Material Creation

[Mike C]

Science is not simply one's opinion either. It doesn't matter what freedom you think you should have. Backing up your claims is clearly stated in our rules. Comply or your repeated infractions will earn you a permanent suspension.

 

Wow. To my surprise, I got on the Hypography site today without any ban that I thought would be imposed yesterday

So to Craig, thanks.

 

C1ay

 

I have studied astronomy and physics for more than 20 years. I have an extensive knowledge base of these 2 subjects. So I use that as my source and also my library written by the experts such as:

 

Pasachoff, Einstein, Zeilik. Harrison, Peebles, Narlikar, an Encyclopedia of Cosmology plus numerous other authors on these subjects.

And, of course, Halton Arp. He is just an observer that did/does not have any opinions on the universe.

He did give his account of of the origin of the quasars that he said are 'ejected' from the galaxies.

I thought that was UNrealistic, so I figured our by observing some of the ejected quasars and have discovered that these ejected objects have opposite apparent disturbed pathways toward the centers that are barely visible at the outer part of the galaxies. So the conclusion here is that the opposite disturbance is caused by a small galaxy plunging through the large companion. From the outer edge toward the center, this opposite path increases from barely visible to increasing disturbances and maximises at the center to the exit on the other side.

But I do accept his redshift aomaly beyond a doubt.

 

So that is my sources for what I write.

 

Mike C

[C1ay]

I have studied astronomy and physics for more than 20 years. I have an extensive knowledge base of these 2 subjects. So I use that as my source and also my library written by the experts such as:

 

Rule 1 states, "In general, back up your claims by using links or references."

 

Rule 5 states, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted...

 

Again, you are expected to back up your claims here. If you get repeated infractions for refusing to support your claims our our infraction system will automatically suspend you either temporarily or permanently....

[Mike C]

Rule 1 states, "In general, back up your claims by using links or references."

 

Rule 5 states, "Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted...

 

Again, you are expected to back up your claims here. If you get repeated infractions for refusing to support your claims our our infraction system will automatically suspend you either temporarily or permanently....

 

OK. This will require some research time.

 

Mike C

[modest]

For the full recount of Arp’s take on the redshift, read Seeing Red. Here are just a couple of excerpts: “lower-mass electrons will give higher redshifts…younger electrons would be expected to have lower mass.” ...

 

The redshifts, according to Arp, are non-cosmological, non-velocity: They are due to the ‘age’ of the matter. Older matter shows less redshift; while younger matter shows higher redshift. As we look out into space, we are looking back in time (due to the finite speed of light), so it is logical that some objects situated at greater distances are younger than objects closer to home (provided, of course, they formed around the same universal time, whatever that is).

 

The matter in an area of space (like earth) is not all equally aged. This would be true for any model but is especially true in an Arp or Hoyle model. If an electron's mass depends on age - why do all electrons observed here on earth have equal mass? I think I'm missing something. Is there an Arp mechanism that equalizes the rest mass of baryons in an area? How else would cosmic rays arriving on earth have the exact mass of the earth's constituents? It doesn't seem possible that a subatomic particle's mass could depend on its age. We would observe that.

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

The matter in an area of space (like earth) is not all equally aged. This would be true for any model but is especially true in an Arp or Hoyle model. If an electron's mass depends on age - why do all electrons observed here on earth have equal mass? I think I'm missing something. Is there an Arp mechanism that equalizes the rest mass of baryons in an area? How else would cosmic rays arriving on earth have the exact mass of the earth's constituents? It doesn't seem possible that a subatomic particle's mass could depend on its age. We would observe that.

 

-modest

 

These are good questions. I can't answer them until I plunge back into Seeing Red, which won't be until next week.

 

I can say now, however, that a deep understanding of the details of Arp's operation (e.g., the physical mechanism involved in redshift-mass-age hypothesis) are not yet at hand, though Arp et al have proposed various partial insights.

 

Recall that Arp is an observational astronomer/cosmologist. His main contribution to cosmology had been centered on identifying luminous connections between galaxies and quasars of greatly disparate redshifts: a decisive way of establishing their non-velocity character and arguably evidence that the Hubble redshift-distance relation is violated.

 

Arp points out “these crucial, discordant redshift galaxies have been deliberately avoided by the world’s biggest and most expensive modern telescopes.” Arp also points out that most astronomers are willing to suppress observational evidence in order to “protect the key assumption about extragalactic redshift from re-examination.”

 

The skeptics say that these are chance association and that the objects in question just look as if they were connected because they are in the same line of sight or even in circumambulation. This type of argument would have passed if few associations had been discovered, but the empirical evidence shows large quantities of associated aggregates.

 

It was a logical conclusion for Arp to assume younger matter has higher redshift since the "ejected material" (generally quazars) show larger redshift(s) than the "progenitor galaxies."

 

Another major problem for modern cosmology is that quasars possess large amounts of iron. There appear to be only two and a half possible explanations, and both are a disappointment to most expansion theorists. They are either much older than expected - and so too is the universe - or they are much closer than their redshifts indicate - contradicting the Hubble law and the Doppler interpretation. The explanation few are likely to adhere to is that iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means.

 

 

 

CC

[modest]

These are good questions. I can't answer them until I plung back into Seeing Red, which won't be until next week.

 

That's ok. I should probably see if my library has his book if I'm going to talk intelligently about his theories.

 

The explanation few are likely to adhere to is that iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means.

The mans by which iron is produced is not unknown - it is very well know.

 

I do not share your frequently stated hypothesis that the oldest galaxies or quasars observed should be (according to BBT) metal or heavy-element free. Our best information says otherwise:

 

• Between recombination and the oldest observed quasars was the epoch of reionization

 

Thermodynamics of the early universe

 

• The most likely and most plausible candidate for reionization is population III stars.

Abraham Loeb - 2007

 

• Between .1 < T < 1 Gyrs the universe was a sea of massive stars. The maximum star formation density was already peaked before z = 5.5 and more than half of the stars today are older than 10 Gys

 

The cosmic star formation history

 

• The first and most numerous stars were massive and started forming at approximately 100 to 200 million years. Theory predicts this, evidence of this has been found, and there is no reason to think it is not the case.

Tracing the first stars with fluctuations of the cosmic infrared background

 

• Massive population III stars quickly fused H and He to mostly C, O, Si, and Fe and elements between.

 

Wiki Stellar Population

 

• Over several million years the PIII stars formed, fused all the fuel they could, and distributed their heavy elements through supernova

 

The evolution and explosion of massive stars Woosley and Weaver

 

• A population III star will form, fuse its fuel, and supernova in about 10 million years.

Making astronomical history

 

Massive Star Evolution Through the Ages

 

Q: So, is it a problem as you suggest that quasars have absorption lines of iron? Is it a problem that high-redshift galaxies have heavy elements? Is it correct to say "iron was produced very early on by unknown physical means"?

 

A: No, this is expected.

[modest]

Arp simply looked at the evidence, zeroed in the physical aspects (visible connections, luminous bridges) of celestial objects with divergent redshift and drew his own, often very astute conclusions. Because of the overwhelming evidence, the idea that redshift could be a measure of distance in an expand universe he found outrageous, absurd and even laughable.

 

Couldn't something like this:

source

be a quasar with a local galaxy in front of it?

That would maybe be a simpler explanation that the new material creation / redshift explanation. It would also explain why most all quasar and host spectra are more like this:

source

 

or is there a reason why the divergent data must be from the same source? Or is there an alternate theory that can explain the divergent data and the majority data?

 

-modest

[coldcreation]

...snip...or is there a reason why the divergent data must be from the same source? Or is there an alternate theory that can explain the divergent data and the majority data?

 

 

The skeptics say that these are chance association and that the objects in question just look as if they were connected because they are in the same line of sight or even in circumambulation. This type of argument would have passed if few associations had been discovered, but the empirical evidence shows large quantities of associated aggregates. Halton Arp has calculated the probabilities of chance associations for every group of connected bodies.

 

An example (and there are many) is the case of NGC4258; the chance of accidental association is one in 2.5 million. Another example has raised the ante to a chance of one in 4 million (M31). There are examples of discordant redshifts of connected objects that if calculated in velocity, show thousands of kilometers per second higher redshift than their associated companion. Some extreme examples of discordant redshift ‘velocities’ have ranged from 1,000 to 30,000 kilometers per second. These are the types of discoveries that ‘Chip’ Arp says turned out to be “a lift-you-out-of-your-chair thrill.”

 

 

CC

[modest]

The skeptics say that these are chance association and that the objects in question just look as if they were connected because they are in the same line of sight or even in circumambulation. This type of argument would have passed if few associations had been discovered, but the empirical evidence shows large quantities of associated aggregates. Halton Arp has calculated the probabilities of chance associations for every group of connected bodies.

 

An example (and there are many) is the case of NGC4258; the chance of accidental association is one in 2.5 million. Another example has raised the ante to a chance of one in 4 million (M31). There are examples of discordant redshifts of connected objects that if calculated in velocity, show thousands of kilometers per second higher redshift than their associated companion. Some extreme examples of discordant redshift ‘velocities’ have ranged from 1,000 to 30,000 kilometers per second. These are the types of discoveries that ‘Chip’ Arp says turned out to be “a lift-you-out-of-your-chair thrill.”

 

 

CC

 

Very interesting. I may have to find his book and perhaps an article written by one of them 'skeptics'.