I am unfamiliar with this term, in the standard scientific literature - can you provide a reference please?Michael Mozina wrote:In other words, your dating scheme is entirely based on hydrogen sun theory,Nereid wrote:The best direct evidence is the HR diagrams of globular clusters, compared with the HR diagrams of open clusters.Michael Mozina wrote: What direct observations are you basing that number on, and what "assumptions" are you making about the composition of stars when you date them?
In textbook astrophysics, these HR diagrams are well accounted for with standard stellar evolution models,
The estimates of the masses of observed stars come from many sources; the most reliable are those from binaries - spectroscopic, eclipsing, etc - combined with direct ('trigonometric') parallaxes. As there are thousands of such stars (and millions of observations), covering all but a tiny handful of stellar types, we are quite confident that stellar masses can be estimated accurately (and that the uncertainties on such estimates also estimated accurately).as are your mass projections.
[snip]
Sorry for my last post I read your meaning out of context. ooopsMore pertinent: baryon: "the baryons are the family of subatomic particles which are made of three quarks. The family notably includes the proton and neutron, which make up the atomic nucleus, [...]"
Welcome to the Asterisk Cafe, Nico Benschop!Nico Benschop wrote:Hishadow wrote:
"It does not matter if we as a layman are sold or not. It's all to easy to pull the "conspiracy card" as an explaination for the lack of interest from other scientist. If a theory doesn't fly, why should we (as layman) "demand anything" from scientists on how to allocate their research time? If Arp is not able to draw enough support from other scientists, it's his task to try and convince those scientists about the viability of his theory."
NB: Just in case you're interested in a serious alternative to the BB hypothesis, read the recently published book "The Electric Sky" by Prof. Donald Scott (Google the title for links). He collected contributions from scientists who support a plasma-filled universe (among others: Hannes Alfèn, a swedish scientist who discovered the source of the northern light, namely a plasma stream reaching us from the Sun - for which he received the Nobel prize for physics in 1970).
Electro-magnetic phenomena are grossly ignored by mainstream astronomers, which explains the increasing trouble of the BB hypothesis to stay alive with ad hoc assumptions of 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' and 'black holes' to explain away the shortage of gravity fields to support the observations. The book is an eye-opener for both scientists and amateurs. Notice that Halton Arp's critique on the BB hypothesis centers on the assumed purely Doppler nature of Hubble's Redshift (if I'm not mistaken, Arp was an assistent of Hubble!) - thus serving as a reliable distance- and speed- measure, and by time-reversal yielding the BB hypothesis. The MBR (Microwave Background Radiation) of some 3 Kelvin can easily be explained as the rest-energy generated by all the light- and other radiation travelling thru plasma-filled universe that is 'warmed-up' by all this radiation passing through (explaining as well the redshift in general as an energy loss of photons proportional to travelled distance - hence not necessarily a Doppler effect due to receeding speed, see
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop ).
Arp (and many others) observed several Quasars that appear *before* another galaxy with a redshift some 10x *larger* than that of the galaxy's redshift! This clearly shows that some redshifts are NOT a Doppler effect but are intrinsic at generation - possibly due to the extreme high local EM fields in such Quasar (re: the spectral line splitting into a blue- and red- shifted version by the Zeeman effect, and the blue line much more scattered thru billions of light years travel through plasma filled intergalactic space). -- NB
Dear NicoDear cosmos_uk:
In stead of replying to Arp's cogent objection (re Quasar Redshift) and my suggestion of an intrinsic redshift, I get an ad-hominëm attack from you. What a sad bag of arrogance ("I know it all") and ignorance ("I need not to look because I know it all") are you. Is that typical for a moderator of an astronomy discussion forum? 'Peer reviewed' apparently means 'stuck-at'. -- NB
Nico Benschop wrote:Dear Nereid,
Reading D.Scott "The Electric Sky" [1] I became aware of the mountain of evidence against the BB hypothesis, and in favour of plasma cosmology.
I was curious about the mainstream views on this matter, and the response I obtained here (circumventing a straight answer, combined with a personal attack) confirmed his point.
If you cannot provide references to any such papers, please do not continue to promote Scott's ideas here.If you would like to provide references to any such papers, many readers here would be very interested to check them out.
Do you mean The Discovery of a High Redshift X-ray Emitting QSO Very Close to the Nucleus of NGC 7319?Namely that inconvenient evidence is ignored. Arp's anomalous Quasar redshift observations are published (after all;-) in the Astrophysical Journal (2/10/05).
For clarity, let me copy some text regarding the trouble Arp had with getting this paper published ( [1] pg 210 ): "Arp and his colleagues submitted a paper for publication announcing the discovery. For many months the paper was 'discussed and re-reviewed' - to the extent that one can legitimately use the word 'stonewalled' - by editors of prestigeous astronomical journals. However, the image shown (fig 70b: NGC 7319) received wide circulation on the internet, where it was viewed by an increasingly vocal number of amateur astronomers and other interested viewers. In my opinion this widespread dissemination forced the Astrophysical Journal finally to publish it (2/10/05)."
Mind you, Hubble himself, in a footnote of his 1931 paper with Humason, warned about rashly assuming the measured redshift to be due to a Doppler effect, because one does not have proof of the conditions about the billions of lightyears of space separating us from the source. The relevant text is to be found at:
http://personal.nbnet.nb.ca/galaxy/compton.html -
Hubble's Constant in Terms of the Compton Effect - by John Kierein:
" [...] The red shift controversy has been raging ever since Hubble's and Humason's original papers (Hubble & Humason 1931, Humason 1931) carried the footnote:
""It is not at all certain that the large red shifts in the spectra are to be interpreted as a Doppler effect, but for convenience they are expressed in terms of velocity and referred to as apparent velocities.""
. . . Hubble felt that the data was in better agreement with light having a loss of energy to the intervening medium proportional to the distance it travels through space by what he called 'a new principle of nature' (Hubble 1937). This was because if it were Doppler the light should appear to be less bright than if it were a loss of energy, and such a brightness correction did not fit the direct proportionality to distance data." . . .
Indeed, as you say, a conjecture.NB conjecture: It could well be that, if Hubbles red-shift observations historically would have come *before* Einstein, the latter might have concluded he *did* need 'ether' as a medium to carry lightwaves - in order to explain the red-shift as an energy-loss effect proportional to distance (not to velocity - as Doppler effect), for instance modelled by a 'damping factor' in the Maxwell equations, as worked out in:
http://members.chello.nl/~n.benschop in a paper by M.Lewis : "Hubbles' Redshift by Photon Decay." However, Einstein's opinion was that he 'did not need ether' (before 1920 the red-shift was not known) - so why introduce it? ... applying Occam's Razor (use the simplest model that explains all observed effects). However, for a damping effect one *does* need a dissipative medium. -- NB
Same rules apply Michael - questions are always welcome, but promotion of non-scientific material is not.Michael Mozina wrote:Do you have a problem with me starting a separate electric solar theory thread in the Cafe?Nereid wrote:Let's stay focussed shall we?
This thread is about Origins of the Universe, and, more specifically, the observational basis of modern cosmology.
For a discussion of what powers the Sun, please post in a relevant, other, thread.
Just for the record, you didn't provide a reference, you gave a date, a journal, and an object name, from that I was able to find the paper. But thank you for confirming that it is this particular paper you were referring to.Nico Benschop wrote:Dear Nereid,
You wrote: "First and foremost, this is a scientific forum, devoted to astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology). What does this mean? Among other things, it means we most certainly will entertain questions on astronomy (and astrophysics and cosmology), but we will not entertain promotion of non-scientific ideas in these fields. What does it mean, 'non-scientific'? Ultimately, the answer is*: are the ideas published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals? If not, then they're non-scientific."
I gave you the Astrophysics Journal paper on Arp's anomalous redshift paper (re QSOs - http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409215 ), which you apparently found.
Each internet discussion forum no doubt has its own policies and scope statements. It happens that this Asterisk Cafe is focussed on astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology, space science) and does not permit use of the forum for promotion of ideas not published in relevant, peer-reviewed journals.So that is a legitimate start for the discussion, by your condition. However, I find it a rather 'catch 22' condition, to only discuss matter that is published in mainstream astrophysics journals
It is not difficult to get papers published in ApJ, MNRAS, A&A, etc ... the requirements are clearly laid out in the journals. Further, it is even easier to get a preprint up on arXiv, in advance of getting it published..... kind of chicken-out of new idea's, which *are* required since the BB hypothesis runs out of steam (re: accelerated expansion 'solved' by missing gravity due to 'dark matter' and 'black holes'). -- NB
Finally, although it is somewhat off-topic, I'm wondering if you can answer a question about the Arpian ideas, a question that's been bugging me since I first came across them: how come only two sets of redshifts are ever observed, in these supposedly closely interacting systems? If there is close interaction, where's all the gas (etc) at redshifts intermediate between that of the QSO and the galaxy?If you would like to provide references to any such papers [that present at least one alternative cosmological model which accounts for the six sets of cosmologically relevant observations], many readers here would be very interested to check them out.
Perhaps you can answer a question that has been bugging me, we know that clusters of galaxies are filled with plasmas, are you suggesting that there is some special attractive force at work within a plasma that cosmologists ignore?
While this may be interesting, I'm sorry to say that it seems to have almost nothing to do with the specific question I asked you ("Perhaps you would care to explain how you consider that paper to be relevant to this thread, whose focus is the origins of the universe and observational cosmology?" - added bold)Nico Benschop wrote:Dear Nereid and cosmo_uk,
Anomalous Quasar redshifts may arise due to the Wolf effect, involving a scattering medium - possibly the proposed intergalactic plasma. Please read the online paper "The Wolf effect and the Redshift of Quasars", at http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9807205v1 by D.James. The Quasar near NCG7319 (redshift z=0.0211) has a redshift of z=0.22 thus a factor of about ten larger, *without* being that much weaker due to its assumed 10x greater distance.
Re "What has redshift to do with the origin of the Universe" : everything, since the mainstream BB hypothesis (the 'Birth' of the universe) rests on the assumption that the measured redshift of stellar objects is solely a Doppler effect: these objects having a receeding speed proportional to 1+z at measured redshift z (hence 'expanding universe', and by time reversal: voilà, the BB). This is an assumption, proposed by Hubble in 1931, although he warns in a footnote that this has no proof: little was/is known about the intergalactic space between source and observer. In fact he himself was more in favour of a redshift proportional to distance (now called the tired-light theory) due to energy loss of light (photons). But he had no clue of such entropy process, so he was rather safe than sorry and assumed space to be 'empty' (hence no possible loss-process, in accordance with Einstein's prevailing doctrine).
No worries; here's a quick summary:Re the six cosmic phenomena Nereid mentions, to be explained by a plasma universe: I am new here, so I'll have to peruse the present thread to find out what is meant. -- NB
