Tolken Posted April 2, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 3 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 405 Content Per Day: 0.11 Reputation: 98 Days Won: 0 Joined: 02/27/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 2, 2014 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. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0504510 This info can be found under Problems and Objections – h) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html There is a considerable amount of info refuting Arp, Tifft, and others as well as further support for the BBT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted April 2, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted April 2, 2014 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. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/?0504510 This info can be found under Problems and Objections – h) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted April 2, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted April 2, 2014 From: http://www.thephysicsforum.com/astrophysics-cosmology/5748-question-red-shift.html « Tesla’s Comments on Stellar Energy in Agreement with SQK Primordial Lithium-7 Discrepancy for SQK? » Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory By admin | March 14, 2011 - 6:34 pm | Cosmology, galactic astronomy 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). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted April 2, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted April 2, 2014 From: http://www.thephysicsforum.com/astrophysics-cosmology/5748-question-red-shift.html « Tesla’s Comments on Stellar Energy in Agreement with SQK Primordial Lithium-7 Discrepancy for SQK? » Observation of a high redshift quasar in the low redshift galaxy NGC 7319 could refute black hole theory By admin | March 14, 2011 - 6:34 pm | Cosmology, galactic astronomy 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 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jerryR34 Posted April 2, 2014 Group: Removed from Forums for Breaking Terms of Service Followers: 0 Topic Count: 18 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 588 Content Per Day: 0.15 Reputation: 82 Days Won: 2 Joined: 11/22/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/12/1969 Share Posted April 2, 2014 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted April 2, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted April 2, 2014 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? ===================================================================== science will change based on the facts The point of this whole thread is lost... Maybe on you. The goal was Highlighted in the OP and repeated by Fresno Joe to you. Here it is again.... My Presupposition: "Secular" science is evil and is the hand of satan. and.... 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!! are you trying to disparage astronomy/physics/astrophysics? That's yet to come. My goal is to send them back to "their" stone age. Better keep that Physics forum on Speed Dial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted April 3, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.24 Reputation: 9,760 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted April 3, 2014 Drop the personal attacks or people will be banned from the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atwood Posted April 3, 2014 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 7 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 285 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 61 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/30/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted April 3, 2014 Thanks for your Attention. Have a Blessed Day --------- Enoch, would it be possible for you to pablumize this interesting presentation you have? Since we have essentially a 2 dimensional view of space, how does one know what is connected or not? ----------- BTW, I always get a chuckle when I hear the "scientific WE," as in "We know that . . . ." "We now know . . . ." Is this not uttered with a superior gleam in the eyes often? --------- The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament shows His handiwork. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enoch2021 Posted April 3, 2014 Group: Royal Member Followers: 11 Topic Count: 19 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 3,396 Content Per Day: 0.90 Reputation: 730 Days Won: 4 Joined: 12/21/2013 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/26/1963 Author Share Posted April 3, 2014 That's yet to come. My goal is to send them back to "their" stone age. Better keep that Physics forum on Speed Dial Well, so far you are batting zero, so I hope your kraken is better than the rest of the stuff you have posted. ======================================================================= Yes, it sure shows that on the thread Also something very strange; I have an email alert concerning a message you posted yesterday but it's not in the Thread?? Did you start deleting posts again? Like These.... Here's part of it.... Till then I cannot wait for May when Hugh Ross' new book Navigating Genesis comes out. Here is the teaser for it... Hugh Ross' New Book, eh? Well I do need some Kindling, my pile is looking a might peckish (Rough Winter) Pray Tell, Is he gonna have a Chapter Devoted to and Explaining his......"Fossils On The Moon" ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LookingForAnswers Posted April 3, 2014 Group: Seeker Followers: 0 Topic Count: 10 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 1,033 Content Per Day: 0.27 Reputation: 67 Days Won: 2 Joined: 12/26/2013 Status: Offline Share Posted April 3, 2014 Missing post would be an action of the Mods, if there is a problem take it up with them. As for the book I had mentioned that when your theory had enough support that you could write a full length book on it that I would read it and then reassess your views. Till then I was looking forward to reading the book by Ross. He has the skill, training and education to be able to write multiple books supporting his theories. Books are much better support than random out of context quotes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts