Expanding Universe: Is everything really getting bigger?

[SpaceTiger]

A previous study of the galaxy found insufficient ionization sources - not enough star formation to do the job.

I read parts of the Aoki paper it actually is extremely interesting, but not for the reasons you'd like to think. The insufficient ionizing radiation seems to imply the presence of an anisotropic radiation source from the central engine of the Seyfert. This would be consistent with the dust torus model people have been exploring in the context of AGN.

Is the evidence of outflow (independently discovered in 1996) coincident with the radio emission, and pointed at the QSO not confirmatory of interaction in your view?

Not if it was selected based on that, something which Burbidge always does for his papers. The statistics of this were hashed out long ago and there is no excess of quasars near galaxies (in angle on the sky).

Then read their arguments relating to relative position of the QSO and the galaxy. I find them well thought-out and worthy of more than a simple nay-saying rejection.

I'm sure they know better than to try to claim such a proof based on a single case.

 

[Skomatth]

Chronos, while I agree that turbo's explanation doesn't look like anything I've read from what I believe to be credible sources, you aren't helping my understanding at all-the guy turbo was responding to.

 

[Chronos]

Here you go.

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0409215

By the way, I didn't know you were a fan of the "tired light" concept. I'm not surprised, though - only a real crackpot would have a spare gallon jar of pickled squirrel heads in the pantry. Don't you just hate running out of them when the family drops in?

Hehe, you never have a jar of pickled delicacies on hand when you really need one.

I remain, however, curious. Surely there must be at least one high redshift quasar ejected directly at us from the core of a low redshift mother galaxy.

 

[turbo]

Hehe, you never have a jar of pickled delicacies on hand when you really need one.

I remain, however, curious. Surely there must be at least one high redshift quasar ejected directly at us from the core of a low redshift mother galaxy.

Why "directly at us"? The example above is sufficiently compelling to cause us to investigate the "interaction" and prove or disprove it (or at least make observations enough to establish a preponderance of evidence one way or the other).

The simple nay-saying that accompanies the release of any paper by this group of gifted observational astronomers is unseemly. If the observation (the only kind of experimentation that astronomers can do) cannot be replicated, so be it. If the observation is replicated and improved upon, and we are uncomfortable with the implications of the observation, too bad. Science is not and cannot be a democratic process, where the majority rules. Sometimes people lose sight of that.

 

[matt.o]

intrinsic redshift of QSOs does not fit well with observations of clustering of galaxies around the QSO at the same redshift as the galaxies. Nor does it fit in with the observed gravitationally lensed images of high redshift QSO's by lower redshift galaxies, where the galaxy must be well in front of the QSO.

 

[turbo]

intrinsic redshift of QSOs does not fit well with observations of clustering of galaxies around the QSO at the same redshift as the galaxies. Nor does it fit in with the observed gravitationally lensed images of high redshift QSO's by lower redshift galaxies, where the galaxy must be well in front of the QSO.

Hi, Matt. Do you haved citations illustrating how galaxies cluster around the redshifts of local quasars? That would be a really interesting concept.

 

[matt.o]

it is more that the QSOs are observed in galaxy groups/clusters, not that the galaxies cluster around QSOs.

I can't remember the exact paper, I will have to get back to you.

 

[Chronos]

Why "directly at us"? The example above is sufficiently compelling to cause us to investigate the "interaction" and prove or disprove it (or at least make observations enough to establish a preponderance of evidence one way or the other).

The simple nay-saying that accompanies the release of any paper by this group of gifted observational astronomers is unseemly. If the observation (the only kind of experimentation that astronomers can do) cannot be replicated, so be it. If the observation is replicated and improved upon, and we are uncomfortable with the implications of the observation, too bad. Science is not and cannot be a democratic process, where the majority rules. Sometimes people lose sight of that.

Why not directly at us? Of the many thousands of high redshift QSO's discovered to date, why is not a single one superimposed smack in front of a low redshift 'ordinary' galaxy? Perhaps the answer is - they really are as distant as suggested by their redshift. This is not simple nay-saying, it's simple logic supported by sound statistics.

 

[SpaceTiger]

Why "directly at us"? The example above is sufficiently compelling to cause us to investigate the "interaction" and prove or disprove it (or at least make observations enough to establish a preponderance of evidence one way or the other).

When a theory's predictions have been shown to be wrong enough times, people generally disregard subsequent papers which run under the assumption of its truth. The paper you referenced picked out an observation that was indeed a bit unusual, but was a far cry from really presenting evidence for the truth of Burbidge's theory. It will be very difficult to say for sure whether this system can be described by conventional theory and it's not a good use of observing time to keep studying it. Rather, Burbidge should be looking for consistent effects or statistical deviations from the standard theory and then put together a testable prediction for other observations. Analyzing special cases like this is of little more value than waving around a picture that looks like bigfoot and claiming that it provides proof for its existence.

To be fair, he has tried to provide more general predictions in the past, but they've turned out to be wrong. One gets the impression that he's now just running off the steam of a philosophical preference.