Far Distance Run Around

[Sparky]

Brynjolfsson's work is cited by no one but himself (in any substantive sense) - what does that tell you?

What does it tell you, Nereid?

Good question!...

I don't know who Brynjolfsson is, but i did find several papers on redshift by him...Who would "cite" him except those working on similar things, and since that population is small at this time, is it a good argument that he isn't cited, if indeed that is the case!

Very arrogant and dismissive (implied ad hominem) position to take for Nereid.

[Nereid]

Brynjolfsson's work is cited by no one but himself (in any substantive sense) - what does that tell you?

Well, let's ignore your subjective caveat of "substantive," or how this should be interpreted for an alternative cosmology approach and the peer review process that has been discussed at length on this board, as well as failing to respond to your other unsubstantiated claim that Brynjolfsson tweaked his work. - but I'll just go ahead with a list, shall we?

"Plasma Redshift, Time Dilation, and Supernovas Ia" by A Brynjolfsson

Cited list:

1. Evidence for a Non-Expanding Universe: Surface Brightness Data From HUDF
Authors: Eric J. Lerner (Lawrenceville Plasma Physics)

2. Sandage versus Hubble on the reality of the expanding universe
Authors: Domingos S.L. Soares

3. Another possible interplay between gravitation and cosmology
Author: Michael A. Ivanov

4. No-time-dilation corrected Supernovae 1a and GRBs data and low-energy quantum gravity
Author: Ivanov - 2010 - ivanovma.narod.ru

Next:

Brynjolfsson: "Redshift of photons penetrating a hot plasma"

Cited list:

1. Science, Technology and Mission Design
for the Laser Astrometric Test Of Relativity
Authors: Slava G. Turyshev,a Michael Shao,a and Kenneth L. Nordtvedt, Jr.b

2. An Explanation of Redshift in a Static Universe
Author: Lyndon Ashmore

3. New formulas for the Hubble constant in a Euclidean static universe
Author: Lorenzo Zaninetti Dipartimento di Fisica Generale, via P. Giuria 1, I-10125 Turin, Italy

Next:

Brynjolfsson: Plasma-Redshift Cosmology: A Review

Cited list:

1. Cosmic Agnosticism, Revisited
Author: TE Eastman - Journal of Cosmology, 2010 - journalofcosmology.com

Oh ... and just so we're clear as to whom TE Eastman is:

Dr. Timothy Eastman has joined the Raytheon/ITSS contractor team supporting NSSDC and SSDOO activities at Goddard. Tim assumes the leadership of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups.

Tim has had a long career as a space physics researcher and is best known for his work on magnetospheric boundary layers and the initial discovery of the Low Latitude Boundary Layer. Among his past activities were collaborations with SSDOO scientists, especially Jim Green, Shing Fung, Mona Kessel and Scott Boardsen, on analysis of data from the Hawkeye spacecraft.

In addition, he has served as program director for space plasmas at both NASA/Headquarters and at the National Science Foundation. At NASA, he played a key role, with Stan Shawhan, in initiating the ISTP program and the Space Physics Division (now Sun Earth Connections).

In recent years, Tim has had his own consulting company whose work includes a web site "representing all aspects of plasma science and technology prepared as a service for the general public as well as for the educational and research communities."

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nssdc_news/j ... stman.html

And why is Eastman citing Brynjolfsson. Good question! Because it relates directly with another frivolous claim posited by Nereid. Here's what Eastman cited:

Anomalous redshifts – strong evidence has emerged for non-expansion redshifts (Ratcliffe, 2009), and there are several viable frequency transfer processes available for quantitative testing (Marmet, 2009; Brynjolfsson, 2009);

Well, enough of that:

Moving on:

his interpretations of some lab experimental results make sense only within his own theoretical framework - what does that mean?

Wouldn't it just be easier and at least display a modicum of academic discourse to quote Brynjolfsson and then offer a counter argument. Otherwise, you're making an argument for someone.

Brynjolfsson states:

I have failed to conceive of a reliable and practical laboratory experiment for testing the pertinent theorems. The plasma redshift is likely to play an important role in future designs of fusion experiments, because of its unique feature of transferring heat energy to a fully ionized plasma. In such experiments, it is important to use the fact that the initial plasma-redshift, as given by Eq. (18), is proportional to the photon width γ. The source of the light used should therefore be designed to produce large photon widths, for example, by use of light sources at high pressures and high temperatures. X-ray frequencies are usually needed for exceeding the plasma-redshift cut-off at relatively high densities. In hydrogen fusion experiments, we could make use of plasma-redshift heating, but it would be difficult to test quantitatively the different relations. The fusion equipment are usually too small and the plasma often not in thermodynamic equilibrium, which would make it difficult to measure conclusively small plasma redshifts. I have therefore opted to use different astronomical observations for testing the predictions of the theory.

7.1 Tests for confirming the plasma redshift

We can confirm the plasma redshift by observing the shifts of spectral lines of stars as they graze the limb of the Sun during eclipse of the Sun by the Moon. Each and every spectral line from a star will be redshifted slightly as the line of sight to the star grazes the limb of the Sun. All the lines will have the natural classical photon widths, because they will all have penetrated an adequate column density of a plasma to obtain this width. Therefore, all the lines passing at a certain distance from the solar limb will gain the same redshift increment, δz, as they penetrate the solar corona, provided the wavelength is shorter than the cut-off wavelength in the densest part of the corona they penetrate.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/ ... 1420v3.pdf

my question contains the following key phrase: "the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation"; that interpretation involves many elements not found in Brynjolfsson's work (see below) - a rather important point, is it not?

What is central here is that Brynjolfsson relies on Arp's reference to the K-effect. Furthermore, Brynjolfsson research is best articulated from the following overview of the The Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference
Port Angeles, WA, USA, 8th to 11th September, 2008 where Arp was the keynote speaker:

Plasma cosmology, as pioneered by Hannes Alfvén, is also not new. Ari Brynjolfsson brought us up to date on where the small but vociferous band of plasma theorists and practitioners has taken the model. The newly discovered and verified plasma-redshift cross section of photons penetrating hot sparse plasma leads to a new cosmology, an infinite and quasi-static universe, which is radically different from the conventional Big Bang model. Like QSSC, Plasma Cosmology does without or rationally explains many of the problems of the Standard Model, and is of particular interest to those who share this writer’s fascination with cosmological electro-magnetism.

http://www.hiltonratcliffe.com/article008.htm

That's a clear and consistent description, thank you Aristarchus (your second post is irrelevant to this thread - not least because you seem to have ignored the qualifier "substantive" - so I won't comment on it).

However, to see why it does not address the actual question I asked, we need to refer back to it

What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?

Further, we need to refer to what was in the TPOD, Far Distance Around - "Astronomer Halton Arp, for instance, interprets galactic redshift to be an indicator of age and not distance."

Finally, we need to tie this in to EU theory. The link to EU theory is easy to provide; it's Thornhill himself, in Grey Matter vs Dark Matter; here's a couple of paras from that:

So, what is redshift really about? Simply, Arp's empirical observations show that the higher the redshift of an object, the younger it is. He has found that parent, active galaxies, spawn infant galaxies in the form of faint, highly redshifted quasars. The quasars are ejected from the parent galaxy's nucleus, most often along the spin axis but sometimes in the plane of the galaxy.

By a process that is not understood by present particle physics, the redshift of quasars decreases in discrete steps, or quanta, as they age, grow in brightness and move away from the parent galaxy. At the same time, the ejected quasar becomes more massive and slows down, eventually becoming a companion galaxy of the parent. Arp can trace several galactic generations from charts like the one he is seen holding. It is curious yet somewhat fitting that the visible universe exhibits such a "biological" pattern.

So, central to the question I actually asked are features such as:
* a monotonic relationship between 'age' and redshift quantisation (the older, the lower the redshift)
* a relationship between speed (away from the parent) and age
* a monotonic relationship between age and mass

Does Brynjolfsson's work point to any lab experiments whose results show the production of intrinsic redshifts with these features?

I, myself, don't think so.

What does it tell you, Nereid?

That his ideas very likely have no scientific legs.

I don't know who Brynjolfsson is, but i did find several papers on redshift by him...Who would "cite" him except those working on similar things, and since that population is small at this time, is it a good argument that he isn't cited, if indeed that is the case!

Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Well, 'intrinsic redshifts' seem to be important to EU theory (see the Thornhill article I quoted from above), so I guess electrical theorists would be among them, wouldn't they?

Also, and perhaps more importantly, have you considered the possibility that Brynjolfsson's work contains some serious flaws? Flaws sufficiently big that no journal has seen fit (so far) to publish his work?

Very arrogant and dismissive (implied ad hominem) position to take for Nereid.

I guess I've been here too long then ... (there's a recent post by Mike H, here in this forum, that you might like to read Sparky, and one by Lloyd too, and ...)

[Aristarchus]

(your second post is irrelevant to this thread - not least because you seem to have ignored the qualifier "substantive"

I chose to ignore it because it is a subjective statement that you use to elude a proper defense of your positing, and it also did not comport with the logic that we're talking about an alternative scientific approach. However, as stated before by others on this forum, the alternative approaches in the EU model and especially plasma cosmology are gaining greater interest. The latter reality leads you to attempt to discredit without careful consideration or investigation, and thus, your motives are exposed with each and every post you submit here.

I would also suggest that if you want to at least feign making a consistent argument you might want to avoid such contradictions as claiming my "second post is irrelevant to this thread," and yet, you posted my entire response in your last post on this topic. This does show a lack of consistency in defense of your statement. Perhaps now you can go on to your next argument as to why you consider Dr. Timothy Eastman a non-substantive source.

What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?

This was answered already on this topic and the other topic under the TB forum Electric Universe subject heading, "Interacting galaxies, help needed," as it appears that laboratory experiments have provided some evidence for the possibility for intrinsic redshift.

Perhaps, you need further explanation - Brynjolfsson states:

Initially, when very little matter covers up the ends of the vortex, we observe two jets, one from each end, beaming far away from many objects believed to be black holes. We will first see “knots” or “lumps” on the beams or jets, because, as is well known from laboratory experiments and theory for pair production, matter enhances the transformation rate of photons to particle pairs. Occasionally, these “lumps” and “knots” may coalesce as they are being pushed away, and could possibly form quasars, about the way Halton Arp sees it in his monograph, Seeing Red, [52]. For example, the largest “lump” in M87 already now emits more X rays than the core of M87.

It's related to the following experiments

Existing laboratory experiments can produce highly collimated jets that become kink unstable at a critical length and, in certain cases, manifest internal shocks, knots, and even disconnection of the jet from the source. Existing experiments can thus be used in the near term to address a set of questions discussed above, including: What collimates the jets? What is the jet stability with sufficiently strong axial currents (magnetic fields)? What mechanisms can suppress the kink instability in jets? How does the jet interact with the ambient medium? Is there intrinsic connection between the physics of radio jets and lobes, and laboratory spheromak and reversed-field pinch experiments?

http://www.pppl.gov/conferences/2010/WO ... tFINAL.pdf

a monotonic relationship between 'age' and redshift quantisation (the older, the lower the redshift)

According to Eric Lerner, he explains:

http://www.fixall.org/bigbang/bigblackbang.htm

INTERPRETATION IN STANDARD MODEL

"The hydrogen clouds doing the absorbing are not uniformly spread through space, and are more abundant at recent (therefore close) epochs. Lack of metal lines makes galaxy halos unlikely candidates as absorbers."

OBSERVATIONAL FACT

"The number of absorption line systems seen in Lyman alpha does not monotonically increase with redshift. Low-z quasars such as 3C 273 (z = 0.16) have as many absorption systems as high-z quasars."

INTERPRETATION IN GENERIC MODEL

"The absorption systems are due to layering in the quasar and its surrounding nebulosity. No linear or monotonic relationship with redshift is expected."

Ergo, Nereid, if you're going to regard the "spectroscopic experiments in laboratories on Earth," as evidence for the explanation of emission and absorption proposed in the Doppler redshift, the onus is on you to explain how these laboratory experiments do not comport with observations, e.g., Lyman alpha.

[Nereid]

I chose to ignore it because it is a subjective statement that you use to elude a proper defense of your positing,

You really, really like to use this rhetorical device, don't you Aristarchus?

Rather than address the substance - and actual content - of what it written, you spend thousands of words on attacking the writer's intentions (as if you are a mind reader).

and it also did not comport with the logic that we're talking about an alternative scientific approach.

Which would be fine ... except for the fact that the only discussion I am interested in having, in this thread, is on the words used in the TPOD, and the EU theory ideas behind them, i.e. the Thornhill/Arp intrinsic redshifts.

However, as stated before by others on this forum, the alternative approaches in the EU model and especially plasma cosmology are gaining greater interest. The latter reality leads you to attempt to discredit without careful consideration or investigation, and thus, your motives are exposed with each and every post you submit here.

Which may, or may not, be true; and, independent of whether it's true (or not), may, or may not, be interesting.

However, what is true is that neither you, nor any other Thunderbolts forum member, has been able to provide an answer to my simple question; namely What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?

This was answered already on this topic and the other topic under the TB forum Electric Universe subject heading, "Interacting galaxies, help needed," as it appears that laboratory experiments have provided some evidence for the possibility for intrinsic redshift.

This, too, seems to be a rhetorical device you like to use, Aristarchus.

Again, the question asked does not refer to Brynjolfsson-style plasma redshifts, nor Wolf effect redshifts, nor JMB CREIL-based redshifts, nor ... it is about the 'variable mass'/'mass increases with age'/etc intrinsic redshifts of Arp (and Thornhill).

Ergo, Nereid, if you're going to regard the "spectroscopic experiments in laboratories on Earth," as evidence for the explanation of emission and absorption proposed in the Doppler redshift, the onus is on you to explain how these laboratory experiments do not comport with observations, e.g., Lyman alpha.

In this vein, may I make an observation, Aristarchus?

In the Peratt's Plasma Universe Down thread, I learned that these words appear on that webpage: "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'." Why? And what did the writer, of those words (Peratt?) mean by 'anti-science'?

Have you wondered, Aristarchus, that the sorts of rhetorical devices you seem to be so enamoured with might contribute to the formation of an opinion about a site being 'anti-science'?

[Sparky]

Nereid, what do you see and what does it mean to you?

[Aristarchus]

Nereid,

I'm not interested in going tit-for-tat with you, in essence, indulging your ability to project. Other TB forum members will indulge you. I will not.

The laboratory experiments that tend to give credence to Arp's intrinsic redshift are noted by Brynjolfsson, and this relates to Arp stating:

The best example is M87 which has a series of radio \knots" coming out along a jet from the interior. They are visibly ablating along the edge of the ejection cone. They are radiating in ultra violet, visible, X-ray and radio. But no emission lines are present because the charged particles have not had time to assemble themselves into atoms.But they are, as Ambarzumian suggested in the 1950's, big galaxies giving birth to small galaxies. The ejected plasmoid out of which the new galaxies were evolving. Ambarzumian called it super °uid. Further along the line of the jet is a large, X-ray galaxy (z =.085).

A pair of quasars are aligned across it (z = 1:28 and 1:02). The mean intrinsic redshift for the pair then is .98 - the Karlsson peak is at .96!

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/intri ... laxies.pdf

Brynjolfsson states:

Initially, when very little matter covers up the ends of the vortex, we observe two jets, one from each end, beaming far away from many objects believed to be black holes. We will first see “knots” or “lumps” on the beams or jets, because, as is well known from laboratory experiments and theory for pair production, matter enhances the transformation rate of photons to particle pairs. Occasionally, these “lumps” and “knots” may coalesce as they are being pushed away, and could possibly form quasars, about the way Halton Arp sees it in his monograph, Seeing Red, [52]. For example, the largest “lump” in M87 already now emits more X rays than the core of M87.

This is confirmed by the following link and quote I provided in my last post, even though, this relates to another conundrum presented by the establishment science, regarding (viz), "Friction from the in-falling matter generates a ten-million-degree plasma surrounding the black hole that emits an enormous amount of light and X-rays."

It is as follows:

Existing laboratory experiments can produce highly collimated jets that become kink unstable at a critical length and, in certain cases, manifest internal shocks, knots, and even disconnection of the jet from the source. Existing experiments can thus be used in the near term to address a set of questions discussed above, including: What collimates the jets? What is the jet stability with sufficiently strong axial currents (magnetic fields)? What mechanisms can suppress the kink instability in jets? How does the jet interact with the ambient medium? Is there intrinsic connection between the physics of radio jets and lobes, and laboratory spheromak and reversed-field pinch experiments?

Your next unqualified benchmark concerning the mathematical function of monotonic as ancillary to your original question, was answered from the quote provided by Eric Lerner:

OBSERVATIONAL FACT

"The number of absorption line systems seen in Lyman alpha does not monotonically increase with redshift. Low-z quasars such as 3C 273 (z = 0.16) have as many absorption systems as high-z quasars."

Thus, at this stage of the discussion, we have the following:

1. There are laboratory experiments that tend to confirm the intrinsic nature of redshift posited by Arp concerning "knots" & "lumps."

2. There are laboratory experiments that tend to confirm the redshift as present by the establishment science in the form of spectroscopic experiments.

However, as it relates to numero dos, these spectroscopic experiments do not appear to comport with the observation, as mentioned by Lerner regarding Lyman alpha.

In the Peratt's Plasma Universe Down thread, I learned that these words appear on that webpage: "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'." Why? And what did the writer, of those words (Peratt?) mean by 'anti-science'?

And this pertains to your question, how? Anyways, I believe it was answered when I submitted something on another topic, where Peratt acknowledges Thornhill. In addition, the following I wrote today regarding this subject in relation to the acknowledgement that Peratt gives Scott's book, The Electric Sky:

“It is gratifying to see the work of my mentor, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén enumerated with such clarity.I am also pleased to see that Dr. Scott has given general readers such a lucid and understandable summary of my own work.”

– Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. He is the author of Physics of the Plasma Universe and numerous published papers.

[Lloyd]

* Besides Aristarchus' quotes of Peratt re Scott and Thornhill, it should also be pointed out that Peratt probably does not have control of the wording of his website. I heard that fanatics, like Leroy Ellenberger and Jason Schroeder [?], i.e. pretended "Science Apologist", deluge Peratt's lab and its funders with claims that Peratt associates with anti-science promoters, like Scott and Thornhill. And that's the reason the lab was forced to mention no association with them.
* Is that your style, Nereid? Do you favor the old McCarthyism tactics of smearing the names of professionals in order to elicit hysterical reactions from the public? Are you trying to say that you agree that Thornhill and Scott promote anti-science?

You also said: However, what is true is that neither you, nor any other Thunderbolts forum member, has been able to provide an answer to my simple question; namely What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?

* Aside from Aristarchus' refutation of your statement, what I've been saying for some time now also refutes it. To observe the microcosm, we use microscopes etc. To observe the macrocosm beyond Earth, we use telescopes. Telescopes are in labs on Earth, just as are microscopes. So telescopic observations of a high redshift object in front of a low redshift galaxy is laboratory proof of the intrinsic redshift.

[Sparky]

NGC 1232, -- The primary galaxy has a redshift of z = .005. Its first companion (left side of photo) has a redshift of z = .021. The tiny companion on the upper arm has a redshift of z = .1.

from http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2007/ ... ective.htm

Nereid, what do you see and what does it mean to you?

[Nereid]

Sparky (and others),

It has taken me quite some time to understand what the guidelines to this forum mean:

A reminder to all users of our forum, that this is the Thunderbolts.info forum and NOT the publishing house for all other theories of the universe.

All posts to the scientific parts of the forum should be confined to properly constructed scientific arguments either supporting or challenging published Electric Universe theory. The ONLY places we treat as exceptions to these guidelines is on "The Human Question" and "New Insights and Mad Ideas" boards.

Then there's the daily posting limit rule.

I thought I'd made it very clear, in my first post in this thread, clarified by my citing of the leading electrical theorist Thornhill on Arpian intrinsic redshifts, just what I will discuss in this thread.

In the Gravity eases its pull thread, I wrote a lengthy post on why Arpian intrinsic redshifts are so radical, requiring the abandonment of a foundational principle of astronomy (namely, that the 'laws of physics' are the same, everywhere and everywhen).

Of course, I may be wrong, but the only results from lab experiments that would be consistent with Arp's intrinsic redshift, per Thornhill's explanation, would be the discovery that some electrons have masses significantly less than 9.1 x 10^-31kg (and protons, 1.67 x 10^-27 kg). Needless to say, such a discovery would completely upend quantum physics, plasma physics, and classical electromagnetism to boot (and would earn the discoverer a free trip to Stockholm, likely within a year).

what I've been saying for some time now also refutes it. To observe the microcosm, we use microscopes etc. To observe the macrocosm beyond Earth, we use telescopes. Telescopes are in labs on Earth, just as are microscopes. So telescopic observations of a high redshift object in front of a low redshift galaxy is laboratory proof of the intrinsic redshift.

That's a pretty radical stance to take Lloyd, and I'm not sure you appreciate some of its inevitable consequences (hard to avoid the conclusion that black holes exist, for example, and certainly neutron stars); in any case, why not argue this in the other thread?

Aristarchus, your lengthy post contains many logical errors, and several science (physics) ones as well; however, the most glaring is that it does not actually speak to the intrinsic redshift of Arp, per the Thornhill source I cited. I'll explain this in more detail in a later post.

[Aristarchus]

Aristarchus, your lengthy post contains many logical errors, and several science (physics) ones as well; however, the most glaring is that it does not actually speak to the intrinsic redshift of Arp, per the Thornhill source I cited. I'll explain this in more detail in a later post.

I'll wait your response, but I'm beginning to feel that I could supply, at least on this topic, a post that will provide a litany demonstrating the lack of concatenation on your part. I think I'm justified in doing this, since your main complaint appears to be that of not being understood.

It might assist you to create a table that will also have citation links that give context for referencing something regarding the following from you: "would be the discovery that some electrons have masses significantly less than 9.1 x 10^-31kg (and protons, 1.67 x 10^-27 kg)." - then, in a column next to it, your question. You know, something like that. This will allow the reader more than just a snippet from you, so as for the reader to go back and look at that sentence in the overall context of the source/citation, and gauging it against your question.

Well, be that as it may, I already have other sources available, because I'm fairly certain I can anticipate, even portend, your next direction. Good luck.

[Nereid]

As promised

Aristarchus, your lengthy post contains many logical errors, and several science (physics) ones as well; however, the most glaring is that it does not actually speak to the intrinsic redshift of Arp, per the Thornhill source I cited. I'll explain this in more detail in a later post.

In no particular order:

The laboratory experiments that tend to give credence to Arp's intrinsic redshift are noted by Brynjolfsson, and this relates to Arp stating:

(highlight added)

Which is rather different from Arp citing, or quoting, the laboratory experiments that Brynjolfsson notes, isn't it?

Now if, instead, you could quote from a paper by Arp, citing Brynjolfsson ...

This [the laboratory experiments that tend to give credence to Arp's intrinsic redshift] is confirmed by the following link [...] It is as follows:

What follows contains nothing on intrinsic redshifts, and only the vaguest of hints of any connection with what Brynjolfsson states.

Your next unqualified benchmark concerning the mathematical function of monotonic as ancillary to your original question, was answered from the quote provided by Eric Lerner:

OBSERVATIONAL FACT

"The number of absorption line systems seen in Lyman alpha does not monotonically increase with redshift. Low-z quasars such as 3C 273 (z = 0.16) have as many absorption systems as high-z quasars."

OK, so what did I actually write?

So, central to the question I actually asked are features such as:
* a monotonic relationship between 'age' and redshift quantisation (the older, the lower the redshift)
* a relationship between speed (away from the parent) and age
* a monotonic relationship between age and mass

Sure, both my 'features' statement and Lerner's contain the word 'monotonic'; but they refer to two completely different things!

In mine, the Arpian intrinsic redshift feature is this: a quasar is born, and ejected from its parent galaxy's nucleus. It starts life with a high redshift. As it ages (and moves away from its birthplace), its redshift decreases (or, possibly, remains constant); as it ages, its redshift does not increase again.

Lerner is talking about the Lyman alpha forest, and absorbtion line systems (there may be several other absorption lines, MgII say, with the same redshift as a particular Lyman alpha absorption line); the number of these systems is not a monotonic function of redshift.

Thus, at this stage of the discussion, we have the following:

1. There are laboratory experiments that tend to confirm the intrinsic nature of redshift posited by Arp concerning "knots" & "lumps."

2. There are laboratory experiments that tend to confirm the redshift as present by the establishment science in the form of spectroscopic experiments.

However, as it relates to numero dos, these spectroscopic experiments do not appear to comport with the observation, as mentioned by Lerner regarding Lyman alpha.

You don't actually say so, but I guess it's some things in Brynjolfsson's paper(s) that you have in mind for numero dos, right?

Having dealt with your apparent misunderstanding of what Lerner wrote, time to move on.

In the Peratt's Plasma Universe Down thread, I learned that these words appear on that webpage: "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'." Why? And what did the writer, of those words (Peratt?) mean by 'anti-science'?

And this pertains to your question, how?

If you'd've quoted the next para, you'd know:

Have you wondered, Aristarchus, that the sorts of rhetorical devices you seem to be so enamoured with might contribute to the formation of an opinion about a site being 'anti-science'?

In other words, I was asking you a question, about the way you construct arguments/ideas/comments, not what Peratt thought of Scott or Thornhill.

Anyway, I'll likely take this up in another thread, at another time; I think it's an important question that I think should concern the Thunderbolts Project team members.

I'll wait your response, but I'm beginning to feel that I could supply, at least on this topic, a post that will provide a litany demonstrating the lack of concatenation on your part. I think I'm justified in doing this, since your main complaint appears to be that of not being understood.

I think that'd be a very good idea (though how you decided that my main complaint appears to be that of not being understood I do not know; it's true of many of our exchanges of posts, but you are but one of the many Thunderbolts forum members I have been involved in such exchanges with).

To help you, please consider this:
* I made many mistakes, in the first month or so, in posting in this forum; I did not know what Electric Universe theory was (and am still learning)
* I did not know what Electric Universe theory publications were, until about a month ago (e.g. I thought TPODs were such publications, silly me)
* I have only just realised how few the number of alternative theories of physics (or models, etc) Electric Universe theory includes (Arpian intrinsic redshifts is, perhaps, the most prominent).

It also took me some time to adjust to the new six-posts-a-day-tops rule (I still find adhering to this difficult).

[Aristarchus]

Nereid,

By far, (no pun intended), your previous post contains so many misrepresentations from my previous effort, it's actually stunning. Quite frankly, I was expecting a better effort from you. However, I think it is clear that you're not interested engaging in an open discussion. I suspect that there are those at the BAUT and JREF that are beginning to see subject search queries on the topics discussed here that are retrieving results for the Thunderbolt forum, and an effort is being made to supplant the BAUT/JREF indoctrination dogma here to make sure the bases are covered, but really, now.

Which is rather different from Arp citing, or quoting, the laboratory experiments that Brynjolfsson notes, isn't it?

Now if, instead, you could quote from a paper by Arp, citing Brynjolfsson ...

At long last, Nereid, have you no compunction at all about the topics here. I already posted something other than Brynjolfsson regarding these laboratory experiments, and since it pertained to what is done in plasma physics, the fact that Brynjolfsson and the Report of the Workshop on Opportunities in Plasma Astrophysics mentions them is more than ample proof that they exist. Arp's work is observational astronomy and this is where he directs his focus. Not only do you disregard that subject matter of this forum, ignoring more than half of the responses directed at you, but you also are impervious about the basic approaches in scientific research and the crossovers therein. In addition, I posted a link from The Second Crisis in Cosmology Conference, which Arp was a keynote speaker and where Brynjolfsson gave a presentation, asked by the likes of these heavy hitters:


The Heavies! The CCC2 panel chairmen fielding questions at the closing session. From left, Eric Lerner, Chuck Gallo, Chris Fulton, Hilton Ratcliffe, Tim Eastman

Again, you present something lacking a premise and proper thesis in an effort of indulging in the fallacy of trying to force one to prove a negative. Thus, in your estimation now, and the ever changing course you're taking this topic, are you actually going on record that these experiments are now negated due to the fact that Arp doesn't mention them? Why do you purposely ignore the fact that there's a conference where all these ideas are discussed among the different fields, and where there's the appropriate scientific standard of entertaining all efforts articulated in proper research language?

The above is the reason why I chose the word "credence," because all involved are requesting further studies combined with what has already been discovered either through laboratory experiment and observations , which totally negates the intention of your questions of seeking absolutes with no proper relation to what is actually in the research.

What follows contains nothing on intrinsic redshifts, and only the vaguest of hints of any connection with what Brynjolfsson states.

Oh. Excuse me. And here I was under the impression you were requesting something aside from Brynjolfsson. Remember? Something about how he was only citing himself, even though I posted that there were reputable researchers like Tim Eastman that cited Brynjolfsson. That was when you went dancing across the yard markers with the field goal again with another rephrasing of your question.

In mine, the Arpian intrinsic redshift feature is this: a quasar is born, and ejected from its parent galaxy's nucleus. It starts life with a high redshift. As it ages (and moves away from its birthplace), its redshift decreases (or, possibly, remains constant); as it ages, its redshift does not increase again.

Don't tell me what Arp states. Show me what Arp actually states. For example:

At the moment we may not know what causes the Karlsson peaks and periodicities but we do know that empirically the phenomenon treats quasars (e.g. z = 1:96) and active galaxies and galaxies (e.g. z = :06) equally. The :06 objects are mostly galaxies but they are preferentially centered around lower redshift parents in classic groups.

Having an empirical picture of continuity through spectrophotometric, spectrographic and morphological data it should be possible to start to understand an evolutionary model of the constituent objects in our universe. If the parameter of redshift does not indicate distance but rather age (time) then we should try explanatory cosmic theories of reproduction with competing forms of evolution.

If the empirical pattern of quasars and galaxies evolving through low redshift stages at relatively low luminosities is the means of obtaining empirical data on their constituent matter, the matter is arguably the main cause of their intrinsic redshift. It would seem important to program observations at all wavelengths in order to gain a full understanding of redshift periodicities.

Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies

Now, go back and reread what I wrote:

Ergo, Nereid, if you're going to regard the "spectroscopic experiments in laboratories on Earth," as evidence for the explanation of emission and absorption proposed in the Doppler redshift, the onus is on you to explain how these laboratory experiments do not comport with observations, e.g., Lyman alpha.

Now, let's return to Arp:

Mrk 205 figures in another long standing argument about distances of quasars. It was long ago argued that since low red shift absorption lines were often seen in the spectra of high redshift quasars that the quasars had to be at great distances in back of the galaxies which were causing the absorption. Some partisans aggressively searched for absorption lines from NGC 4319 in the spectrum of the bright Mrk 205. At first they did not find any but finally they found a weak line and announced that this proved that Mrk 205 was in back of the galaxy. But they barely mentioned that the line was about 10 times fainter than than expected. I.e. the quasar was indicated to be only 10% in back of the galaxy(Or one might say 90% in front.)

This illustrates of course that an object can be just in back, or even within the envelope of the low redshift absorber. The argument used to be that for quasars of different redshift closely along the same line of sight that the absorption lines were almost always from the lower redshift quasar, thus showing that the high redshift quasars were always in back of the low. But if the high redshift quasars were smaller than the low redshift ones, as indicated by local quasars, then the high redshift ones could be just in back of, or even within, the larger envelope of the low redshift quasar. Astronomers got quite carried away for a while measuring quasars with larger and larger separations along the line of sight and deriving larger and larger clouds around the quasars, or intervening in the line of sight. Amusingly they derived clouds so ridiculously large in linear dimension, if at redshift distances, that they research in this direction was dropped.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals

Now, we're discussing how these measurments relates to your following question: "a relationship between speed (away from the parent) and age"

For example NGC6848 is 13.1 mag. An even brighter galaxy, however, which surprisingly, was missed by early catalogers is ES0 185-54 at mB = 11.9 mag. The latter is the dominant galaxy in a group of galaxies which is called MdCL 15 (Maia et al. 1989). Ramella, Focardi and Geller (1996) give a mean redshift of z = .0157 for this group. The most startling result, however, is shown in Fig. 2 where the galaxies of redshift near 5,000 km/sec extend out on both sides of the central group and join and intermingle with the galaxies of around 17,000 km/sec. The configuration is striking even when all the galaxies in the area are plotted (e.g. in SIMBAD) regardless of whether their redshifts are known or not. The two elongated X-ray clusters appear to be continuous, linear extensions of the bright galaxies surrounding the central ESO 185-54 galaxy.

... Note Added. After the submission of this manuscript a preprint appeared by Vikhlinin, Markevitch and Murray (2001) reporting that Chandra observations of Abell 3667 showed a bow shock indicating that it was moving through the intergalactic medium with a speed of about 1400 km/sec. They state “The edge is . . . almost perpendicular to the line connecting subclusters A and B.” That would place it at p.a. = 122 to 127 degrees. But it has just been noted in the closing paragraph above that the inferred line of SE ejection from the central ESO 185-54 is about p.a. = 125 deg. We therefore now have direct evidence for Abell 3667 moving accurately out along this line of ejection which had been previously predicted.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origi ... y_clusters

Lerner is talking about the Lyman alpha forest, and absorbtion line systems (there may be several other absorption lines, MgII say, with the same redshift as a particular Lyman alpha absorption line); the number of these systems is not a monotonic function of redshift.

Except, you ignore his conclusion:

INTERPRETATION IN GENERIC MODEL

"The absorption systems are due to layering in the quasar and its surrounding nebulosity. No linear or monotonic relationship with redshift is expected."

Now, back to Halton Arp:

Faint Quasars Give Conclusive Evidence for Non-Velocity Redshifts

In the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, 243 redshifts of objects fainter than 25.5 mag. were observed. Remarkably, two of them turned out to be very high redshift at z = 4.800 and z = 4.882. Even more remarkably these two fell only 3 and 1.5 arcsec on either side of an emisssion line galaxy of z = .733. (The ESO Messenger No. 118, p.49 and Vanzella et al. astro-ph/0406591.) The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.

Quasars of z = 4.882 and z = 4.800 are aligned across an emission line galaxy of z = .733. Emission Ly alpha can be seen intruding into the spectrum of the lower redshift, central galaxy. (Vanzella et al. astro-ph/0406591)


Given what I posted here, explain or properly articulate the premise in your question:

a relationship between speed (away from the parent) and age

[Nereid]

What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?

Here's what Aristarchus, the only forum member who seems to have attempted to answer this question, has to say in answer to this question (in this post, in this thread):

Yep, nothing.

Want to try to correct that, Aristarchus?

Moving on ...

In mine, the Arpian intrinsic redshift feature is this: a quasar is born, and ejected from its parent galaxy's nucleus. It starts life with a high redshift. As it ages (and moves away from its birthplace), its redshift decreases (or, possibly, remains constant); as it ages, its redshift does not increase again.

Don't tell me what Arp states. Show me what Arp actually states.

No problem!

As far as I know, the papers which Arp published on this topic build on the Variable Mass Hypothesis (VMH), first proposed by Narlikar and Das. For example, this one (by Narlikar, Vishwakarma, Banerjee, Das, Arp, and Sato); here's the abstract (bold added):

Increasing numbers of active galaxies with significant alignments of quasars are being observed. It is the purpose of this paper to explore ejection dynamics of these quasars using the variable mass hypothesis (VMH) originally discussed by Narlikar and Das in 1980. According to the VMH quasars are ejected from parent galaxies initially with zero rest mass which grows through a Machian interaction. The intrinsic redshift of the quasar steadily decreases as its mass grows, but always remains in excess of the redshift of the galaxy. The ultimate aim of this hypothesis is to quantitatively relate the observed ordering of redshifts of ejected quasars, with separation from the galaxy, their intrinsic redshifts and the age of the evolutionary stage of the ejecta.

[Aristarchus]

Nereid,

From your posted abstract (viz),

The ultimate aim of this hypothesis is to quantitatively relate the observed ordering of redshifts of ejected quasars, with separation from the galaxy, their intrinsic redshifts and the age of the evolutionary stage of the ejecta.

I already addressed this issue on this topic (viz),

Now, we're discussing how these measurments relates to your following question: "a relationship between speed (away from the parent) and age"

And I already posted a reply as a follow up with the implied premise that these QSO speed/age measurements must be observed in reatlion to the clusters, e.g. Abell 3667:

We therefore now have direct evidence for Abell 3667 moving accurately out along this line of ejectionwhich had been previously predicted.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/origi ... y_clusters

Furthermore:

The clusters and the galaxies in them tend to be strong X-ray and radio emitters, and their redshifts occur at preferred redshift values. The central, low-redshift galaxies often show evidence of ejection in the direction of these higher redshift clusters. In all these respects the clusters resemble closely quasars which have been increasingly shown for the last 34 years to be similarly associated with active parent galaxies. New, especially significant pairings of quasars are presented here, which are, at the same time, associated with Abell clusters of galaxies. It is argued here that, empirically, the quasars are ejected from active galaxies. They evolve to lower redshift with time, forming stars, and fragmenting at the end of their development into clusters of low-luminosity galaxies. The cluster galaxies can be at the same distance as their lower redshift parents because they still retain a component of their earlier, quasar intrinsic redshift.

http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/549 ... .text.html

Now, in this context, rephrase your question and articulate it as a thesis statment. Otherwise, I believe you're making my point for me.

[Nereid]

Now, in this context, rephrase your question and articulate it as a thesis statment.

Aristarchus, I have only one question, in this thread.

Here it is (again):

What experiments, done in labs here on Earth, have produced the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation?

As far as I can tell, no one - including you - has provided an answer to that question (other than that of omission; i.e. silence).