is very conformist will always do just that, that's one of the reasons why the Road ahead is hammered out, as {Fred}Hoyle said, anytime you point a New Telescope to the sky now you're only going to find what you already know is up there".
Geoffrey Burbridge PhD Astrophysics, Director Kitt Peak National Observatory

 

Sounds like the Quest for TRUTH to Me!!!!

 

 

Lets do Specifics, shall we.....

 

NGC 7603 and Companion Galaxy with 2 QSO's in the Arm.  The arm has the same "Red Shift" as NGC 7603 but the 2 QSO's and Companion Galaxy are all different!!!!

 

 

NGC7603A_zps88f33def.jpg   NGC7603B_zps5b1f1ee9.jpg    NGC7603C_zps4fa74dbe.jpg

 

 

López-Corredoira & Gutiérrez (2002).....

 

"We have clearly shown that two of the compact emission lines objects in the filament have redshifts very much greater than those of NGC7603 and its companion galaxy. Thus we have presented a very well known system with anomalous redshifts, NGC 7603, to be an apparently much more anomalous than was previously thought. There are 4 objects with very different redshifts apparently connected by a filament associated with the lower redshift galaxy. This system is at present the most spectacular case that we know among the candidates for anomalous redshift."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002A%26A...390L..15L

 

 

NGC 4319 and it's Companion Markarian 205 Discordant Redshifts:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1983ApJ...265L..49S

 

This one caused quite a stir back in the day LOL. Even Unsolicited Government Supported Institution Press Releases Exclaiming there was no connection with the Two Galaxies.  Complete with Doctored Photos!!....Photo manipulation comments from video above.

 

NGC4319A_zps12f4284b.jpg  NGC4319B_zps9736e959.jpgNGC4319E1_zpsfbf60057.jpgNGC4319D_zps2be1abf8.jpg

 

 

Note PIC NGC 4319 E1 (3rd Pic from left) in the magnified isophote view of the 2002 Photo reveals there is a distention of the shape of the Mark 205 inner isophotes back toward NGC 4319. There are also a series of secondary masses within Mark 205 on a line connecting 4319 and the center of Mark 205.

 

Naaa, There is no Paradigm to be defended.... @ THE HIGHEST LEVELS.  Wonder who's up there?  See Daniel 10: 13-20 for some perspective.

 

Jack Sulentic Professor Astronomy and Astrophysics, Comments from You Tube Interview Above:

 

"There was a famous paper that claimed to show that there was no connection between NGC 4319 and the Quasar Markanian 205, so @ that time I had the opportunity to work at JPL using the new image processing facilities that had been developed for the Voyager Program; in fact, and it took 1 Hours Effort to show there was some kind of a Luminous Feature between those 2 Objects....there's NO Question.... and it cannot be dismissed in the ways that it was dismissed."

 

Regarding the Press Release and Pics {NGC 4319 and Markarian 205} from a Government Supported Agency (NASA and the Hubble Heritage Team) in 2002.....

 

"No Connection {Laughing} between the two objects.  So I looked @ their picture then I downloaded it and it took me 5 Minutes to show that it's still there {Laughing}....but I was really surprised that they they felt it necessary to issue a Press Release saying it's not there; it's not real, when, it's the same thing we saw 20 years ago."

 

"It's a strange attitude, I don't understand it as a scientist, really....but, to just sort of close the door; in a way you could argue....I interpret that as a manifestation of Fear and Uncertainty because if I really had confidence in my Paradigm, I'd put it right out there and say, Well Yes, there is a Bridge there but it's either this explanation or that explanation....but instead to just say it just isn't there, that's a manifestation of Fear, I Think."

 

"You don't get tenor @ University, you don't get promoted, you don't get recognition, by looking too much into unpopular areas".

 

"I remember one famous group, I asked them; how do resolve disagreements amongst yourselves? And the reply was "WE VOTE".  And I thought what a strange thing to do in science....Vote??

 

Margaret Burbidge Astrophysicist (Director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory) comments regarding NGC 4319:

 

"The Theoreticians ought to be really looking @ this Theoretical problem and the Observers ought to be gathering much more data of the sort that we get; but I think they're all a little scared because it's an unpopular subject.  They're worried about their Jobs and they're worried about moving on up the ladder if they're Post Docs."

 

 

And to put the "Cherry on Top"....

 

NGC 7319 and it's QSO:

 

News Article:  http://ucsdnews.ucsd.edu/archive/newsrel/science/mcquasar.asp

Tech Paper:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215

 

How could a galaxy 360 million light years away contain a stellar object 35 billion light years away?  Laughing Out Loud!!

 

 

NGC7319C_zpsfa1ce0f4.jpg   

 

NGC7319B_zpsa2d3db15.jpg

 

 

Source:  http://creation.com/quasar-with-enormous-redshift-found-embedded-in-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift

 

"Quasar with enormous red shift found embedded in a nearby spiral Galaxy with a far lower red shift:  Unsolvable riddle for Big Bang astronomy."This changes the whole view of the universe--big bang astronomy will never be the same...by Dr. John G Hartnett, Australia  12 Jan 2005.

 

So what is the big deal? This is the big deal...

 

'The ejection-of-quasars-from-galaxies interpretation is vigorously rejected by the big bang community.  Obviously this is because it utterly demolishes their key assumption of the genesis of all matter at the big bang.  Also it calls into question many redshift-distances determined by quasar redshifts.  In the section “Alternatives to the big bang” on page 393 of his book,6 Joseph Silk … admits, “Only by disputing the interpretation of quasar redshifts as a cosmological distance indicator can this conclusion be avoided” [my emphasis added]. This is, in fact, the main thrust of Arp’s observations!  They cast enormous doubt on the distribution of galaxies in the universe and the interpretation of big bang expansion models".7

 

 

Martin Lopez Corredoria PhD Astronomer...

 

"Cosmology is not Science".

 

"Don't collaborate with "Chip" Arp because if you do that you will have problems to get a position in such a place, I receive such a Black Mail".

 

 

Who's Running the Show?? ....for now.  Until the Largest Escrow Closing in the History of The Universe comes in the CLOUDS!....HE'S @ The DOOR.

 

 

Praise The LORD!!!!!!

 

 

Thanks for your Attention.  Have a Blessed Day

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Is this the kraken?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Is this the kraken?

 

 

I seen your reply on the main page and started laughing because I knew your question......

 

No Baby Kracken....but it packs a Wallop  :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

(To the refuters) Just so there are no misunderstandings, you only have 3 options:

 

 

1.)  Somehow show that ALL Red Shifts are erroneous. By doing this you only confirm the Diagnosis.

 

2.)  Show that All the anomalous Red Shifts are in error and are the same as their respective, Parent/Neighbor Galaxy(s).  The Data are GOT with Multiple Confirmations...Chances are near ZERO for this.

 

3.)  Somehow "SHOW" NO Connection between the Parent/Neighbor Galaxy and each respective Stellar Condensation/Quasar/Luminous Bridge....  (Google Away)  :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

(To the refuters) Just so there are no misunderstandings, you only have 3 options:

 

 

1.)  Somehow show that ALL Red Shifts are erroneous. By doing this you only confirm the Diagnosis.

 

2.)  Show that All the anomalous Red Shifts are in error and are the same as their respective, Parent/Neighbor Galaxy(s).  The Data are GOT with Multiple Confirmations...Chances are near ZERO for this.

 

3.)  Somehow "SHOW" NO Connection between the Parent/Neighbor Galaxy and each respective Stellar Condensation/Quasar/Luminous Bridge....  (Google Away)  :)

 

Isnt that sort of staking the deck?  limiting how things can be refuted? 

 

Will watch the video again, didnt make it all the way through last time.  Between the hour long video and the links it will be some time before this can be responded to.

 

And before I respond to the rest I would like to point the fact that even if nobody here can "refute" your baby kraken it still does not make you right, it means that a group of people with zero astronomers and astrophysicists among the group cannot refute your positions.   If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

(To the refuters) Just so there are no misunderstandings, you only have 3 options:

 

 

1.)  Somehow show that ALL Red Shifts are erroneous. By doing this you only confirm the Diagnosis.

 

2.)  Show that All the anomalous Red Shifts are in error and are the same as their respective, Parent/Neighbor Galaxy(s).  The Data are GOT with Multiple Confirmations...Chances are near ZERO for this.

 

3.)  Somehow "SHOW" NO Connection between the Parent/Neighbor Galaxy and each respective Stellar Condensation/Quasar/Luminous Bridge....  (Google Away)  :)

 

Isnt that sort of staking the deck?  limiting how things can be refuted? 

 

Will watch the video again, didnt make it all the way through last time.  Between the hour long video and the links it will be some time before this can be responded to.

 

And before I respond to the rest I would like to point the fact that even if nobody here can "refute" your baby kraken it still does not make you right, it means that a group of people with zero astronomers and astrophysicists among the group cannot refute your positions.   If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

Isnt that sort of staking the deck?  limiting how things can be refuted?

 

I thought it was Inherently self-limiting due to the facts of the matter.  However, if I have missed a way or ways to refute the conclusion.... then by all means Rock On.

 

 

Between the hour long video and the links it will be some time before this can be responded to.

 

No Problem, take your time.

 

 

And before I respond to the rest I would like to point the fact that even if nobody here can "refute" your baby kraken it still does not make you right,

 

Yes, understood.

 

If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

 

Good Suggestion, I will consider it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Something I found very interesting....

 

 

The Big Bang was first conjured by Abbes Georges Lemaitre a Belgian Mathematician and Catholic Priest...

 

To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing."

Hannes Alfven PhD (Nobel Prize 1970)

http://tmgnow.com/repository/cosmology/alfven.html

 

So in other words, Lemaitre used his Ideology (and used science as HIS Hermeneutic Filter) to lay the groundwork for his Theory.  I must have missed that Step in the Scientific Method  :huh:

 

 

In January 1933, the Belgian mathematician and Catholic priest Georges Lemaitre traveled with Albert Einstein to California for a series of seminars. After the Belgian detailed his Big Bang theory, Einstein stood up applauded, and said, "This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened."

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0022.html

 

 

Well Well, we'll just see about that   :mgdetective:     Although, I think we've seen quite enough already.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I find it hard to believe there aren't any Big Bang/StarLight Distance/Peer Review Defenders out there....

 

 

 

       :shout:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Greetings,

 

My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan. 

Yet you use science to try to make your point. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Greetings,

 

My Presupposition:  "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan. 

 

Yet you use science to try to make your point. 

 

:thumbsup:

 

Beloved There Is Science; The Simple Humble Study Of Dirt And Stuff

 

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

 

And Then There Is So Called Science

 

And they said, There is no hope: but we will walk after our own devices, and we will every one do the imagination of his evil heart. Jeremiah 18:12

 

Which Mocks The LORD Jesus

 

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

 

Used By The Willful Blind

 

Take heed, brethren, lest there be in any of you an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. Hebrews 3:12

 

Yes, Used By The

 

The LORD hath appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee. Jeremiah 31:3

 

Lost

 

And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? Jonah 4:11

 

~

 

Dear One, Which Science

 

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 1 Timothy 6:20

 

Which Knowledge

 

For the LORD knoweth the way of the righteous: but the way of the ungodly shall perish. Psalms 1:6

 

Will You Choose

 

The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. John 3:35-36

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

 

Which Mocks The LORD Jesus

I disagree with you there...

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

An interesting presentation; thank you. Do you think that red shift can only be explained by the doppler effect of an expanding unverse? Have you considered that the genuine advances in knowledge of human science are part of the common grace of God (rain falls on the just & unjust)? Of course you expect the enemy to add in some anti-Bible propaganda

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

An interesting presentation; thank you. Do you think that red shift can only be explained by the doppler effect of an expanding unverse? Have you considered that the genuine advances in knowledge of human science are part of the common grace of God (rain falls on the just & unjust)? Of course you expect the enemy to add in some anti-Bible propaganda

 

 

============================================================

 

 

An interesting presentation; thank you.

 

You're welcome

 

 

Do you think that red shift can only be explained by the doppler effect of an expanding unverse?

 

From the evidence above, I don't think it has any application or efficacy for anything, whatsoever.

 

 

Have you considered that the genuine advances in knowledge of human science are part of the common grace of God (rain falls on the just & unjust)

 

IMHO, GOD gave us this Universe to discover...........HIM.  (See: Anthropic Principle) 

 

However, as with everything else satan..... defiles/counterfeits/corrupts.

 

Remember what satan promised Eve....

 

(Genesis 3:5) "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

 

Nothing wrong with knowledge.....what is it's sources and purposes are the vital questions, IMHO

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

 

Good Suggestion, I will consider it.

 

This is a great suggestion.  If you decide to do it, could you please post a link so that we may follow along?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

If you want to truly impress anyone, post this same thing on the astrophysics forum at physicsforums.com.  If they cannot refute your position, then I will be impressed.

 

Good Suggestion, I will consider it.

 

This is a great suggestion.  If you decide to do it, could you please post a link so that we may follow along?

 

 

 

 

==========================================================================

 

 

The last time I looked this is Faith vs........................."Science".

 

 

They'll be in that same Predicament that any Anyone here is in; they will need to show....

 

You only have 3 options:

 

1.)  Somehow show that ALL Red Shifts are erroneous. By doing this you only confirm the Diagnosis.

 

2.)  Show that All the anomalous Red Shifts are in error and are the same as their respective, Parent/Neighbor Galaxy(s).  The Data are GOT with Multiple Confirmations...Chances are near ZERO for this.

 

3.)  Somehow "SHOW" NO Connection between the Parent/Neighbor Galaxy and each respective Stellar Condensation/Quasar/Luminous Bridge....  (Google Away)

 

 

The OVERWHELMING Evidence posted in the OP, REFUTES points 2 and 3.

 

This isn't a Riddle to Solve.  Red Shift is either........ a Viable Technique or it is PROVED FALSE or erroneous (SEE: OP). 

 

Gotta Love the Simplicity.  :thumbsup:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited) · Report post

Hubble clarified the position to be 1.2 billion (the only place you'll find the 35 billion year number is in your accusations) light years away, vs the 70 or so for the galaxy. But Hubble shows that it is merely the light passing through the disk and the halo of the galaxy that makes it look like they are connected.

 

I will copy your post to physics forums.com and report some of the replies back to everyone.

 

Edited by jerryR34
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hubble clarified the position to be 1.2 billion (the only place you'll find the 35 billion year number is in your accusations) light years away, vs the 70 or so for the galaxy. But Hubble shows that it is merely the light passing through the disk and the halo of the galaxy that makes it look like they are connected.

 

I will copy your post to physics forums.com and report some of the replies back to everyone.

 

 

 

==============================================================

 

 

Hubble clarified the position to be 1.2 billion (the only place you'll find the 35 billion year number is in your accusations) light years away, vs the 70 or so for the galaxy.

 

What are you talking about?

 

The only "35 Billion Years" mentioned in the OP was in reference to (Just One, of the current 30 or so) NGC 7319 and it's QSO.

 

AND, it wasn't MY accusation, it was based on the Z number (RED Shift)....

 

"Based on the Hubble law, which may be written as z = 2×10-4 r with r expressed in Mpc (= 3.26 million light-years) and where z < 0.2, we can determine the distance to the source.

In this case we have a galaxy (NGC 7319 with z = 0.022) at a distance of 360 million light-years and, assuming the above equation holds approximately for larger redshifts z > 0.2, the quasar (with z = 2.114) is 100 times farther or 35 billion light-years."

 

Source (IN THE OP): http://creation.com/quasar-with-enormous-redshift-found-embedded-in-nearby-spiral-galaxy-with-far-lower-redshift

 

 

 

I will copy your post to physics forums.com and report some of the replies back to everyone.

 

I can't wait

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I have watched the video and looked at your links and it all sounds very impressive.  There is no doubt that this is well beyond my ability to respond to in any fashion that would matter.  To me this is sort of like my car, I can fix many issues with it but that does not mean I can tear the engine down and build it back again. 

 

The biggest problem I see with you posting this here is that as far as I can tell none of us have the training to know if what you are putting forth is even accurate, let alone correct.  That is the downfall of posting this on a forum of people that like science but are not scientist.

 

I was hoping you would take my suggestion and post it to true science forum, but I can understand why you will not. It comes down to the fact I have two people telling me two very different things so I have to choose which I am going to accept.  Right now that is not really even a choice, I will stick with the experts that I have been following for a few years now.   Perhaps over time more will come to light (forgive the pun) about what you have posted and my views will change, but for now I thank you for your thread, it was fascinating and impressive.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I have watched the video and looked at your links and it all sounds very impressive.  There is no doubt that this is well beyond my ability to respond to in any fashion that would matter.  To me this is sort of like my car, I can fix many issues with it but that does not mean I can tear the engine down and build it back again. 

 

The biggest problem I see with you posting this here is that as far as I can tell none of us have the training to know if what you are putting forth is even accurate, let alone correct.  That is the downfall of posting this on a forum of people that like science but are not scientist.

 

I was hoping you would take my suggestion and post it to true science forum, but I can understand why you will not. It comes down to the fact I have two people telling me two very different things so I have to choose which I am going to accept.  Right now that is not really even a choice, I will stick with the experts that I have been following for a few years now.   Perhaps over time more will come to light (forgive the pun) about what you have posted and my views will change, but for now I thank you for your thread, it was fascinating and impressive.

 

 

========================================================================

 

The biggest problem I see with you posting this here is that as far as I can tell none of us have the training to know if what you are putting forth is even accurate, let alone correct.

 

As I said this is a Faith vs................................"Science" forum.   And this is Science.

 

Also, you don't have to have a PhD in Astrophysics to Understand and evaluate the evidence and bottom line.  It's quite simple actually.

 

 

but I can understand why you will not.

 

Really?  You can't evaluate the subject @ hand but you can read my mind and evaluate motives?  Interesting.

 

It comes down to the fact I have two people telling me two very different things so I have to choose which I am going to accept.

 

That's easy....which one of those "People" have "EVIDENCE" to Support or Refute.

 

I will stick with the experts that I have been following for a few years now.

 

Well, that's what they call in the Industry...... "Blind Faith".  In fact it's worse, because you have a Falsified Concept staring you right in the face.

 

 

but for now I thank you for your thread, it was fascinating and impressive.

 

Thank you.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

&nbsp;

An interesting presentation; thank you. Do you think that red shift can only be explained by the doppler effect of an expanding unverse? Have you considered that the genuine advances in knowledge of human science are part of the common grace of God (rain falls on the just &amp; unjust)? Of course you expect the enemy to add in some anti-Bible propaganda

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

============================================================

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

An interesting presentation; thank you.

&nbsp;

You're welcome

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Do you think that red shift can only be explained by the doppler effect of an expanding unverse?

&nbsp;

From the evidence above, I don't think it has any application or efficacy for anything, whatsoever.

&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Have you considered that the genuine advances in knowledge of human science are part of the common grace of God (rain falls on the just &amp; unjust)

&nbsp;

IMHO, GOD gave us this Universe to discover...........HIM.&nbsp; (See: Anthropic Principle)&nbsp;

&nbsp;

However, as with everything else satan..... defiles/counterfeits/corrupts.

&nbsp;

Remember what satan promised Eve....

&nbsp;

(Genesis 3:5) "For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil."

&nbsp;

Nothing wrong with knowledge.....what is it's sources and purposes are the vital questions, IMHO

&nbsp;

Yes, knowledge is commendable, though it has the danger of puffing up. Know the LORD is a refrain in the OT. You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free -- conditioned upon abiding in God's Word.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

LookingForAnswers - I go with group one and you accuse me of blind faith. Now that is funny
 
I tend to be in agreement with you on this. Let the scientists fight it out, but I will note that BBT is hardly dead, in fact further confirmations appear to lend more support to BBT.
 
Data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of some 13 million galaxies, this study sheds more “light” on the issue and offers a refutation of Arp’s position.
 
This info can be found under Problems and Objections – h)
 
There is a considerable amount of info refuting Arp, Tifft, and others as well as further support for the BBT.
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

LookingForAnswers - I go with group one and you accuse me of blind faith. Now that is funny
 
I tend to be in agreement with you on this. Let the scientists fight it out, but I will note that BBT is hardly dead, in fact further confirmations appear to lend more support to BBT.
 
Data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of some 13 million galaxies, this study sheds more “light” on the issue and offers a refutation of Arp’s position.
 
This info can be found under Problems and Objections – h)
 
There is a considerable amount of info refuting Arp, Tifft, and others as well as further support for the BBT.

 

 

 

=========================================================================

 

 

I tend to be in agreement with you on this. Let the scientists fight it out, but I will note that BBT is hardly dead, in fact further confirmations appear to lend more support to BBT.

 

 

The BBT is a Joke and I've posted multiple refutations of it here and throughout this forum.  There are no confirmations "ZERO", just AD HOC observations assimilated into a never ending increasing array of adjustable parameters.

 

 

Data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, the positions of 200,000 quasars were correlated with the positions of some 13 million galaxies, this study sheds more “light” on the issue and offers a refutation of Arp’s position.

 

I reviewed Your Source: http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/633/2/589/fulltext/

 

Please pull out this refutation.  And Please Please connect it with...."cold dark matter model", "and the shape of the dark matter power spectrum", and VMAP"  Fairy Pixie Dust.

 

 

This info can be found under Problems and Objections – h)

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

 

If you wish to be taken seriously, please don't post "scientific related" propaganda from Talk Origins....this is like the National Enquirer of science:

 

"The group is characterized by a long list of in-crowd jokes like the fictitious University of Ediacara,[3] the equally fictitious Evil Atheist Conspiracy[4] which allegedly hides all the evidence supporting Creationism, a monthly election of the Chez Watt-award for "statements that make you go 'say what', or some such.",[5] pun cascades, a strong predisposition to quoting Monty Python and a habit of calling penguins "the best birds"."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk.origins

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory
NGC7319.jpg

Spiral galaxy NGC 7319 showing position of high-redshift quasar. Credit: NASA

In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen’s Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away.  As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away.  The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar’s redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause.  This validates Halton Arp’s theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin.

There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular galaxy.  First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it.  Second, a jet is seen to connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319.

One likely cause of the quasar’s nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light.  This mechanism rules out the possibility that the quasar is a black hole since to develop a redshift of 2.09 (2.11 – 0.02), the spectral lines would have had to be generated at a point that would lie within any hypothetical black hole event horizon.  Black hole theory, however, forbids any such radiation from escaping the black hole.  Consequently, we are left to conclude that the quasar is not a black hole but a “mother star” and that the observed redshifted emission consists of emission line photons that have redshifted as they have climbed out of the quasar’s deep gravity well.

How we arrive at the above conclusion may be explained as follows.  The gravity potential of a star varies as M/R, where M is stellar mass and R is stellar radius and redshift z varies in direct proportion to the change in the ambient gravity potential as the photon escapes the quasar’s gravity well.  For the white dwarf Sirius B, z = 3 X 10-4 and its M/R =  4.2 X 1024 g/cm.  This quasar has a redshift relative to that of NGC 7319 of z = 2.09, which is ~7000 larger than that of Sirius B.  Consequently, if the quasar’s redshift is entirely gravitational, its line emission comes from a region whose gravity potential is 7000 times more negative than Sirius B, hence from a region outside the core where M/R = 2.9 X 1028 g/cm.  If the quasar core, then, is assumed to have a mass of one million solar masses, this redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 2 X 1039/2.9 X 1028 = 6.8 X 105 km, or about one solar radius from the gravity well’s center.

If, on the other hand, the quasar is assumed to have a mass of ten million solar masses, the redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.

Now according to black hole theory, the Schwartzchild radius for a one million solar mass black hole would have a radius of 3.1 million km, equal to 4.5 solar radii.  But, due to gravitational lensing, its Schwarzschild event horizon should appear to us to have a radius of 16 million km (5.2 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius).  So, in this case, the quasar’s redshifted light would be coming from a radius almost 24 times smaller than its apparent Schwarzschild radius, an impossibility in black hole theory.

We get a similar result if the quasar core is assumed to have a larger mass.  For example, if it were to have a mass of ten million solar masses, its redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.  A ten million solar mass black hole, on the other hand, would have a Schwartzchild radius of 31 million km or 45 solar radii, and taking gravitational lensing into account, would appear to have a radius of 234 solar radii.  So, again, the redshift of this quasar indicates that the emission has come from a radius almost 24 times smaller than the event horizon radius.

In the case where the quasar were instead a supermassive stellar core, a mother star radiating prodigious quantities of genic energy, it would have to have a radius equal to or less than the above estimated emission radius.  If we assume for simplicity that the emission line radiation comes from the star’s surface, then in the case of a one million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 106 g/cm3.  In the case of a ten million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 104 g/cm3.  This is less than the density of a white dwarf such as Sirius B, which has a density of 4 X 106 g/cm3.   The mother star would not be electron degenerate since a star having a mass in the range of one to ten million solar masses would only reach electron degeneracy when its radius had decreased to 20 to 40 km, or about 500 to 50,000 times smaller than the estimated radius.  Such large radii are permissible since the mother star does not require electron degeneracy to support its mass; its immense outpouring of genic energy keeps it from contracting.  For a discussion of electron degeneracy in celestial masses see the Astrophysics Spectator.

The broadening of quasar emission lines, usually interpreted as being due to Doppler broadening of gas ejected from a quasar at high velocity, may also in part be due to the emission originating at differing depths in the quasar’s gravity well.  For example, emission generated 10% further out from the center of the quasar’s gravity well would produce a redshift about ten percent lower, resembling an outflow velocity of ~5000 km/s.

Another mechanism that could cause a nonDoppler redshift in quasar spectra is that suggested by Paul Marmet in which photons become redshifted as a result of scattering from clouds of electrons.  He suggested this as a mechanism to explain the solar limb redshift effect as well as the redshift excess observed in quasar emission lines as compared with quasar absorption lines (Marmet, Physics Essays, 1988).

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory
NGC7319.jpg

Spiral galaxy NGC 7319 showing position of high-redshift quasar. Credit: NASA

In 2005 a quasar with redshift z = 2.11 was discovered near the core of active galaxy NGC 7319 which is a low redshift galaxy (z = 0.0225) in Stephen’s Quintet that is located about 360 million light years away.  As noted in a UC San Diego news release, this presents a problem for standard theory which customarily places a quasar with such a large redshift at a distance of about 10 billion light years, or 30 times further away.  The finding that the NGC 7319 quasar is actually a member of a low redshift galaxy, indicates that the quasar’s redshift is neither due to cosmological expansion nor to tired-light redshifting, but to some other cause.  This validates Halton Arp’s theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin.

There are two reasons to conclude that this quasar is associated with this particular galaxy.  First, the dust in this part of the galaxy is so dense that it is unlikely that light from a distant quasar would be able to be visible through it.  Second, a jet is seen to connect the active nucleus of NGC 7319 with this quasar suggesting that the quasar source was ejected from the core of NGC 7319.

One likely cause of the quasar’s nonvelocity redshifting is gravitational redshifting of its emitted light.  This mechanism rules out the possibility that the quasar is a black hole since to develop a redshift of 2.09 (2.11 – 0.02), the spectral lines would have had to be generated at a point that would lie within any hypothetical black hole event horizon.  Black hole theory, however, forbids any such radiation from escaping the black hole.  Consequently, we are left to conclude that the quasar is not a black hole but a “mother star” and that the observed redshifted emission consists of emission line photons that have redshifted as they have climbed out of the quasar’s deep gravity well.

How we arrive at the above conclusion may be explained as follows.  The gravity potential of a star varies as M/R, where M is stellar mass and R is stellar radius and redshift z varies in direct proportion to the change in the ambient gravity potential as the photon escapes the quasar’s gravity well.  For the white dwarf Sirius B, z = 3 X 10-4 and its M/R =  4.2 X 1024 g/cm.  This quasar has a redshift relative to that of NGC 7319 of z = 2.09, which is ~7000 larger than that of Sirius B.  Consequently, if the quasar’s redshift is entirely gravitational, its line emission comes from a region whose gravity potential is 7000 times more negative than Sirius B, hence from a region outside the core where M/R = 2.9 X 1028 g/cm.  If the quasar core, then, is assumed to have a mass of one million solar masses, this redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 2 X 1039/2.9 X 1028 = 6.8 X 105 km, or about one solar radius from the gravity well’s center.

If, on the other hand, the quasar is assumed to have a mass of ten million solar masses, the redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.

Now according to black hole theory, the Schwartzchild radius for a one million solar mass black hole would have a radius of 3.1 million km, equal to 4.5 solar radii.  But, due to gravitational lensing, its Schwarzschild event horizon should appear to us to have a radius of 16 million km (5.2 times larger than the Schwarzschild radius).  So, in this case, the quasar’s redshifted light would be coming from a radius almost 24 times smaller than its apparent Schwarzschild radius, an impossibility in black hole theory.

We get a similar result if the quasar core is assumed to have a larger mass.  For example, if it were to have a mass of ten million solar masses, its redshifted emission would have to originate at a radial distance of 6.8 X 106 km, or about 9.8 solar radii from the well’s center.  A ten million solar mass black hole, on the other hand, would have a Schwartzchild radius of 31 million km or 45 solar radii, and taking gravitational lensing into account, would appear to have a radius of 234 solar radii.  So, again, the redshift of this quasar indicates that the emission has come from a radius almost 24 times smaller than the event horizon radius.

In the case where the quasar were instead a supermassive stellar core, a mother star radiating prodigious quantities of genic energy, it would have to have a radius equal to or less than the above estimated emission radius.  If we assume for simplicity that the emission line radiation comes from the star’s surface, then in the case of a one million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 106 g/cm3.  In the case of a ten million solar mass mother star, the star would have a density of 1.52 X 104 g/cm3.  This is less than the density of a white dwarf such as Sirius B, which has a density of 4 X 106 g/cm3.   The mother star would not be electron degenerate since a star having a mass in the range of one to ten million solar masses would only reach electron degeneracy when its radius had decreased to 20 to 40 km, or about 500 to 50,000 times smaller than the estimated radius.  Such large radii are permissible since the mother star does not require electron degeneracy to support its mass; its immense outpouring of genic energy keeps it from contracting.  For a discussion of electron degeneracy in celestial masses see the Astrophysics Spectator.

The broadening of quasar emission lines, usually interpreted as being due to Doppler broadening of gas ejected from a quasar at high velocity, may also in part be due to the emission originating at differing depths in the quasar’s gravity well.  For example, emission generated 10% further out from the center of the quasar’s gravity well would produce a redshift about ten percent lower, resembling an outflow velocity of ~5000 km/s.

Another mechanism that could cause a nonDoppler redshift in quasar spectra is that suggested by Paul Marmet in which photons become redshifted as a result of scattering from clouds of electrons.  He suggested this as a mechanism to explain the solar limb redshift effect as well as the redshift excess observed in quasar emission lines as compared with quasar absorption lines (Marmet, Physics Essays, 1988).

 

 

 

==========================================================================================

 

 

This validates Halton Arp’s theory that most of the redshift seen in quasars has a noncosmological origin.

 

Thanks  :thumbsup:

 

 

Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory

 

Patience Young Skywalker ......wait till "The Kracken" comes a callin  :)

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

 

 

 

Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory

 

Patience Young Skywalker ......wait till "The Kracken" comes a callin  :)

 

That is the beauty of science vs dogma...science will change based on the facts whereas dogma will attempt to change the facts to fit.  The point of this whole thread is lost...are you trying to disparage astronomy/physics/astrophysics?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0