Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_banner_31.thumb.jpg.b7a41d6a0fa4e315f57ea3e240acf140.jpg

Recommended Posts

Your final question about expected magnitude of a quasar at one billion lys distance. I have a distance in my notes for MK205 of 1100 mlys, that’s just over a billion right?
I will try to find out what magnitude this quasar is listed as. Why do I feel another question coming up?

If lensing is the cause of MK205 appearing to be next to NGC4319 then would the lensing effect cause 205 to appear differently, ie magnified in size or brightness?
 

Marvin

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The Wide field and Planetary Camera 2 on the Hubble Space Telescope always produced that shape of image, as there were separate imaging zones  I think you can discount a conspiracy to hide 'the t

A bit like Olbers paradox.  I suspect it is a combination of QSO were only active for a finite period and the Universe is too young for all QSO light to have got here yet. Regards  Andrew 

I am going to give that a go. See you next year😁 I will have a bash at it but it will take some time to come up with an incorrect answer.

Posted Images

Another of Arp's discoveries, which is even more interesting, is NGC7319,  with a red shift of 0.0225, that has a quasar in front of it but with a red shift of 2.114 which puts it billions of LY further away.

The Tooth fairy must have poked a hole in the galaxy for the quasar to shine through.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, philthy said:

Another of Arp's discoveries, which is even more interesting, is NGC7319,  with a red shift of 0.0225, that has a quasar in front of it but with a red shift of 2.114 which puts it billions of LY further away.

The Tooth fairy must have poked a hole in the galaxy for the quasar to shine through.

Thanks for the NGC number, I will look that up. 
Marv

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gfamily said:

Related to NGC7319 https://chandra.harvard.edu/blog/node/150

Thanks for the link Gfamily, I do enjoy our continuing conversation about this subject.

I on a personal note I find the contents of the link quite odd and in some places a bit contradictory after our far from groundbreaking collaboration on quasar density per square degree of sky experiment.

The choice of wording in the article I find poor. The third paragraph starts with “Even worse” after having ‘not’ proved a persons idea as being wrong and there conclusions incorrect. It is condescending frankly.

Paragraph five states that the background quasar seen through NGC7319 is not special. I have raised this issue before about questionable red shift of distant quasars and was told in respect of NGC4319 that the quasar was behind the galaxy and was proved to be, due to a single absorption line.

Is there any absorption line data for NGC7319????

Furthermore, why does this article based on fact and observation just suddenly jump to discrediting Halton Arps observations and conclusions in paragraph five? Like a giant Freudian slip. Scared of the man and his ideas?

Furthermore, I find the final sentence of Para five self serving and a little disturbing. That the data from the Sloan survey ‘exactly’ shows what was predicted by the cosmological models.

EXACTLY! Models plural! So all the cosmological models came up with exactly the same thing to then be proved to the last decimal point by the Sloan survey. 
No margin of error at all? Must be the most accurate measurements ever taken independently in the history of Science. Breathtaking.

One last thing. We have been round the table with this already and this article says ARP underestimates the amount of quasars. You underestimated the amount of quasars when we did the maths. At 12.8 million quasars (My number) we came up with a density of 0.8 quasar per square deg of sky.

I sent you details of a paper by ARP c1980 he was using between 6 to 10 Quasars per deg of sky, without using anything beyond 20 mag. Seems the man was damed if he did and damed if he didn’t.

Marv

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, philthy said:

https://starburstfound.org/sqkblog/?p=138

The position of the quasar doesn't look like a thin part of the galaxy NGC7319 to me. It's pretty central.

I just think Arp's ideas have been binned,  without due examination, because of the implications for the red shift & big bang theories.

Good to hear from you. Thanks for your view on the subject. Despite what might appear to be an ARP ist championing his ideas I am far from that.

I looked at some data, saw a problem and started looking. The more I looked the more questions I had. The question which started all this, about my conclusion that a Hubble picture was doctored was quickly answered. Shows I have an open mind after all.

I am not an advocate of one theory or another, but I do get annoyed when data, no matter how annoying is ignored. I get more than that, when it is discredited and sidelined for little scientific reason except that it doesn’t fit the current cosmological model.

Marv

Edited by Marvin Jenkins
Typo
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2020 at 20:14, philthy said:

I just think Arp's ideas have been binned,  without due examination

 

On 10/10/2020 at 20:44, Marvin Jenkins said:

I am not an advocate of one theory or another, but I do get annoyed when data, no matter how annoying is ignored. I get more than that, when it is discredited and sidelined for little scientific reason

Ummm, what makes you think there hasn't been examination of the ideas, or that they've been dismissed for little scientific reason? 

Edited by Gfamily
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gfamily said:

 

Ummm, what makes you think there hasn't been examination of the ideas, or that they've been dismissed for little scientific reason? 

Hi Gfamily, the reason I said that is because I can find so little scientific enquiry with regards to Arp’s claims about questionable red shift (except his own). I have spent a great deal of time looking for published papers examining his claims.

I find untold quotes, and comments with regards to ARP being wrong in websites to do with this subject. I am struck by how resistant many sources are to anything that questions Big Bang theory. It is not like saying the mans name three times will make him appear!

Furthermore, no matter how much we do this, I always end up on the end of a reply saying “ARP was wrong, red shift proves it” which is like saying you are right because you are right. You maybe right, but at the end of the day Big Bang is still a theory, not a fact.
 

Marv

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Marvin Jenkins said:

Hi Gfamily, the reason I said that is because I can find so little scientific enquiry with regards to Arp’s claims about questionable red shift (except his own). I have spent a great deal of time looking for published papers examining his claims.

I find untold quotes, and comments with regards to ARP being wrong in websites to do with this subject. I am struck by how resistant many sources are to anything that questions Big Bang theory. It is not like saying the mans name three times will make him appear!

Furthermore, no matter how much we do this, I always end up on the end of a reply saying “ARP was wrong, red shift proves it” which is like saying you are right because you are right. You maybe right, but at the end of the day Big Bang is still a theory, not a fact.
 

Marv

Arp's principal claim is that alignments between galaxies and AGNs are far higher than statistically likely, hence there is a physical cause for the correlation, and hence that red shift (for certain classes of astronomical objects) is not correlated to distance.

At the time of his claims, we didn't have the data about the distribution of quasars that we have now. The main argument against isn't "red shift proves Arp wrong", it's "More data shows that Arp's principal claim isn't correct". 

Picking individual cases and saying "this looks like it's closer than that", or "these two things look like they are connected" is a weak basis for challenging the generally accepted cosmological model. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if the principal item of evidence (the statistics) has been discounted, then reverting to individual 'odd looking' cases is not really strong enough.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Gfamily said:

Arp's principal claim is that alignments between galaxies and AGNs are far higher than statistically likely, hence there is a physical cause for the correlation, and hence that red shift (for certain classes of astronomical objects) is not correlated to distance.

At the time of his claims, we didn't have the data about the distribution of quasars that we have now. The main argument against isn't "red shift proves Arp wrong", it's "More data shows that Arp's principal claim isn't correct". 

Picking individual cases and saying "this looks like it's closer than that", or "these two things look like they are connected" is a weak basis for challenging the generally accepted cosmological model. 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and if the principal item of evidence (the statistics) has been discounted, then reverting to individual 'odd looking' cases is not really strong enough.

 

I understand where you are coming from and your reply is logical. However, in your second paragraph you write 'we didn't have the data that we have now' a few weeks ago you challenged me to calculate the density of quasars in the background field and you had QSO's at 5 to 600.000 from Wikipedia. I had that figure at 12.8 million from NASA. If just a few weeks ago your number from the Sloan Survey was different by 12.2 million give or take I will stop worrying about my maths skills, and you are comparing the knowledge of 'we' in the now to ARP in the 60s 70s and 80s.

 One last question. What happens in scientific fields when problems and problem objects that do not fit the generally accepted cosmological model occur? Are they written off as a statistical blip and presumed to disappear? When you say "picking individual cases is a week basis for challenging ideas" where does that leave scientific observation? Where would that have left Copernicus? The accepted model of his day was as you know, 'we' are at the center of the universe. In his time that was the 'Generally accepted cosmological model'. 

So, find an annomally, find a few, find a few more, but if they are in the minority and do not conform then they are discounted! Like I have said on numerous occasions you may be entirely correct, but you can't say for sure, and it doesn't make it look more likely that you are correct by discounting other ideas. 

Marvin

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.