0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Computer simulations.
Quasars are frequently used to determine distance. Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift. This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude. Not an insignificant amount.
Quote from: MikeS on 29/07/2011 13:16:51Quasars are frequently used to determine distance. Some quasars (the ones separate from their galaxies) are observed to be many orders of magnitude further away than their parent galaxies according to their red-shift. This would imply that the the red shift of quasars is being wrongly interpreted by orders of magnitude. Not an insignificant amount.This is actually not correct. It is difficult to tell some cases whether or not a quasar is part of a galaxy or whether that galaxy is actually between us and the quasar. In every case where it looks like a quasar has a different redshift than its host galaxy and we have been able to take a better look at the two objects, it has turned out that the quasar is much farther behind the galaxy.For example, see Peebles et al. in Nature, 1991.
How can we determine that other than by red-shift?
First, while it is possible that something might be wrong with redshift, it is important to note that the only people who seem to be taking this 2005 pair seriously have little, if any, credibility on this matter. Due to the weight of evidence from thousands of other galaxies and quasars, it just seems far more likely that these are two aligned objects. There is no way that galaxies are dense enough everywhere that they can block out any quasar behind them and the alignment of structures in our visual field is not a guarantee of association. If it were, we should believe that the constellations we have identified are really the mythical creatures and objects that we designated them to be.Quote from: MikeS on 01/08/2011 09:17:10How can we determine that other than by red-shift?We can look to the cosmological distance ladder. There is a book by this title one can get out from libraries. Otherwise, one can look to almost any introductory astronomy textbook.
As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies. This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.
Quote from: MikeS on 05/08/2011 10:04:23As some quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies so it must be expected that some quasars will have been ejected (from our perspective) behind their associated galaxies. This does not mean that any quasar seen behind a galaxy is not associated with it.No quasars appear in front of their associated galaxies. As with all astronomical objects, the objects appear at a certain position in a two-dimensional space. One has to infer the distance from the observer.One neat thing about determining quasar distances is that one can look at gravitationally lensed images of quasars and test whether or not they match the mass of the galaxy that is lensing the image. This allows us to test whether or not the quasar really is as distant as its redshift suggests. Whenever we could do this, it works out.Either there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are some anomalous alignments that create temporary confusion, or there are quasars that are truly at their redshift distance and there are also quasars that are not at their redshift distance but that are completely indistinguishable from these other quasars. This is not impossible, but it is something that is impossible to work into a good theory of the universe that can be compared to measurement.
Above I have given a few references to quasars that do appear to be in front of their associated galaxies.
I would imagine for a quasar to be lensed by a galaxy it would have to be a great distance behind the galaxy, therefore it is not associated and it would work out.
This is debatable, people have lost their careers by going against the mainstream on this subject.
The black hole; A gravitationally driven super concentration of materia beyond materia. Due to dynamic and gravitational effects in the surrounding galaxy the organization of this event becomes an essentially two dimensional event. Materia and energy hitting the event horizon has a probabilistic chance to slip out of the event plane and to escape as quasar radiation or later along the rotational axis of the black pit.Considering what we do know about the fascinating transitions between radiation and materia, including dark such, it appears scientifically unfounded to claim that once energy has taken the form of visible white light there is nothing in the universe that can affect or influence this form of energy. Not even its propagation speed or apparent wavelength. We know from the sciences of optics and radio technology that a multitude of events can alter this form of energy. Therefore, to postulate some inalterable and axiomatic qualities to the nature of visible, multi-chromatic white light and to use this, and red shift, as the basis for a dramatic hypothesis like The Big Bang, or other forms of pseudo scientific creationism, is insincere and more theater than science.You seem to be operating in some ignorance of the actual science. No cosmologists say that nothing can influence light. They identify many, many things that influence light and that they can use to make astronomical observations. It's just that, through careful measurement, they do not find traces of some known or unknown influence that would make the light redder from more distant galaxies other than that from standard cosmological theory.
They identify many, many things that influence light and that they can use to make astronomical observations. It's just that, through careful measurement, they do not find traces of some known or unknown influence that would make the light redder from more distant galaxies other than that from standard cosmological theory.
I am asking: With many possible explanations for red shift, should we not explore some of them before we put all our money on a dramatic but poorly supported big bang hypothesis.
How do we experimentally test these possibilities? I do it on the computer. I welcome anybody with a virtual million year optical table to take on the challenge.