Far Distance Run Around

[Sparky]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2011/ ... stance.htm

How many anomalies does it take to falsify a theory?

For those who refuse to overcome their indoctrination and move out of their comfort zone of organized ignorance, and away from others of that ilk, what is the best term to apply to them?

How would their perverted thinking in one area suggest that they be suspect in other areas?

Isn't their behavior, holding on desperately to something that they should have outgrown, and chanting in drone like repetition, " no, no, this is mine, it must be right," much like a child, throwing a tantrum?

Do we need a "time out" room, away from their cult, to show them that life will not end if they open a book of knowledge beyond their fantasies. Or supply, free of charge, a back bone stiffener and color change?

[Sparky]

Any of the 70 viewers agree or disagree?

[Nereid]

From the TPOD: "Astronomer Halton Arp, for instance, interprets galactic redshift to be an indicator of age and not distance."

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

In the thousands of papers on plasma physics, and in the hundreds of textbooks on it, where are intrinsic redshifts (of the kind assumed by Arp) derived, theoretically?

If the experimental and theoretical evidence for intrinsic redshifts is zero, why hasn't all mention of Arp's interpretations been long since moved to the NIAMI section?

[Jarvamundo]

why

shazam

How many anomalies does it take to falsify a theory?

bah... cmon sparky, you don't like 'surprizes'? /sarcasm.

[Sparky]

why

shazam

How many anomalies does it take to falsify a theory?

bah... cmon sparky, you don't like 'surprizes'? /sarcasm.

Thank you for the image post!...and to take the sarcasm literally-

No, i do not! And for reasons i will not discuss here.

But, discoveries are much different...It is one of a very few pleasure that i have, to explore new discoveries. That is why i am at this site, to learn a bit about how we have been hood winked by explanations of many amazing discoveries.


Neireid, your 1st question is better answered by someone with more science knowledge than i....2nd question is putting theoretical equal to empirical...that can be argued again, but i believe it is not accurate. Your third question is nonsense, as it implies previous correct assertions.

[solrey]

Nereid said:
If the experimental and theoretical evidence for intrinsic redshifts is zero, why hasn't all mention of Arp's interpretations been long since moved to the NIAMI section?

<sarc>
You must be a riot to hang out with.
</sarc>

In the thousands of papers on plasma physics, and in the hundreds of textbooks on it, where are intrinsic redshifts (of the kind assumed by Arp) derived, theoretically?

The following paper contains equations and references related to the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift model.

Published in "The Astrophysical Journal" Volume 648, Number 1 (2006):

Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model (pdf)

The redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog III, Third Data Release, is examined. Six Peaks that fall within the redshift window below z = 4, are visible. Their positions agree with the preferred redshift values predicted by the decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, even though this model was derived using completely independent evidence. A power spectrum analysis of the full dataset confirms the presence of a single, significant power peak at the expected redshift period. Power peaks with the predicted period are also obtained when the upper and lower halves of the redshift distribution are examined separately. The periodicity detected is in linear z, as opposed to log(1+z). Because the peaks in the SDSS quasar redshift distribution agree well with the preferred redshifts predicted by the intrinsic redshift relation, we conclude that this relation, and the peaks in the redshift distribution, likely both have the same origin, and this may be intrinsic redshifts, or a common selection effect. However, because of the way the intrinsic redshift relation was determined it seems unlikely that one selection effect could have been responsible for both.

Would we expect to see time dilation of quasars in the DIR model? No, because the DIR model is not dependent on distance. Indeed, observations confirm there is no time dilation in quasars.

On time dilation in quasar light curves (pdf)

In this paper we set out to measure time dilation in quasar light curves. In order to detect the effects of time dilation, sets of light curves from two monitoring programmes are used to construct Fourier power spectra covering timescales from 50 days to 28 years. Data from high and low redshift samples are compared to look for the changes expected from time dilation. The main result of the paper is that quasar light curves do not show the effects of time dilation. Several explanations are discussed, including the possibility that time dilation effects are exactly offset by an increase in timescale of variation associated with black hole growth, or that the variations are caused by microlensing in which case time dilation would not be expected.

Ooops, observations seem to confirm intrinsic redshift.

cheers

[omni-tom]

http://www.springerlink.com/content/t17401650822m547/

W. M. Napier and B. N. G. Guthrie

Abstract
A project intended to examine the long-standing claims that extragalactic redshifts are periodic or quantized was initiated some years ago at the Royal Observatory, Edinburgh. The approach taken is outlined, and the main conclusions to date are summarized. The existence of a galactocentric redshift quantization is confirmed at a high confidence level.

Sadly i'm not a subscriber and cant get the full article, some of you seem to have ways of finding most papers, this would be an interesting readthrough

[solrey]

Good find omni-tom. That's part one of a two part series. Here are links to both papers.

Testing for quantized redshifts. I. The project

To sum up, over the range of redshifts tested, the redshift quantization has been consistently and reproducibly observed in all data sufficiently accurate to reveal it: our statistical analysis merely formalizes an empirical result.

Testing for quantized redshifts. II. the local supercluster

To sum up, our study constitutes by far the most severe test yet applied to the quantized redshift claims, and has involved the analysis of over 250 new, accurately measured redshifts. At a very high confidence level, we confirm the existence of a strong, consistent, easily galactocentric redshift periodicity of ~37.5 km s-1. The quantized redshift claims do not sit comfortably with standard, and successful, cosmological theories, and have been largely ignored for twenty years. However high-precision redshift data have been accumulating rapidly over the last decade, and we may now be reaching the stage where the issue is forced by the weight of these new observations.

A related paper:

Redshifts in space caused by stimulated Raman scattering in cold intergalactic Rydberg matter with experimental verification

The quantized redshifts observed from galaxies in the local supercluster have recently been shown to be well described by stimulated Stokes Raman processes in intergalactic Rydberg matter (RM). The size of the quanta corresponds to transitions in the planar clusters forming the RM, of the order of 6 × 10−6 cm−1. A stimulated Stokes Raman process gives redshifts that are independent of the wavelength of the radiation, and it allows the radiation to proceed without deflection, in agreement with observation. Such redshifts must also be additive during the passage through space. Rydberg matter is common in space and explains the observed Faraday rotation in intergalactic space and the spectroscopic signatures called unidentified infrared bands (UIBs) and diffuse interstellar bands (DIBs). Rydberg matter was also recently proposed to be baryonic dark matter. Experiments now show directly that IR light is redshifted by a Stokes stimulated Raman process in cold RM. Shifts of 0.02 cm−1 are regularly observed. It is shown by detailed calculations based on the experimental results that the redshifts due to Stokes scattering are of at least the same magnitude as observations.

Rydberg excitation in ultracold gases

[quote]Rydberg atoms are highly excited atoms with one valence electron of principal quantum number n>>1. Because of their huge size of the order n2a0 they are very susceptible to external electric fields and interact strongly. These unusually strong interactions lead to a blockade of excitation in the so called blockade radius of the Rydberg atoms. If the system is driven coherently a single excitation can be shared by several atoms within the blockade radius, forming a 'super atom', a collective quantum state. In this project Rydberg excitation of a magnetically trapped dense cloud is performed. Goals of this experiment, besides the study of interactions between Rydberg atoms (dipole-dipole and van der Waals interaction) and the already shown excitation of Rydberg atoms in a Bose-Einstein condensate (news from the lab), are studies of the coherent collective quantum states (news from the lab). Furthermore a novel type of molecular bond can be formed by Rydberg atoms. After the first observation of these molecular states (news from the lab) and further studies of this new binding mechanism (news from the lab), coherent control of the molecules is experimentally investigated in this project (news from the lab).[/quote]

There ya go, theory, observation and related experiments all in support of intrinsic redshift.

cheers

[Nereid]

shazam

"Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion" (bold added)

What a great way to answer these two questions, Jarvamundo (NOT! )

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

In the thousands of papers on plasma physics, and in the hundreds of textbooks on it, where are intrinsic redshifts (of the kind assumed by Arp) derived, theoretically?

Neireid, your 1st question is better answered by someone with more science knowledge than i

OK

....2nd question is putting theoretical equal to empirical...that can be argued again, but i believe it is not accurate.

Hmm, any scientific basis for that belief?

Your third question is nonsense, as it implies previous correct assertions.

Well, I believe "nonsense" is a bit too strong; after all the third question began with these words: "If the experimental and theoretical evidence for intrinsic redshifts is zero" ...

<sarc>
You must be a riot to hang out with.
</sarc>

<sarc>
You're a laugh a minute.
</sarc>

In the thousands of papers on plasma physics, and in the hundreds of textbooks on it, where are intrinsic redshifts (of the kind assumed by Arp) derived, theoretically?

The following paper contains equations and references related to the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift model.

[material containing nothing - nada, zilch, zero - to do with plasma physics skipped]

So that's a 'there is no basis, in plasma physics, for galactic redshifts being intrinsic (per Arp)', right?

After all, the TPOD statement ("Astronomer Halton Arp, for instance, interprets galactic redshift to be an indicator of age and not distance") is about galactic redshifts, not quasars.

Maybe you'd like to try again?

[material containing nothing - nada, zilch, zero - to do with plasma physics skipped]

Here are the first two of my three questions again:

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

In the thousands of papers on plasma physics, and in the hundreds of textbooks on it, where are intrinsic redshifts (of the kind assumed by Arp) derived, theoretically?

A related paper:

Redshifts in space caused by stimulated Raman scattering in cold intergalactic Rydberg matter with experimental verification

Rydberg excitation in ultracold gases

There ya go, theory, observation and related experiments all in support of intrinsic redshift.

Now that's a lot better than your previous post, solrey.

Holmlid's papers (there are at least another half dozen) will surely be interesting reading (assuming you can actually get hold of them); however, I'm not sure they are consistent with the 'intrinsic redshifts' that are central to Arp's interpretation.

[tayga]

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

If the experimental and *theoretical evidence for intrinsic redshifts is zero, why hasn't all mention of Arp's interpretations been long since moved to the NIAMI section?

Along with black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy et al?

*Who dreamed up this concept? Sounds like the sort of 'evidence' that underlies all of the above.

[omni-tom]

Isn't the larger question at hand strictly whether redshifts are quantized or not? Yes or NO. There is much more than Arp's reputation on the line. Nereid, what if quantum physics gives the answer, why do you stress specifically plasma experiments? Perhaps staying only within a narrow discipline is the cause of many holes in our understanding. Do you accept the papers solrey linked? If not, why not?

[Nereid]

Along with black holes, neutron stars, dark matter, dark energy et al?

Indeed, that's a good question tayga!

If the key criterion is 'experiments, done in labs here on Earth', then all threads on all of the above should also be in NIAMI. The prominent green 495.9 nm and 500.7 nm emission lines, seen in the spectrum of millions of astronomical objects, should also be declared to be a complete mystery, and the search for a new element - nebulium - should resume forthwith!

If that criterion is relaxed to allow theoretical derivation from 'the laws of physics', then those green lines are OK (they are 'forbidden' transitions of doubly ionised oxygen), and so are black holes and neutron stars. Dark matter would be a bit grey, and dark energy would need to be better defined - as a shorthand for one way to view many tens of thousands of observations, it'd be just like those two green lines; as a theoretical derivation it's OK too.

However, the Arpian 'intrinsic redshifts' ("Astronomer Halton Arp, for instance, interprets galactic redshift to be an indicator of age and not distance" - TPOD) would remain pure NIAMI concepts (the Holmlid papers solrey cited - great find solrey! - would seem to be quite inconsistent with Arp's ideas; as solrey noted, the stimulated Raman scattering in cold intergalactic Rydberg matter would be a kind of 'tired light', in Arp's idea the redshifts are intrinsic).

There is much more than Arp's reputation on the line.

I don't see how; my comments concern the consistency with which EU theories (or models) are applied to extra-galactic astronomy and cosmology. In this sense, the only reputation that might be on the line would be Arp's, as an electrical theorist... but since he's not, that's moot, isn't it?

Nereid, what if quantum physics gives the answer, why do you stress specifically plasma experiments?

"Experiments, done in labs here on Earth" - in the first criterion - is not limited to plasma experiments.

"the thousands of papers on plasma physics, and in the hundreds of textbooks on it" - in the second criterion - is because, from what I've read, only plasma physics (with a sprinkling of Newtonian gravity) is acceptable when it comes to theoretical derivations - check out all the EU material on black holes and neutron stars, for example, or fusion as what powers the Sun (though I must say that the apparent acceptance of the 495.9 and 500.7 nm prominent emission lines - as fobidden transitions of doubly ionised oxygen - seems rather anomalous).

Perhaps staying only within a narrow discipline is the cause of many holes in our understanding.

Yep, that's one important consideration, isn't it?

Do you accept the papers solrey linked? If not, why not?

I haven't read them (and the key ones they cite) yet; when I have, I'll make a point of commenting further.

[klypp]

Nereid wants "experimental and theoretical evidence for intrinsic redshifts", and by "experimental" she means "experiments, done in labs here on Earth". This simply kills Arp’s observations.
It also kills astronomy, astrophysics and most of cosmology. What survives would be the “theoretical evidence” in the manifold of holy scriptures.

Quasars are not the only place where intrinsic redshift is observed. We need not look any further than our own familiar sun. This has been known for more than a century, constantly verified by better observations and through and through ignored by Nereid and her likes. Nevertheless, it is an observational fact.

For those who think that observations should have any significance in science, I recommend this Review of Anomalous Redshift Data by Hilton Ratcliffe.

[solrey]

Nereid wrote:
I haven't read them (and the key ones they cite) yet; when I have, I'll make a point of commenting further.

The suspense is like watching a maniacal hand in need of a manicure hovering over a chalkboard and waiting for the inevitable screeeeeeckk.

Here's more independent confirmation of intrinsic redshift:

Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies (pdf)

Abstract:
The Tully-Fisher Relationship (TFR) is utilized to identify anomalous redshifts in normal spiral galaxies. Three redshift anomalies are identified in this analysis: (1) Several clusters of galaxies are examined in which late type spirals have significant excess redshifts relative to early type spirals in the same clusters, (2) Galaxies of morphology similar to ScI galaxies are found to have a systematic excess redshift relative to the redshifts expected if the Hubble Constant is 72 km s-1 Mpc-1, (3) individual galaxies, pairs, and groups are identified which strongly deviate from the predictions of a smooth Hubble flow. These redshift deviations are significantly larger than can be explained by peculiar motions and TFR errors. It is concluded that the redshift anomalies identified in this analysis are consistent with previous claims for large non-cosmological (intrinsic) redshifts.

The results of this study support previous claims for large redshift anomalies in normal spiral galaxies (Arp 1988, 1990, 1994; Russell 2002).

The results of this analysis strongly suggest that large redshift anomalies exist in normal galaxies which are most likely non-doppler (intrinsic) in nature. While the exact mechanism for intrinsic redshifts is necessarily speculative at this time, the empirical evidence is consistent with the intrinsic component of redshifts being in discrete amounts and age related such that younger objects have a larger component of intrinsic redshift than older objects at the same distance.

I'd like to remind our audience that Peratt's double radio lobe simulations produced high redshift sources in the early to mid steps of the time series.

It's acknowledged that observations confirm intrinsic redshift relating to both galaxy evolution and quasars. This has been predicted in one way or another in the results of Peratt's simulations and Arp's observations. Now that intrinsic redshift is independently verified several times over, the next step is to devise experiments to determine cause and effect. Research on the Rydberg regime seems to be looking in the right direction and would fit in with the redshift versus age scenario particularly in regards to freshly ejected, highly excited matter.

Nereid wrote:
<sarc>
You're a laugh a minute.
</sarc>

Yeah, well ya know, like, he who gets the last laugh, right?

cheers

[Nereid]

Nereid wants "experimental and theoretical evidence for intrinsic redshifts", and by "experimental" she means "experiments, done in labs here on Earth". This simply kills Arp’s observations.
It also kills astronomy, astrophysics and most of cosmology. What survives would be the “theoretical evidence” in the manifold of holy scriptures.

Not quite, but close.

One of the things I'm highlighting, klypp, is the need for consistency, in EU theory.

If electrical theorists reject neutron stars because isolated neutrons in the lab are not stable (despite knowing full well that they are consistent with well-established theory), and that the Sun is powered by fusion because such fusion cannot be sustained in the lab (despite knowing full well that such fusion in the core of the Sun is consistent with well-established theory) - to take just two examples - then all Arp's (and others') observations count for nothing (zip, nada, etc) as evidence for a new property of matter ('intrinsic redshift', of the Arp/TPOD kind). Why? Because no such intrinsic redshift* has been observed in any lab experiment!

Did you understand my comments about the 495.9 and 500.7 nm emission lines seen so prominently in the spectrum of so many astronomical objects? Are these due to forbidden transitions in doubly ionised oxygen? Or some as-yet-undiscovered element? Or of Rydberg matter? Or ...?

* note to solrey: please do not add too much of your own imagination to this; Arp's papers seem pretty unambiguous on the nature of intrinsic redshift, and none of those cite any papers by Holmlid (I haven't found any yet anyway).