Anomalies List Project

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Anomalies List Project

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:39 pm

* This is another experiment from the "Possible projects for electric universe citizen scientists" thread on the EU board.
* Please use this thread only to list anomalies in any theory.
* Say briefly what the anomaly is and which theory it undermines.
* I'll start with an example shortly.
* By the way, if you find something on this list below that has an explanation, you can click on the title of the post to get the link, then put that link in a new post along with a brief mention that this anomaly has an explanation. And you should add a link to where to find the explanation, if it's long, or briefly describe the explanation, if it's short.
Last edited by Lloyd on Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:51 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by Lloyd » Sun Jan 30, 2011 6:44 pm

* The Quasar in front of a Galaxy at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... galaxy.htm is an anomaly for conventional quasar, redshift and Big Bang theory. A "stationary" object with high redshift in front of a "stationary" object with low redshift contradicts redshift = distance and velocity assumptions.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by Lloyd » Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:11 pm

Lunar Rille Anomalies
* These are most of the ones listed by Juergens at http://saturniancosmology.org/juergensa.htm.
Rille channels are wider at the high end, unlike with water erosion.
Rilles often start with a crater at the upper end.
They show no outwash deposits.
They show no bridges across channels.
There is often cratering in channels, much more than outside of channels.
Rilles often traverse high ground, but water doesn't significantly run uphill.
They stray from surface dips.
They often run on ridge crests, which is impossible for water etc.
Strata in rilles is upturned, something flowing liquid would not do.
Rilles often cluster and cross each other without erasing the crossing point.
There is often a second narrower rille in the bottom of the first.

Lloyd
Posts: 4433
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by Lloyd » Wed Feb 02, 2011 11:02 am

Crater Theory Anomalies
* These anomalies are hard to explain by conventional theory, but not by EU theory.
- Large meteorites on Earth found on the surface, seldom, if ever, in craters
- Lack of debris in craters on airless bodies
- Few, if any, overlapping craters
- Straight line crater chains
- Craters and crater chains often on crater rims
- Rays often tangent to crater rims
- Concentric rings
- Terraced walls
- Flat floors
- Steep walls
- Mostly circular shape, instead of oval
- Rilles often within and or near craters
- Frequent hexagonal shape
- Nanodiamonds often in or near craters

ThickTarget
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by ThickTarget » Wed Nov 06, 2013 12:14 am

http://thunderbolts.info/wp/forum/phpBB3/v ... 240#p46557
Lloyd wrote:* The Quasar in front of a Galaxy at http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch ... galaxy.htm is an anomaly for conventional quasar, redshift and Big Bang theory. A "stationary" object with high redshift in front of a "stationary" object with low redshift contradicts redshift = distance and velocity assumptions.
I will state (for completeness) that it cannot be said that quasar is a foreground object. Nothing in observation states their relative position (on the face of it), you cannot say it must be in front. Arp claims it is in the galaxy or nearby because he is aware of the evidence on this topic. The standard model says it is behind the galaxy shining though, nothing wrong with that. What that predicts is that since the quasar light passed though the galaxy it will have absorption lines at the redshift of the galaxy which is a different redshift to the lines produced in the quasar.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...620...88G

If you read this paper of which Arp is a coauthor lo and behold, this is what is observed. The quasar is not in front. It could be behind, inside or as Arp suggests, very nearby recently ejected. The paper later argues that a chance alignment is unlikely but this does not prove it isn't and his calculation is contested. Also there is no evidence they are stationary.

This does not invalidate the redshift distance relation.

User avatar
nick c
Site Admin
Posts: 2483
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm
Location: connecticut

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by nick c » Wed Nov 06, 2013 7:28 am

There are a few problems with your explanation Thick.
-As I see it, in order for the quasar to be behind the galaxy it would have to shine through obscuring molecular gas and dust clouds, that though tenuous, are nevertheless thousands of ly's thick.
-there is a jet apparently physically connected to the quasar. If the quasar is a distant object shining through, it then must be dismissed as a chance alignment

-This, as stated in the TPOD, seems to me to be the most likely explanation:
The tiny white spot is a quasar either silhouetted in front of the opaque gas clouds or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust.

ThickTarget
Posts: 186
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 7:23 pm

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by ThickTarget » Wed Nov 06, 2013 11:53 am

nick c wrote:There are a few problems with your explanation Thick.
-As I see it, in order for the quasar to be behind the galaxy it would have to shine through obscuring molecular gas and dust clouds, that though tenuous, are nevertheless thousands of ly's thick.
-there is a jet apparently physically connected to the quasar. If the quasar is a distant object shining through, it then must be dismissed as a chance alignment
Shining though a galaxy isn't a big problem, we see though much of ours for example.
There is unfortunately no solid data confirming the jet is a jet and not some structure in the galaxy. It is pure opinion at this point. The other point is that the spiral is itself active so it could be an outflow but not associated with the quasar. What would really be needed to nail this is either high resolution radio imaging or high sensitivity x-ray data showing a convincing link between the "V" shaped outflow and the quasar.

User avatar
viscount aero
Posts: 2381
Joined: Mon May 12, 2008 11:23 pm
Location: Los Angeles, California
Contact:

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by viscount aero » Sun Nov 17, 2013 10:42 am

ThickTarget wrote: There is unfortunately no solid data confirming the jet is a jet and not some structure in the galaxy. It is pure opinion at this point. The other point is that the spiral is itself active so it could be an outflow but not associated with the quasar. What would really be needed to nail this is either high resolution radio imaging or high sensitivity x-ray data showing a convincing link between the "V" shaped outflow and the quasar.
I agree so why don't they just do that? How hard would it be to image the structures in the x-ray and radio spectrum? There are dozens of these anomalous objects by the way, not just this one.

User avatar
RayTomes
Posts: 198
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 6:22 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Contact:

Re: Anomalies List Project

Unread post by RayTomes » Fri Dec 13, 2013 9:55 pm

Anyone interested in anomalies should look at the splendid work of William R Corliss
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Corliss
Please note the huge list of publications under bibliography. You can get works from http://www.science-frontiers.com/sourcebk.htm I think.
Ray Tomes
Web site : YouTube : Blog

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests