Carl Sagan on redshift

[HysteryDiagnosis]

http://www.thunderbolts.info/EU%20Intro%20and%20Chap1.pdf

On the issue of redshift, Sagan wrote: “There is nevertheless a
nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right
with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect,
that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found
enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair
of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very
different redshifts....”31

Sagan’s acknowledgment here shows a candor almost never
found in standard treatments of astronomy for the general public today.
“If Arp is right,” he wrote, “the exotic mechanisms proposed to ex-
plain the energy source of distant quasars—supernova chain reactions,
super massive black holes and the like—would prove unnecessary.
Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mecha-
nism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something
very strange is going on in the depths of space.”

At the time of Sagan’s Cosmos, evidence contradicting the Doppler
interpretation of redshift could be discussed in popular presentations.
The paradox is that the intervening years have seen an avalanche of
evidence against Big Bang assumptions, even as public relations an-
nouncements have ‘confirmed’ them and NASA refuses to fund any
project questioning the Big Bang.32

[LARED]

1. I've always thought the

big bang and creation were both faith based theories.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Me too. This is taken from that link which was the introduction to a book that

most people here would burn. It will be a long time before the paradigm shift gains enough monemtum for peoples' eyes to open.

[Warren DeMontague]

3. Incorrect. There is physical evidence to back up the big bang, in the form of 3 degrees of microwave

background radiation.

Furthermore, the mathematics for the creation of subatomic particles and the associated early universe divergence of fundamental forces all hold up consistently under the standard model, at least back to a tiny fraction of a picosecond after the big bang.

It is solid science, and it is absolutely, utterly absurd and wrong to compare it to the fairy tales in Genesis, for instance.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. Billions and billions and billions and billions..... don't diss my bud Carl. n/t

[Warren DeMontague]

8. I'm not. He would be appalled that you're misappropriating his words to peddle this crap.

Give me a fucking break.

[SidDithers]

27. +1...nt

Sid

[apocalypsehow]

34. +2.n/t

[Taverner]

9. Yep. However, could this mean Quasars are closer than previously thought?

If so, that changes quite a lot of assumptions

[LARED]

29. No argument from me

except when we get to the picosecond before the big bang (if picoseconds mean anything then)

Basically it's a similar story.

Genesis; God always was and created the heavens and the earth......

Big Bang; Something always was and all matter came to being at a point in time, a singularity, a something else, maybe it was always 'there'. and endless cycle. No one knows and there is no scientific based answer, hence it's faith.

[Salviati]

7. There is a good amount of observational evidance to support the big bang...

(not just the observed redshifts, but the cosmic microwave background radiation and the abundances of elements in the universe). It may turn out to not be entirely correct, but whatever replaces it as a theory has to explain the same observations as well, if not better.

To lump it in with creationism as "faith-based", reminds me of a quote from Wolfang Pauli: "This isn't right. This isn't even wrong."


http://xkcd.com/54/

[Warren DeMontague]

4. This should be moved to Religion/Theology.

This is not anything resembling legitimate science, it's creationist claptrap.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

11. So I have the final word from you.... or I could read elsewhere and get closer to

the truth or the fuzzy math used to describe the indescribable.

http://www.physorg.com/print160726282.html
Study plunges standard Theory of Cosmology into Crisis
May 5th, 2009 in Physics / General Physics

As modern cosmologists rely more and more on the ominous “dark matter” to explain otherwise inexplicable observations, much effort has gone into the detection of this mysterious substance in the last two decades, yet no direct proof could be found that it actually exists. Even if it does exist, dark matter would be unable to reconcile all the current discrepancies between actual measurements and predictions based on theoretical models. Hence the number of physicists questioning the existence of dark matter has been increasing for some time now.

Competing theories of gravitation have already been developed which are independent of this construction. Their only problem is that they conflict with Newton’s theory of gravitation.

“Maybe Newton was indeed wrong”, declares Professor Dr. Pavel Kroupa of Bonn University's Argelander-Institut für Astronomie (AIfA). “Although his theory does, in fact, describe the everyday effects of gravity on Earth, things we can see and measure, it is conceivable that we have completely failed to comprehend the actual physics underlying the force of gravity”.

This is a problematical hypothesis that has nevertheless gained increasing ground in recent years, especially in Europe.

Two new studies could well lend further support to it. In these studies, Professor Kroupa and his former colleague Dr. Manuel Metz, working in collaboration with Professor Dr. Gerhard Hensler and Dr. Christian Theis from the University of Vienna, and Dr. Helmut Jerjen from the Australian National University, Canberra, have examined so-called “satellite galaxies”. This term is used for dwarf galaxy companions of the Milky Way, some of which contain only a few thousand stars.

[Keith Bee]

5. I miss Carl Sagan

Billions and billions

[struggle4progress]

10. Velikovsky enthusiasts. Okie-dokie. Nodding and smiling and backing towards the door.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

12. Paint it any way you see it pardner, and yes, you are not my pardner, least not yet.

http://www.physorg.com/print160726282.html

[struggle4progress]

16. Meh. Science is to me an abstract cartography: a plausible map of the explored world,

into which people sometimes paint Here there be monsters on spots they think are blank

I believe in (say) the red shift, the same way I believe in a street shown on a road atlas in my car: it appears in a map, carefully constructed to represent the world, so represents my best guess about matters I do not know for certain; I am not offended if someone shows me where it is wrong, but in seeking opinions about it I'll prefer folk who plausibly know what they're talking about -- and the authors of "Electric Universe" don't fall into that category

[HysteryDiagnosis]

18. But but but they say there is a problem with the CMB, but it is not only them,

there are others, perhaps we just don't understand it well enough, hence the misinterpretations and fits and starts.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/cbr.html

Problems with the Uniformity
The highly isotropic nature of the cosmic background radiation indicates that the early stages of the Universe were almost completely uniform. This raises two problems for the big bang theory.

First, when we look at the microwave background coming from widely separated parts of the sky it can be shown that these regions are too separated to have been able to communicate with each other even with signals travelling at light velocity. Thus, how did they know to have almost exactly the same temperature? This general problem is called the horizon problem.

Second, the present Universe is homogenous and isotropic, but only on very large scales. For scales the size of superclusters and smaller the luminous matter in the universe is quite lumpy, as illustrated in the following figure.

[Octafish]

13. Arp is awesome.

Instead of being appreciated, he's pretty much ostracized by Astronomical establishment.

How To Be Unfamous In Astronomy

[HysteryDiagnosis]

14. Then you would appreciate the introduction, first post, only link. From yours:

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf056/sf056a02.htm

When Sky and Telescope devotes almost five full pages to a new book, you may be sure that something important has happened. The book is H. Arp's Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies.
We know that we have perhaps overplayed the shakiness of the redshiftdistance hypothesis and the fizzling of the Big Bang, but our whole cosmological outlook is at stake. Now, rather than review again the scientific pros and cons (you can read Arp's book for that), we will be content here with a few comments about how science has failed to work well in Arp's case. G. Burbidge, who reviews the book, recalls how the politics of science works in the following quotation:

"...the important factors for a successful career are your sponsors (where and with whom did you get your Ph.D); field of research (popular or unpopular); and diplomatic skills (always speak quietly with great conviction, and, when in doubt, agree with the wisest person present, who by definition must come from one of the the very few institutions). Look upon new ideas with great disapproval and never discover a phenomenon for which no explanation exists, and certainly not one for which an explanation within the framework of known physics does not appear to be possible."

Arp played this game for 29 years at the Mount Wilson and Palomar Observatories. He compiled the marvelous Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, and was once rated among the top 20 astronomers. But he kept finding Anomalies -- apparently-associated celestial objects with different redshifts. More and more he began to believe and (perhaps recklessly) assert that some redshifts are not cosmological; that is, a measure of recessional velocity and distance. Soon, his rating dropped from the "upper 20" to "under 200". The final (and disgraceful) blow came about four years ago, when he received an unsigned letter stating that his work was without value and that he could have no more telescope time! Arp now lives in West Germany. (Burbidge, Geoffrey; "Quasars, Redshifts, and Controversies," Sky and Telescope, 75:38, 1988.)

Comment. More political details may be found in Arp's book. Is Arp a martyrin-the-making? You bet he is! Burbidge, an admitted Arp sympathizer, suggests that the "Arp Effect" is only the tip of the iceberg. In closing his review, he invokes the ghost of Alfred Wegener, who had the temerity to suggest that continents could drift.

[Octafish]

19. Big Science worries about data that rocks the boat.

When so much of the budget goes to fund a hierarchy, anyone stepping out of line is a financial threat. That is the biggest threat of all to too many scientists. It's like a business or a racket, that way.

The Thunderbolts guy raises interesting questions. I'm not a physicist, so I can't question his science, but I usually agree with the more traditional interpretations. Still, I always appreciate learning new ideas.

I do know Arp's science is good. Here's an example of two, seemingly, physically associated galaxies with two different redshifts:



Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. Here's more on the guy: Halton C. Arp

[Warren DeMontague]

22. Ever consider that's because they're clearly orbiting each other?

Hardly a giant, paradigm-challenging mystery, there.

And this idea that 'scientists don't want to rock the boat'- BULLSHIT. Scientists who successfully rock the boat are the ones who go down in the history books. Scientists live to rock the boat, but it has to be done with legitimate, evidence-based science that stands up to peer review.

What they don't want is to peddle woo and carry water for the folks who want to teach creationism in high schools.

[Octafish]

25. That's the point. They are somehow linked, yet their redshifts are way different.

Perhaps after a near-collision, one was sent off faster in a different direction. Who knows?

Regarding Arp, Big Science has treated him like dirt. Individual scientists appreciate him, though. Here's what Fred Hoyle had to say about how the Old Guard operates: "They defend the old theories by complicating things to the point of incomprehensibility."

BTW: Arp never taught creationism in high school. As far as I know, his published work deals with astronomy.

[Warren DeMontague]

28. You know how it works when two objects orbit each other, right?

Think about it. Depending on how the planes of the orbits are inclined, one galaxy could be locally moving more towards us, the other moving away faster. That would explain the different redshifts, easily. I grokked that within 10 seconds of looking at that picture. It's not "who knows", the two galaxies are clearly involved in a gravitational dance around each other, which WOULD cause them to have different redshifts.

Arp AND Hoyle are both people who are extensively referenced by the creationist "community". Sorry, but any time people talk about, again, science 'conspiring to hide the truth' (see the global warming and evolution 'debates') there's an agenda underneath.

[Confusious]

30. Einstein stepped out of line

He had the proof though. Pseudo science never, ever has any proof.

[Warren DeMontague]

15. Any time you have people talking about scientists 'conspiring to ignore the truth', red flag:

SERIOUS bullshit, theology, and/or woo ahead.

[KittyWampus]

17. there are books which explore the many, many times throughout history when establishment science was

wrong.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

20. Someone actually had the audacity to say that continents drift. What a fool... for

a little while anyway, probably until after he was dead. It took the British navy 50 years to put citrus on their ships to prevent scurvy, even though the native Americans treated them with pine tea and saved their lives upon landing here... too bad they didn't know their intentions.

[Confusious]

32. pseudo science meme

The difference between science and theology is that we no longer believe those things.

Have the evidence, your idea becomes the new reality.

Einstein is the perfect example.

[Warren DeMontague]

21. Put out by The Vatican and The Discovery Institute, no doubt.

No, see, science is a self-correcting, self-advancing system of questioning and challenging and constantly updating of theories and answers. That's how science WORKS. If ideas like "Jesus made the Earth 6,000 years ago" or "Global Warming is a hoax" had any actual, scientific merit,, they would be taken seriously by THE LEGITIMATE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.

but these goofy ideas fall flat on their face when the try to compete in the arena of legitimate, evidence-based science, so invariably there is 'special pleading' and, when that fails, bitching a la Ben Stein about imaginary 'conspiracies to hide the truth'.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

23. Let's play, the sun's magnetic poles flip every 11 years, and that happens

why exactly? I am sure the pat answer is it is due to internal forces. That is an unacceptable premise, imho it is due to outside influences such as the twisting Birkeland currents that pass through the galaxy. Nasa needs to come up to speed on this stuff.

http://helios.gsfc.nasa.gov/solarmag.html


The electric currents in the Sun generate a complex magnetic field with extends out into interplanetary space to form the interplanetary magnetic field. As the Sun's magnetic field is carried out through the solar system by the solar wind, the Sun is rotating. Its rotation winds up the magnetic field into a large rotating spiral, known as the Parker spiral, named after the scientist who first described it.


The magnetic field is primarily directed outward from the Sun in one of its hemispheres, and inward in the other. This causes opposite magnetic field directions in the Parker spiral. The thin layer between the different field directions is described as the neutral current sheet. Since this dividing line between the outward and inward field directions is not exactly on the solar equator, the rotation of the Sun causes the current sheet to become "wavy", and this waviness is carried out into interplanetary space by the solar wind.

In addition, every eleven years the entire magnetic field of the Sun "flips" -- the north magnetic pole of the Sun becomes the south, and vice versa. The flip takes place at solar maximum.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. "That is an unacceptable premise" -okay, if you say so.

Look, I realize that this is all part of the grand magical magnetical mystery theory or whatever, and on the off chance one day it becomes accepted legitimate science, I will buy you a beer.

Until then, though, I remain unconvinced, and furthermore the sun's magnetic field is totally off-topic from your OP.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

26. Agreed, I veered and shouldn't have. Even though it is off topic, if you will, I found

this at NASA and it is pretty darned amazing even for wild eyed me.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast15feb_1/


Because the Sun rotates (once every 27 days) solar magnetic fields corkscrew outwards in the shape of an Archimedian spiral. Far above the poles the magnetic fields twist around like a child's Slinky toy.

Left: Steve Suess (NASA/MSFC) prepared this figure, which shows the Sun's spiraling magnetic fields from a vantage point ~100 AU from the Sun.

Because of all the twists and turns, "the impact of the field reversal on the heliosphere is complicated," says Hathaway. Sunspots are sources of intense magnetic knots that spiral outwards even as the dipole field vanishes. The heliosphere doesn't simply wink out of existence when the poles flip -- there are plenty of complex magnetic structures to fill the void.

Or so the theory goes.... Researchers have never seen the magnetic flip happen from the best possible point of view -- that is, from the top down.

But now, the unique Ulysses spacecraft may give scientists a reality check. Ulysses, an international joint venture of the European Space Agency and NASA, was launched in 1990 to observe the solar system from very high solar latitudes. Every six years the spacecraft flies 2.2 AU over the Sun's poles. No other probe travels so far above the orbital plane of the planets.

[KittyWampus]

33. Science is self correcting- actually, it tends to add on ever more layers of complexity until

someone steps up with a simpler and more elegant truth.

Kepler, for instance.

[Confusious]

31. pseudo science meme

The difference between science and theology is that we no longer believe those things.

Have the evidence, your idea becomes the new reality.

Einstein is the perfect example.

[yurbud]

35. is this a roundabout way of getting at Jesus riding a dinosaur?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

36. Dinosaurs were banned in the Holy Land, so no. n/t

[yurbud]

37. then how could the priest sacrifice the fatted raptor?