Another Problem With Big Bang?

[TV's Frank]

Let's talk about a little more about that little problem I mentioned with CMB that you just ignore.

Big Bang astronomers and astrophysicists had *another* great idea!

They could study the early universe by observing the shadows on the CMB.

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...ris.pdf+CMB+shadows&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=23&gl=us "Structure formation and its impact on the CMB"

But they encountered a problem.

http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Big_Bang_Afterglow_Fails_An_Intergalactic_Shadow_Test_999.html "The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang."

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=800 "Where Have All the Shadows Gone?"

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060911_mystery_monday.html "A study of nearby galaxy clusters has failed to detect distortions in the ancient microwave radiation many scientists have linked to the creation of our universe."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060905104549.htm "Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test,
Science Daily — The apparent absence of shadows where shadows were expected to be is raising new questions about the faint glow of microwave radiation once hailed as proof that the universe was created by a "Big Bang.""

And say, TV's Frank ... what's this?

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/070823_huge_hole.html

Just another hole in your theory? ROTFLOL!

Hi, BeAChooser, why is that every time I ask you for a positive predition from plasma cosmology, you just complain about standard cosmology?

Where are those 4 predictions that I asked for? I slogged through the online references you gave. Nope, not there. So where?

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[Belz...]

Seems to me that Relativity has rewritten the rules to suit it’s own purposes. Relativity makes the rules, makes predictions based on it’s own rules, then observers and analyses according to it’s own rules. Why am I not surprised that it’s conclusions confirm it’s own predictions?

Sounds like a good way to ignore every theory you don't like, since they all do that.

I’m not trying to disprove anything here. I’m trying to understand why a lot of educated, clever and intelligent people are happy to accept certain things that I have trouble accepting.

Read that aloud to yourself again, Ynot: Why a lot of educated, clever and intelligent people are happy to accept certain things that YOU have trouble accepting.

And then ask yourself the reverse:

Why do you have trouble accepting certain things that a lot of educated, clever and intelligent people are happy to accept ?

I don’t automatically adopt other peoples acceptance of things (regardless of how educated, clever, intelligent and numerous they are) if that acceptance requires me to abandon what I perceive to be reality, actuality, factual, truth, honesty, common sense or whatever label you want to give it.

When reality contradicts my beliefs, I don't ask for reality to change.

In the interest of keeping things as simple as possible, I would rather not address the GPS issue at present.

In the interest of keeping things simple. Sure.

I don’t see that it matters if the line is on the sphere

It should, because there is no inside to the sphere. The sphere is all.

I can see no reason to confine ourselves to a 2-dimensional surface.

Because it's the best way to visualise what we're talking about. In other words you're trying to cheat your way out of an analogy.

 

[Belz...]

Sorry but you have it wrong. I’m not upset that that Richard Feynman drew a triangle on a sphere. I cringe that he claims he can. In my opinion he can’t and he doesn’t. I don’t accept that what he draws is a triangle.

I didn’t forget time. Seems you forgot I don’t accept Relativity. I’m not sure (regardless of whether I accept Relativity or not) that I accept time as a dimension. That’s why I wrote “I can find no evidence that existence is ever anything less than 3D”. As I can’t find any evidence that existence is ever anything less than 3D, I don’t see why I should consider anything in an impossible 2D state.

I had a brief look at the link to geodesics. It’s a bit like a theist handing me a bible. You expect me to find answers from a source that I don’t accept is valid. For me, the evidence has to come from the outside in, not the inside out. The solution can’t come from the conclusion.

You know, all you have to do now is to be "not sure you accept reality". Then you can be a solipsist and safely ignore anything you don't like!

 

[Belz...]

If it was neutral, it wouldn't be plasma. You Big Bang proponents can't make your flawed logic that obvious.

Frustrating how all those smart scientists can't see what's so obvious to you, right ?

of course, that was before the Big Bang priesthood started getting worried about the truth of what plasma cosmologists say

Yeah, that's the spirit. Evidence ? Nah. Insult'll get you somewhere.

First, we have an admission that up till now gravity-only, the-sun-must-be-fusion-powered astronomers couldn't begin to explain why the corona is so much hotter than the Sun's surface.

Huh ? Are you saying it's NOT fusion powered ?

From the above: "The central tenet of plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces, rather than gravity, are responsible for holding together large objects like galaxies."

I was under the impression that EM forces weren't particularily impressive at large scales...

God has about the same degree of evidence as black holes.

God is inferred from nothing.

How curious that Big Bang cosmology requires that just about every large object in space have a black hole in it to explain observations that plasma cosmologists say ordinary physics we can reproduce here on earth can explain.

Define "ordinary" physics.

 

[Dancing David]

In fact here is an article discussing the bias in publishing, it supports your claim even. secret?

http://eprintweb.org/S/authors/All/li/Lieu/2

 

[BeAChooser]

There is a reason to believe that one galaxy is possibly closer than the others. That is what you missed, why that author felt the galaxy is closer than the others.

But again, why didn't the author note that there are 2 tails and that both the high redshift and low redshift objects lie EXACTLY in line with the tail that wasn't mentioned. This would seem an important observation ... even if you were then going to dismiss it as just a coincidence.

Where did i say that i support Dark Matter or Dark Energy? I am pretty much an agnostic and would call it a speculative theory.

Ahhhh, progress.

Except for when you just assert that something is because you belive it to be true.

And when have I done that? Accuracy, David ... Accuracy.

A debate can be a dialouge and not just monologue.

But this is a dialog. Or at least I've tried to make it one. I've specifically addressed almost every single statement made by others on this thread (at least those having to do with the topic). I've responded with facts and logic in most cases. If anyones' statements have been ignored by others, it would be mine.

Maybe the Big Bang community should have followed that advice.

Did I say they shouldn't?

Did I say you said they shouldn't?

 

[Dancing David]

Before you label what I quoted a fable, answer these questions:

When was the pi meson proposed?

On what basis was it proposed?

When the particle confirmed?

And how was it confirmed?

How does that differ from what I said?

Here is the deal Fermi proposed the role of beta decay and he was denied publication. Yukawa suggested that somebody else's data supported his theory, they denied him publication.

The point being that people are denied publication. I will get the dates.

I am not the one saying that there is a conspiracy to suppress information. I have cited sources that would indicate there is some discussion of the subjects you say are currently being suppressed. I stated that Fermi and Yukawa had problems getting published and now will get you the dates as documented by Kragh.

The stupidity, ego and resistance of people does not a conspiracy make. Just the usual behavior of people.
Gell-Mann and Guth were not lauded in the beggining either.

The difference is that you have said that there is a conspiracy to subvert the work of indivduals in the plasma cosmology field. I said that new ideas meet with resistence and stated that Fermi and Yukawa fall into that category, and that their papers were denied publication. That to support the ideas the new ideas meet resistence.

 

[Dancing David]

But again, why didn't the author note that there are 2 tails and that both the high redshift and low redshift objects lie EXACTLY in line with the tail that wasn't mentioned. This would seem an important observation ... even if you were then going to dismiss it as just a coincidence.

Before we hash this out, a tail from the galaxy that the author believes lies closer, or one of the other ones?

Ahhhh, progress.

No progress, you were the one making statements about my beliefs that you had no evidence for. So if there is progress, it is yours.

I believe that the BBE is a useful theory, which does not make it the definitive theory in my book.

I think that there are plenty of good ideas out there, it is the ones that match the observable data that are the most useful.

I am reading the plasma cosmology stuff and pondering upon it. It takes me a while to digest things.

Much looks to be good, some I can't say.

And when have I done that? Accuracy, David ... Accuracy.

You make many assertion "this is definitely on this side of the galaxy", "this is part of the stream", and “you are someone who believes this that or the other thing". I can cite the specific if you wish. And I have mentioned some already.

But this is a dialog. Or at least I've tried to make it one. I've specifically addressed almost every single statement made by others on this thread (at least those having to do with the topic). I've responded with facts and logic in most cases. If anyone’s' statements have been ignored by others, it would be mine.

You have given some pat answers, made a great deal of sarcasm and deflection. If you try to talk to Cuddles, you may win them over. But your rude dismissal of their point is not dialogue. There are other areas as well.

Did I say you said they shouldn't?

I don't know, but you keep throwing out a net of accusations and assertions, you will catch a lot in such a broad histrionic net.

 

[TV's Frank]

But this is a dialog. Or at least I've tried to make it one. I've specifically addressed almost every single statement made by others on this thread (at least those having to do with the topic). I've responded with facts and logic in most cases. If anyones' statements have been ignored by others, it would be mine.

Then where are my four predictions, BeAChooser? You've "responded" but have yet to produce 4 numbers. Here's your chance...

Cheers,
TV's Frank

 

[BeAChooser]

Here you go, you will note that I stated that there was discussion of the quazars and the associated controversy over the redshifts and that is was not some sort of suppressed data

I haven't argued that there is no discussion. Just that the dismissal of the data is done by looking at the cases in isolation. Just look at the sources you supplied and what each said.

By the way, that's quite a hodgepodge you linked. Some don't even pertain to this issue. Like the first one.

Some do exactly what I noted. Like the fourth and fifth links in your list.

The second link, http://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/ExploringtheCosmos/week10e.html, has some particulary interesting information on the NGC 4319/Mrk 205 case.

It notes that in 1973, Arp was able to show inner distortions within the nucleus of NGC 4319 that are not visible on ordinary photographic plates and those distortions seem to align with Mrk 205 and a new radio source located directly opposite Mrk 205 on the other side of NGC 4319. It goes on to say that "Articles by other astronomers on this pair published in the years that followed continued to present the luminous bridge between them as an artifact in Arp's photographs.* The issue had reached an impasse when, in 1976, Arp teamed up with image specialist Jean Lorre of the image processing laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.* Together, they worked on enhancing the contrast and clarity of nebulous features in existing photographic plates of objects whose structure had not yet been resolved, objects like Stephan's Quintet, Seyfert's Sextet, and M87. A short time later, a student of Arp's, Jack Sulentic, began working with Lorre.* Six years later, this collaboration culminated in an article by Sulentic in which he claimed positively to confirm the connection between NGC 4319 and Mrk 205.* Not only are these objects connected, Sulentic claimed, but the luminous filament bridging them leads directly back into the nucleus of NGC 4319. Alan Stockton, who had previously described the luminous bridge between these two objects as a photographic artifact, admitted, on the basis of the good quality of Sulentic's latest images, that there is, after all, a luminous filament present.* However, Stockton remains skeptical on how to interpret this luminous filament.* In his view, it does not imply that the pair are connected.* Rather, he claims it shows an interaction between Mrk 205 and another object near it which appears to have the same redshift. In August, 1987, a pair of articles by Arp and Sulentic appeared in the Astrophysical Journal in which they elaborate further on the results of their image processing work with NGC 4319 and Mrk 205.* These latest image enhancements show a continuous luminous connection extending from Mrk 205 back into the nucleus of the spiral, thus confirming the work done earlier by Sulentic. They also reveal a narrow spine-like feature which stretches outward in either direction from the nucleus.* On the other end of this spine, a bright, compact ultraviolet object can be found.* Arp feels this is confirming evidence of explosive nuclear activity."

Do you see the desperation in the Big Bang community in the above description, as well as the discussion that has taken place on this thread concerning this case? Evidence like this is just ignored.

And also note this discussion from the above source:

There is a functional limit to the amount of diversity a group can tolerate and still maintain its structural integrity.* Failure of some members to conform can lead the majority to take a variety of actions against the maverick minority.

If the majority includes the powerful elite of the community -- those who hold the pursestrings or control the utilization of costly research equipment -- the minority may have its entire scientific effort cut off at its source.* Even if the majority does not possess that much power, it can control communication and social networks on both the formal and informal levels effectively enough to make professional life and advancement difficult for dissenters.* Most importantly, the majority can endure a war of attrition more easily than the minority.

It is not easy to observe disciplinary action within the scientific community from afar.* Most formally published scientific accounts do not reveal much about their mechanisms of control to those on the outside.* Professional journals and conferences do not publicize lists of papers they have rejected (along with reasons).* Unless transcripts are published of discussions generated by the delivery of a paper, it is difficult to know how the it was received at the time.* Even when discussion notes are kept, there is no record of who had coffee with whom between sessions, what was said in the groups in the halls outside the conference rooms, or who was talked about rather than with.* This kind of information must be gathered more indirectly.

Still, the published record does provide some insight into certain aspects of disciplinary action, particularly those that involve the wielding of power by the elite within the majority.* In Halton Arp's case, there have been instances when members of the astrophysical community, who adhere to more conventional views concerning the interpretation of galactic redshifts, have attempted, in both formal and informal ways, to exert their influence in order to restrict Arp's professional activities or prevent him from successfully speaking out on his views.

In the course of the AAAS debate in December, 1972, for example, John Bahcall related a story which he emphasized was "not intended to be realistic," of a fictional report by an imaginary Dr. X whose poor methodology and reasoning skills led him to conclude that stars in the Milky Way had actually been ejected from explosions in spiral galaxies.* Bahcall described the data collected and interpreted by Dr. X in precisely the way Arp had argued for quasar ejection from active galaxies.* In fact, the emphasis on the fictitious nature of this example only amplified the ridicule aimed at Arp.

Daniel Weedman has described Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies as the "Atlas of Funny Things."* Also, Weedman's glib caricature of local theorists' attempts to find and present evidence supportive of their ever-changing claims was written in a book intended for use as a text for advanced students of astronomy potentially shaping the attitudes of developing astronomers towards this dissident view.

Drastic forms of discipline can be wielded by individuals who, in spite of their claimed interest in encouraging exploration of new and innovative avenues of research, have come to believe that the work being done by a dissident member of the community is of insufficient quality or value that it must not be permitted to continue because it consumes limited resources needed for the work of the group as a whole.* Such serious disciplinary action was taken against Arp in 1983 when his request for telescope viewing time at Palomar was denied.

In November, 1981, Arp received a stern warning from Palomar's Time Allocation Committee threatening him with loss of the use of the telescope if he did not significantly alter the thrust of his research programme.* This move to terminate an individual's long-running investigation on the grounds of doubt as to its usefulness was viewed by many at the time as unprecedented.* George Alexander, science writer for the Los Angeles Times, likened Arp's loss of telescope time to the loss of hospital privileges for a physician, or disbarment for a lawyer. * In Alexander's view:

"The Arp case provides a rare view of how science copes with dissent.* Some might conclude that the dispute is a classic example of a dissident voice being stifled by a powerful majority.* There is something of that, but there are other important aspects as well:* How far from the mainstream of a given field can a scientist wander before he has effectively cut himself off from his colleagues?"

According to Alexander, the Time Allocation Committee advised Arp that it regarded his research "as lacking focus and specific goals."** The director of the Hale Observatory, George Preston, was quoted as saying, "[Arp has] been advised [that his work has become repetitive] not only by this committee, but also at other times by individual friends, privately."* The Times reported that in spite of these warnings, Arp was planning to "continue to look for anomalous quasar-galaxy associations"--behavior which would was sure to "rankle his colleagues."

The Time Allocation Committee consists of six members, three from Caltech and three from the Carnegie Institute.* Every year, it meets in November to consider the numerous applications for telescope time that it receives, and tries to fit them into the 365 available nights.* The description which the Committee provides for public consumption concerning its decision-making process emphasizes the objectivity and high standards the Committee employs in considering each individual's request for time in order to assure that those research projects concerned with the most pressing astronomical issues get priority.* But, Arp denies that this is always the case.* With his experience as a past Committee member tempered by his present status as a rejected applicant, Arp claims that in spite of their public image of objectivity:

"somehow or other the first prize [best viewing nights, most time] was regularly won by the committee members' own programs...those observers awarded the most time would be perceived to be the most important and influential."

The following November, in spite of the Committee's threats, Arp was given time to observe at Palomar, although he was allocated considerably less time than he had requested.* One committee member, S. Eric Persson, a Carnegie staff member, told the LA Times that the Time Allocation Committee had had difficulty determining whether Arp had really made the requested changes in his research objectives.

While some astronomers expressed regret that Arp's observing time had been reduced, one astronomer I spoke with stated that many astronomers he knew were surprised that the Committee gave Arp as much time on the big telescopes as they did for as long as they did, since the direction of Arp's research was not the only issue--there were real questions concerning the quality of his work as well.* He believes that Arp received a fair hearing from the Committee.* In his view, researchers have an obligation to present their ideas in a convincing way.* As he put it, "It is possible to be completely right about something, but that can become trivial if no one else is able to be convinced."

In November, 1983, the TAC cut Arp's access to Palomar completely, and in 1984, he was denied viewing privileges at Las Campanas as well.* He has since joined the staff of the Max-Planck-Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Munich.

It goes on to state that:

That the larger astronomical community views this controversy as closed can be seen in the work of the Astronomy Survey Committee.* In 1983, this committee was charged by the National Research Council with the task of "assessing the opportunities for progress across the entire range of astronomical research and with making recommendations concerning the programs and facilities needed to meet those opportunities."* The report of the working group on quasars states:

"the long-standing controversy over the nature of red shifts came close to resolution [over the past ten years].... It seems likely that quasars as a class really are very distant and hence have extraordinarily high luminosities.... Despite the enormous energies involved in some of the outbursts observed in quasars and active galaxies, it has been possible to devise dynamically self-consistent models of these outbursts.* There is thus at present no strong theoretical reason to doubt the cosmological nature of the observed red shifts or to believe that 'new physics' is required to understand these objects."

But it looks like Arp is going to get the last word.

Note that that the third link, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240..401N, was published before the statement by the Astronomy Survey Committee quoted above. So it demonstrates nothing about the current situation vis a vis the astronomical community ignoring and dismissing the quasar redshift assertions of Arp and his associates.

Do you get the picture, yet?

 

[BeAChooser]

The neutrino would be a great example as well. It was postulated because the momentum didn't add up, and as it can travel through light years of water with out interacting with anything much it has "magic" properties as well

Yes, and if you'd read the thread you'd know that was already discussed. You'd also know that the neutrino was predicted from observations of something missing in interactions that could be studied here on earth and was confirmed in only a few years despite the fact that it can travel through light years of ordinary matter. Unlike the dark matter case where it's existence is indirectly inferred from motions of bodies at the galactic level and beyond which plasma cosmologists say they can explain by physics we can observe and demonstrate here on earth. And they've been looking for dark matter for more than 30 years with an effort that dwarfs the search for the neutrino. With no success. When will they get a clue?

 

[Invidious]

Post 310=2020 words.

 

[BeAChooser]

Hi, BeAChooser, why is that every time I ask you for a positive predition from plasma cosmology, you just complain about standard cosmology?

And why are you running from my response to your 4 questions? I'm guessing that lurkers who read what I wrote will see why.

BTW, I've actually noted several positive predictions by plasma cosmology on this thread. You've just ignored each of them. Here was just the latest. It has to do with supernova:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=re6qxnz1

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=36024&arnumber=1707326&count=477&index=452 "The plasma Z-pinch morphology of supernova 1987A and the implications for supernova remnants ... snip ... Supernova 1987A is the closest supernova event since the invention of the telescope. It was first seen in February 1987 in the nearby Magellanic cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way, and only 169,000 light years from Earth. The Hubble images of the rings of SN 1987A are spectacular and unexpected. Conventional theory did not predict the presence of the three rings nor the pattern of bright "beads" in the equatorial ring of SN 1987A. The pattern of brightening is not explained by an expanding shock front into an earlier stellar "wind". The axial shape of SN 1987A is that of a planetary nebula. It seems that new concepts are required to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae. The new discipline of plasma cosmology provides a precise analog in the form of a Z-pinch plasma discharge. The phenomena match so accurately that the number of bright beads can be accounted for and their behavior predicted. If supernovae are a plasma discharge phenomenon, the theoretical conditions for forming neutron stars and other "super-condensed" objects is not fulfilled and plasma concepts must be introduced to explain pulsar remnants of supernovae"

 

[BeAChooser]

Frustrating how all those smart scientists can't see what's so obvious to you, right ?

You do see that quasar in front of that galactic nucleus, don't you?

Quote:
First, we have an admission that up till now gravity-only, the-sun-must-be-fusion-powered astronomers couldn't begin to explain why the corona is so much hotter than the Sun's surface.

Huh ? Are you saying it's NOT fusion powered ?

You need to learn to pay attention to what's been posted on the thread if you really want to engage in this debate.

Quote:
From the above: "The central tenet of plasma cosmology is that electromagnetic forces, rather than gravity, are responsible for holding together large objects like galaxies."

I was under the impression that EM forces weren't particularily impressive at large scales...

Well your impression about the effects EM forces can have at large scales is apparently wrong. By the way, you didn't quote me, you quoted a claim as to the central tenet of plasma cosmology that is, in fact, bogus. Again, paying attention to the debate before you decide to involve yourself might be wise.

Quote:
God has about the same degree of evidence as black holes.

God is inferred from nothing.

ROTFLOL!

Define "ordinary" physics.

I did. It's physics we can reproduce here on earth without resorting to a zoo of magical particles, forces, energies, interactions and events that in 30 years no one has has actually proved existed or occurred. Again, pay attention.

 

[BeAChooser]

The difference is that you have said that there is a conspiracy to subvert the work of indivduals in the plasma cosmology field.

I'm puzzled. What does this assertion have to do with what I said about the discovery of the Pi-Meson? All I noted is that it was based on something missing in experiments here on earth and that once they began searching for that something, it didn't take them long to find it. In contrast with the theory of dark matter and the search for it.

 

[BeAChooser]

If you try to talk to Cuddles, you may win them over.

Well Cuddles doesn't seem to think anything observed in the universe has anything to do with Big Bang cosmology. That makes it hard to discuss with Cuddles Big Bang cosmology and the observational proof it is wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

I haven't argued that there is no discussion. Just that the dismissal of the data is done by looking at the cases in isolation. Just look at the sources you supplied and what each said.

By the way, that's quite a hodgepodge you linked. Some don't even pertain to this issue. Like the first one.

Some do exactly what I noted. Like the fourth and fifth links in your list.

The second link, http://eee.uci.edu/clients/bjbecker/ExploringtheCosmos/week10e.html, has some particulary interesting information on the NGC 4319/Mrk 205 case.

It notes that in 1973, Arp was able to show inner distortions within the nucleus of NGC 4319 that are not visible on ordinary photographic plates and those distortions seem to align with Mrk 205 and a new radio source located directly opposite Mrk 205 on the other side of NGC 4319. It goes on to say that "Articles by other astronomers on this pair published in the years that followed continued to present the luminous bridge between them as an artifact in Arp's photographs.* The issue had reached an impasse when, in 1976, Arp teamed up with image specialist Jean Lorre of the image processing laboratory at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.* Together, they worked on enhancing the contrast and clarity of nebulous features in existing photographic plates of objects whose structure had not yet been resolved, objects like Stephan's Quintet, Seyfert's Sextet, and M87. A short time later, a student of Arp's, Jack Sulentic, began working with Lorre.* Six years later, this collaboration culminated in an article by Sulentic in which he claimed positively to confirm the connection between NGC 4319 and Mrk 205.* Not only are these objects connected, Sulentic claimed, but the luminous filament bridging them leads directly back into the nucleus of NGC 4319. Alan Stockton, who had previously described the luminous bridge between these two objects as a photographic artifact, admitted, on the basis of the good quality of Sulentic's latest images, that there is, after all, a luminous filament present.* However, Stockton remains skeptical on how to interpret this luminous filament.* In his view, it does not imply that the pair are connected.* Rather, he claims it shows an interaction between Mrk 205 and another object near it which appears to have the same redshift. In August, 1987, a pair of articles by Arp and Sulentic appeared in the Astrophysical Journal in which they elaborate further on the results of their image processing work with NGC 4319 and Mrk 205.* These latest image enhancements show a continuous luminous connection extending from Mrk 205 back into the nucleus of the spiral, thus confirming the work done earlier by Sulentic. They also reveal a narrow spine-like feature which stretches outward in either direction from the nucleus.* On the other end of this spine, a bright, compact ultraviolet object can be found.* Arp feels this is confirming evidence of explosive nuclear activity."

Do you see the desperation in the Big Bang community in the above description, as well as the discussion that has taken place on this thread concerning this case? Evidence like this is just ignored.

And also note this discussion from the above source:



It goes on to state that:



But it looks like Arp is going to get the last word.

Note that that the third link, http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1980ApJ...240..401N, was published before the statement by the Astronomy Survey Committee quoted above. So it demonstrates nothing about the current situation vis a vis the astronomical community ignoring and dismissing the quasar redshift assertions of Arp and his associates.

Do you get the picture, yet?

The hodge podge was aknowledged in the post. The picture: enter the term anamolous(spelled correctly) redshift into google and take just a sample of the hits.(And certainly there are a lot of hits.)

The picture is that there is a lot of discussion of anamolous redshifts if you care to look for it. Hardly what i would call suppressed.

 

[Dancing David]

Well Cuddles doesn't seem to think anything observed in the universe has anything to do with Big Bang cosmology. That makes it hard to discuss with Cuddles Big Bang cosmology and the observational proof it is wrong.

Pound round pegs through square holes and they come out square. If you choose to not address what Cuddles wrote, then you are missing the opportunity to engage them in discussion. Cuddles made the same statement that I did, the conflation of the BBE and every other part of physics that you don't like is kind of silly.

Whatever.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm puzzled. What does this assertion have to do with what I said about the discovery of the Pi-Meson? All I noted is that it was based on something missing in experiments here on earth and that once they began searching for that something, it didn't take them long to find it. In contrast with the theory of dark matter and the search for it.

And Yukawa and Fermi were engaging in 'speculative theory' that was not considered fit to print? And so it demonstrates in a time when there was less research and a shorter wait for publication that people were still not published, even though later they were proven to be correct.

Ergo by your posturing there was a conspiracy to supress Yukawa and Fermi.

Neutrino/Meson: dark matter

Unproved speculation: unproved speculation

later accepted: may never be accepted


Yukawa's paper that was refused specifically was trying to say that particles had been observed that supported his pi-meson, still it was refused. So there was a Yukawa supressing conspiracy?

 

[Belz...]

You do see that quasar in front of that galactic nucleus, don't you?

I also have seen several possible explanations.

Still...

Frustrating how all those smart scientists can't see what's so obvious to you, right ?

You need to learn to pay attention to what's been posted on the thread if you really want to engage in this debate.

Are you saying it's NOT fusion powered ?

Again, paying attention to the debate before you decide to involve yourself might be wise.

You're the one who posted it.

ROTFLOL!

What a clever retort.

What is God inferred from, pray tell ?

I did. It's physics we can reproduce here on earth without resorting to a zoo of magical particles, forces, energies, interactions and events that in 30 years no one has has actually proved existed or occurred.

Ah! Therefore QM and GR/SR are also "ordinary physics" by that definition.

Again, pay attention.

I find your condescention tiresome. I see it in every woo out there. Grow up.