Galaxy motions -> hidden superstructure (DM)

[Garth]

Nereid - Please keep cool! The issue is serious not belligerent!

How much effort - by a professional, with a good PhD and tenure (and access to sufficient computing resources) - would it take to analyse the first year's results from WMAP (or SDSS, or the whole 2dF, or ...) and write a paper laying out the degree to which those results are consistent with SCC (or any other freely coasting cosmology), and provide 95% CL estimates of the key parameters in SCC? From what I've read so far, not much; certainly it should be well within the capabilities of the 34 original signatories (add summer and PhD candidates and you've got even more resources). Ditto, wrt primordial nuclide abundances, within an SCC ... as I said before, there's *no new physics*, all that's required is an application of stuff that's probably mostly already in textbooks that many of the PhDs actually used.

Working on it! But if you look at my public profile you'll see I'm an "Independent researcher" - without easy access to sufficient resources- that is why I will be glad of some cooperation!

I looked for Davis and Bahcall's signatures on this statement, I wasn't the least bit surprised to find they're not there. Why? At one level, this whole statement is equivalent to "you two guys should never had been given funds to pursue the 'solar neutrino problem', it's just an epicycle"; or "Fermi's crazy idea of the neutrino, in 20 years of research not a trace of this epicyclic hypothetical particle has been found".

Surely the point is that the neutrino has been discovered and the solar neutrino problem has been resolved, neutrinos have a small mass*, whereas the problem identifying the Higg's bosons, DM and DE hasn't been resolved?

- Garth
*But unfortunately not enough to solve the DM problem too.

 

[turbo]

Aren't you imposing your beliefs onto the data? The *data* don't say anything about gravitation; I feel a more accurate statement would be something like 'the amount of mass, and its distribution, required to account for the observations is greater than that we estimate from analysis of the EM'; whether it's a problem with our theories of gravitation, or something completely different, the data doesn't say.

No, I am not imposing my beliefs on the data, and your "more accurate statement" is overly simplistic. To restate: 'the amount of mass required to account for observations is greater (far, far greater!) than we estimate from analysis of the EM AND the distribution of that mass must be fine-tuned to account for observations in each relevant circumstance.'

The three glaring problems I cited (differential galactic rotation, excessive cluster lensing, and anomalous cluster binding) all need "dark matter" for one reason only - to provide additional gravitational force to make observations agree with the Standard Model. Right now, the ONLY thing that "Dark Matter" does is provide extra gravitational force. It is not a leap of faith to consider that perhaps the Standard Model does not model gravity properly, especially on large scales, where these problems become especially troublesome.

To address your statement, the data indeed does say something about gravitation, and it's coming through loud and clear. Gravitation is the ONLY thing that "Dark Matter" provides. As a bookkeeping convention "Dark Matter" is tolerable, and it keeps the Standard Model usable at large scales, but we should regard it as a measure of the failing of the SM at galactic scales, not as a real entity.

 

[Nereid]

Nereid - Please keep cool! The issue is serious not belligerent!

I'll try; is 'robust' OK?

Working on it! But if you look at my public profile you'll see I'm an "Independent researcher" - without easy access to sufficient resources- that is why I will be glad of some cooperation!

How many of the 34 have tenure? Access to PhD and summer students? university broadband internet and computing resources?

Surely the point is that the neutrino has been discovered and the solar neutrino problem has been resolved, neutrinos have a small mass*, whereas the problem identifying the Higg's bosons, DM and DE hasn't been resolved?

- Garth
*But unfortunately not enough to solve the DM problem too.

My point isn't that we *now* know 'all about' the neutrino, it's that there was a many decades gap (2?) between its prediction and the first direct observations, and many more decades (4?) before anomalous behaviour was nailed down; to say that no one has a DM particle in their SQUID, despite 20 years of looking, therefore it's all epicycles is equivalent, at some level, to saying SelfAdjoint, Bahcall, Davis etc should never have been given any funds to waste looking for neutrinos!

 

[Garth]

My point isn't that we *now* know 'all about' the neutrino, it's that there was a many decades gap (2?) between its prediction and the first direct observations, and many more decades (4?) before anomalous behaviour was nailed down; to say that no one has a DM particle in their SQUID, despite 20 years of looking, therefore it's all epicycles is equivalent, at some level, to saying SelfAdjoint, Bahcall, Davis etc should never have been given any funds to waste looking for neutrinos!

I think you have got it the wrong way round. I'm not saying the standard model shouldn't be funded, on the contrary it needs all the ongoing research available, however it should not be treated as the only show in town and beyond criticism when these questions still remain.

What I am saying is, for the sake of good scientific practice, and in order to give alternatives against which the standard model can be fairly tested, the cosmological community should also support these other approaches until they are falsified. That has not happened yet with SCC, nor apparently with some other theories suggested by serious researchers and published in reputable journals.

For example I have published SCC originally in GRG, from which there were over 45 citations, and the revamped theory in Astrophysics and Space Science and now by Nova Science Publishers. As a challenge to the standard model I would have thought others, from an academic point of view at least, would have welcomed another alternative and criticised it. Yet so far silence. I am grateful that by chance GPB is going to test it against GR -the result is still open and it seems we will have to wait until 2006 to obtain the result, ah well patience is a virtue!.
- Garth

 

[Nereid]

I think you have got it the wrong way round. I'm not saying the standard model shouldn't be funded, on the contrary it needs all the ongoing research available, however it should not be treated as the only show in town and beyond criticism when these questions still remain.

Perhaps I misread; didn't you (and turbo-1?) sign a statement which reads, in part "The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.[/color]"? Could not a similar set of words have been written about parts of physics, before the 'oscillatory' nature of the neutrino was nailed down recently? Is not this statement which you have signed a rather pointed accusation of those do research following the concordance model(s) as doing bad science?

What I am saying is, for the sake of good scientific practice, and in order to give alternatives against which the standard model can be fairly tested, the cosmological community should also support these other approaches until they are falsified. That has not happened yet with SCC, nor apparently with some other theories suggested by serious researchers and published in reputable journals.

Before you introduced that New Scientist letter, that's what I understood your position to be; having read that letter, I'm curious as to why you think you needed to be so belligerent towards folk such as Tegmark.

For example I have published SCC originally in GRG, from which there were over 45 citations, and the revamped theory in Astrophysics and Space Science and now by Nova Science Publishers. As a challenge to the standard model I would have thought others, from an academic point of view at least, would have welcomed another alternative and criticised it. Yet so far silence. I am grateful that by chance GPB is going to test it against GR -the result is still open and it seems we will have to wait until 2006 to obtain the result, ah well patience is a virtue!.
- Garth

Hey, we at PF love to have you here just the same
(just don't go 'crackpot' on us, OK?)

 

[Garth]

Perhaps I misread; didn't you (and turbo-1?) sign a statement which reads, in part "The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.[/color]"? Could not a similar set of words have been written about parts of physics, before the 'oscillatory' nature of the neutrino was nailed down recently? Is not this statement which you have signed a rather pointed accusation of those do research following the concordance model(s) as doing bad science

Nereid - I have read the statement again carefully, the only accusation it makes of the present cosmological community is the generally unacknowledged tentative nature of the standard model's additional "hypothetical entities".

Inflation, DM, DE are treated as 'hard science' is that not the situation?
Now once these have been discovered the situation will change, however, until then the history of adding first Inflation then DM then DE to make the observations fit the theory speaks of getting the scientific cart before the horse. I thought the theory had to fit the observations.

Before you introduced that New Scientist letter, that's what I understood your position to be; having read that letter, I'm curious as to why you think you needed to be so belligerent towards folk such as Tegmark

I was not aware that is was belligerent, just speaking its mind. Its key recommendation: "To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang." is motivated by a desire for good scientific practice - but also, I must admit, probably a little resentment that such funding hasn't already been forthcoming.

Hey, we at PF love to have you here just the same
(just don't go 'crackpot' on us, OK?)

Keep your sharp points coming; I find them invaluable.

Oh! I have been a crackpot all my life!

- Garth

“Blessed are they that can laugh at themselves, for they shall never cease to be amused”

 

[turbo]

Perhaps I misread; didn't you (and turbo-1?) sign a statement which reads, in part "The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.[/color]"? Could not a similar set of words have been written about parts of physics, before the 'oscillatory' nature of the neutrino was nailed down recently? Is not this statement which you have signed a rather pointed accusation of those do research following the concordance model(s) as doing bad science?

Dear Nereid, the letter is not an "accusation" aimed at people whose research is aimed at bolstering the standard cosmologies. It is a statement of principal that funding should not be denied nor professional resources withheld from people whose lines of inquiry diverge from the "concordance models", lest potentially valuable insights go unexplored.

This is not a revolutionary idea, but when funding is sought and fought over as vigorously as it is today, that idea can be very threatening to the status quo. Any real paradigm-shift in physics (like Newtonian gravitation, Special and General Relativity) will likely come from a creative intelligent person "pushing the envelope", and not from someone studiously "coloring within the lines" of the Standard Model. If that person cannot get support for his research, and is denied access to the instrumentation that might flalsify his/her models, we all lose. Fair enough?

 

[Chronos]

Shall we discuss Arp's 'white hole' at the center of galaxies to explain galactic morphology? Shall we talk about quantized red shifts? Do galaxies 'expel' quasars and proto-galaxies? Care to discuss the mechanism explaining that process? Shall we embrace the LaSage ['push gravity'] model that Arp endorses? Do galaxies [and stars] increase in mass and become less red shifted as they age [as Arp claims]? Does the universe, and stars, increase in mass by converting the ZPE into mass [as Arp claims]? Dr. Halton 'Chip' Arp may be a fine gentleman and respected astronomer, but, he is a lousy theorist and mathematician. Do you really want to go there?

 

[Garth]

Shall we discuss Arp's 'white hole' at the center of galaxies to explain galactic morphology? Shall we talk about quantized red shifts? Do galaxies 'expel' quasars and proto-galaxies? Care to discuss the mechanism explaining that process? Shall we embrace the LaSage ['push gravity'] model that Arp endorses? Do galaxies [and stars] increase in mass and become less red shifted as they age [as Arp claims]? Does the universe, and stars, increase in mass by converting the ZPE into mass [as Arp claims]? Dr. Halton 'Chip' Arp may be a fine gentleman and respected astronomer, but, he is a lousy theorist and mathematician. Do you really want to go there?

Chronos - No mention of Arp's particular ideas was made in the "cosmologystatement", his theory is not the only alternative show in town; the key point of that statement is more general than that.

However there may be some value in some of his ideas and each ought to be weighed on its merits and not arbitrarily ignored; for example the question of whether particles secularly gain mass, or not, depends on the method of defining and measuring mass over cosmological distances. In general a particle's four-momentum cannot be parallel transported in GR, the required Killing vectors do not in general exist. So the issue is not simple or resolved, only defined by convention to be so.

- Garth

 

[Chronos]

Chronos - No mention of Arp's particular ideas was made in the "cosmologystatement", his theory is not the only alternative show in town; the key point of that statement is more general than that.

However there may be some value in some of his ideas and each ought to be weighed on its merits and not arbitrarily ignored; for example the question of whether particles secularly gain mass, or not, depends on the method of defining and measuring mass over cosmological distances. In general a particle's four-momentum cannot be parallel transported in GR, the required Killing vectors do not in general exist. So the issue is not simple or resolved, only defined by convention to be so.

- Garth

No ideas should be discarded. That was not the point. I realize some of my objections to Arp tread upon the toes of SCC. My main objection to Arp is his sloppy generalizations. He has a history of using selective observations and bad math to leap to 'spectacular' conclusions. And then he whines when people don't take him seriously... duh? The SCC model is a much better example of the scientific method.

 

[turbo]

Do galaxies 'expel' quasars and proto-galaxies?

Here is a nice picture of M51 (the wallpaper on my PC).

http://housefly.astro.princeton.edu/~rhl/PrettyPictures/M51.jpg

As you look at the picture, notice the "shredded" appearance of the arms near the companion, and the prevalence of hot blue star-forming regions in that area. Now look at the other side of M51, and see how smooth and undisturbed it appears. Does this not look like an ejection event to you?

There are many spiral galaxies with smaller companions embedded in their arms, attached to their arms, or lying outside the host with filaments between the two. Conventional cosmologists always characterize these either as "collisions" or "mergers", never as ejections. Do you wonder why?

Arp has studied galaxy morphology for decades longer than most cosmologists have been alive. You may disagree with many of his ideas, but you might want to pay attention to this one.

 

[meteor]

Do galaxies 'expel' quasars and proto-galaxies?

By no means, this is only an imaginative process proposed by Chip Arp in his Variable mass theory
But nobody takes seriously Arp (well, practically nobody)

 

[Chronos]

Here is a nice picture of M51...
As you look at the picture, notice the "shredded" appearance of the arms near the companion, and the prevalence of hot blue star-forming regions in that area. Now look at the other side of M51, and see how smooth and undisturbed it appears. Does this not look like an ejection event to you?

The appearance of M51 is nicely explained by this paper
http://cc.oulu.fi/~hsalo/M51_I_SL_2000.pdf.
An ordinary collision model accounts for observation. The prevalence of the young star forming regions is due to gas cloud collisions. This paper confirms prior studies [as referenced in the paper] where the same conclusions were reached. The case against ejection appears to be pretty solid.

 

[turbo]

By no means, this is only an imaginative process proposed by Chip Arp in his Variable mass theory
But nobody takes seriously Arp (well, practically nobody)

Please keep an open mind on galactic ejection. Whether or not you can accept gravitational mass as variable or not, please keep galactic ejection as a possiblity. You will thank me for this.

Arp's methods and theories have fallen out of favor as cosmological mathemeticians have come to dominate astronomy, but he is no dummy. His work in galactic morphology is seminal, and there are WAY too many examples of obvious ejection (as opposed to "collision" or ""capture") to be rejected.

Please browse this:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/frames.html

Then tell me that all these interactions are "collisions" or "captures". I'll try not to laugh.

 

[turbo]

The appearance of M51 is nicely explained by this paper
http://cc.oulu.fi/~hsalo/M51_I_SL_2000.pdf.
An ordinary collision model accounts for observation. The prevalence of the young star forming regions is due to gas cloud collisions. This paper confirms prior studies [as referenced in the paper] where the same conclusions were reached. The case against ejection appears to be pretty solid.

Dear Chronos, please re-read that paper. The convolutions that "explain" that multiple-encounter model are laughable. The universe is complex, but the underlying mechanisms are simple. Theories that invoke complex mechanisms to explain a single observation are wrong almost every time. Occam's Razor.

 

[Chronos]

Please keep an open mind on galactic ejection. Whether or not you can accept gravitational mass as variable or not, please keep galactic ejection as a possiblity. You will thank me for this.

Arp's methods and theories have fallen out of favor as cosmological mathemeticians have come to dominate astronomy, but he is no dummy. His work in galactic morphology is seminal, and there are WAY too many examples of obvious ejection (as opposed to "collision" or ""capture") to be rejected... Then tell me that all these interactions are "collisions" or "captures". I'll try not to laugh.

Has anyone has rigorously examined and demonstrated [i.e., a published paper] that any of these interactions cannot be explained by collision or capture events?

 

[Chronos]

Dear Chronos, please re-read that paper. The convolutions that "explain" that multiple-encounter model are laughable. The universe is complex, but the underlying mechanisms are simple. Theories that invoke complex mechanisms to explain a single observation are wrong almost every time. Occam's Razor.

It seems rather cavalier to dismiss such a rigorous study without voicing specific objections. Were the papers referenced, where similar conclusions were reached using different approaches, also too convoluted to be palatable?

 

[turbo]

Has anyone has rigorously examined and demonstrated [i.e., a published paper] that any of these interactions cannot be explained by collision or capture events?

Dear Chronos, if you can rigorously examine and demonstrate that any of these interactions ARE collision or capture events, I wil be happy to review your work. You can start with the M51 system.

 

[meteor]

I still believe that the bridge connecting M51 with the other galaxy is a tidal arm. The Toomre brothers demonstrated in 1972 that gravitational interactions can cause these filamentary bridges to occur, so case closed
It's like going to a castle by night in search of phantoms. if you are suggestive to see them, you will see one behind each corner. If you want to see ejections in images that can be explained other way you will see ejections. But I prefer to follow the mainstream, the truth uses to be always with the point of view of the majority

 

[turbo]

It seems rather cavalier to dismiss such a rigorous study without voicing specific objections. Were the papers referenced, where similar conclusions were reached using different approaches, also too convoluted to be palatable?

Your are kidding about the "rigorous study, right?"

I hope so. That paper is lame in so many ways. The more complex the "explanation" for a particular observation, the more certain you can be that it is absolutely wrong. In this case, the obvious distortions of M51 are "explained away" as if its companion has made a concerted but very complex multi-pass attack on it. There is a relatively simple explanation for M51's appearance, and it does not involve a "Kung Fu" battle between the host and the companion. The companion was ejected, and it distorted the arms of the host in the process.

You may not like this, but Arp's Atlas of Interacting Galaxies will give you enough examples to refute to keep you busy for the rest of your life (assuming you will not simply nay-say every one). If you have not browsed that work, you should spend a few hours on it:

http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Arp/frames.html

As I have said, Arp has been studying galaxy morphology for decades longer than most cosmologists have been alive.

Look at the examples, and try to think how these galaxies connected by filaments or obviously skewed by tidal distortion could possibly exhibit these abnormalities in "anticipation" of future interaction. The lame half-witted "capture" model dies here, OK?

Now, is it even possible in your estimation that any of these interactions are the result of an ejection phenomenon, or must every single one of them be a result of a collision? You don't have to reply right away, and I'm not going to demand math. Please think before answering, though, and go with your gut.

 

[Loren Booda]

My two cents, from http://www.quantumdream.net :

The "Hubble acceleration," a_H=c²/R_H=cH₀=6 x 10^-8 cm/s², demarcates a critical radial acceleration for galaxies and larger bodies where the influence of so-called dark matter begins. Following the rotation curve for a given galaxy, one notices the departure from conventional luminous matter dynamics at approximately the rotational velocity v with radius r so that a_H=v²/r. This asserts that the radial universal expansion parameters, i. e., the Hubble acceleration, also affect rotational dynamics. The concept of "dark matter" may arise in large part to a quantizing of a_H. If so, this would indicate a characteristic of baryonic matter's inertia to overcome an "ultraviolet catastrophe" (similar to the blackbody's). Consequently, it tends to maintain the acceleration, and likewise the velocity, of galaxies' outlying halos.

The effects of "dark matter" on large-scale structures are predominantly due to compliance with discretized minimal acceleration, given by the ratio between speed of light squared and the cosmological horizon radius.

 

[turbo]

I still believe that the bridge connecting M51 with the other galaxy is a tidal arm. The Toomre brothers demonstrated in 1972 that gravitational interactions can cause these filamentary bridges to occur, so case closed
It's like going to a castle by night in search of phantoms. if you are suggestive to see them, you will see one behind each corner. If you want to see ejections in images that can be explained other way you will see ejections. But I prefer to follow the mainstream, the truth uses to be always with the point of view of the majority

I am so glad that you pointed out the work of the Toomre brothers, and thus "closed the case" on any possible alternate interpretation of the data. Is it possible that other astronomers may contribute anything, or have the Toomre brothers solved everything? "Case closed", indeed!

 

[Chronos]

Your are kidding about the "rigorous study, right?"
I hope so. That paper is lame in so many ways.

Elaborate. Which parts are lame.

The more complex the "explanation" for a particular observation, the more certain you can be that it is absolutely wrong.

I would argue the more diffuse and inspecific the argument becomes, the more likely it is false.

In this case, the obvious distortions of M51 are "explained away" as if its companion has made a concerted but very complex multi-pass attack on it. There is a relatively simple explanation for M51's appearance, and it does not involve a "Kung Fu" battle between the host and the companion. The companion was ejected, and it distorted the arms of the host in the process.

Please reference a paper that supports that position.

You may not like this, but Arp's Atlas of Interacting Galaxies will give you enough examples to refute to keep you busy for the rest of your life (assuming you will not simply nay-say every one). If you have not browsed that work, you should spend a few hours on it:

I am fairly familiar with the Arp Atlas of galactic freaks.

As I have said, Arp has been studying galaxy morphology for decades longer than most cosmologists have been alive.

So have creationists.

Look at the examples, and try to think how these galaxies connected by filaments or obviously skewed by tidal distortion could possibly exhibit these abnormalities in "anticipation" of future interaction. The lame half-witted "capture" model dies here, OK?

Do you have an example that resists conventional explanations? Apparently not. All I asked for was a single study that suggests expulsion cosmology has any basis in fact.

Now, is it even possible in your estimation that any of these interactions are the result of an ejection phenomenon, or must every single one of them be a result of a collision? You don't have to reply right away, and I'm not going to demand math. Please think before answering, though, and go with your gut.

What I see is a lack of evidence supporting any of the Arp assertions. No papers, no objective evidence, no substantial objections to the preponderance of evidence against the Arp assertions. Frankly all I see is a bunch of 'hand waving', as Nereid would say.

 

[turbo]

All I asked for was a single study that suggests expulsion cosmology has any basis in fact.

I guess these poor misguided folks have not had the benefit of your wisdom. Perhaps you should contact them.

http://online.itp.ucsb.edu/online/bhole_c99/mushotzky/inflow.html

 

[turbo]

What I see is a lack of evidence supporting any of the Arp assertions. No papers, no objective evidence, no substantial objections to the preponderance of evidence against the Arp assertions. Frankly all I see is a bunch of 'hand waving', as Nereid would say.

We had a little discussion of the problems with the Heirarchical Model some time back - perhaps you missed it.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=26644&page=4

There are problems with that model, as demonstrated by the very energetic and highly organized structures (galaxies and quasars) that we see in the infancy of the (presumed) 13.7Gy BB universe. In light of this situation, it is logical that fission/ejection processes are important in the evolution of galaxies.

If you can come up with any logical model that forbids mass ejection by galaxies, I would love to see it. Then, I will happily watch you reconcile it with the Heirarchical Model (see above).

 

[Garth]

My two cents, from http://www.quantumdream.net :

The "Hubble acceleration," a_H=c²/R_H=cH₀=6 x 10^-8 cm/s², demarcates a critical radial acceleration for galaxies and larger bodies where the influence of so-called dark matter begins.

Just to give my two pennyworth...

This acceleration is also that of the Pioneer anomaly (almost).

SCC explains that anomaly as a clock drift between ephemeris time (that kept by the spacecraft 's orbit) and atomic time ( that kept by the apparatus measuring the doppler shift)

Now how does that apply to galactic rotations?...

Garth

 

[turbo]

All I asked for was a single study that suggests expulsion cosmology has any basis in fact.What I see is a lack of evidence supporting any of the Arp assertions. No papers, no objective evidence, no substantial objections to the preponderance of evidence against the Arp assertions. Frankly all I see is a bunch of 'hand waving', as Nereid would say.

You haven't responded to my previous posts - have you done any kind of searching to see what kinds of models might support Arp's model? Let me steer you toward some interesting work (yes, there are many papers involved, if that will make you more comfortable). Google on "radiation recoil" AND "black hole". After that, you can substitute "three-body slingshot" and "black hole" (or something similar) because there are other mechanisms for black-hole ejection. You will see that there are quite a few people modeling mass ejection from galactic cores, specifically massive black holes in these cases.

Zoltan Haiman uses the radiation recoil model to place constraints on the growth rates of supermassive black holes. Of course the extreme redshifts of the quasars he cites cause problems, because if the redshifts are truly indicative of cosmological distance, there appears to have been insufficient time for the quasars' black holes to form.

http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai%3AarXiv%2Eorg%3Aastro%2Dph%2F0404196

What does black hole ejection have to do with Arp? It provides a mechanism for quasars to be emitted from galaxies. It is fairly non-controversial that a quasar's energy is derived from matter falling into a black hole. If quasars are relatively nearby objects, ejected from host galaxies, their apparent excess luminosities are no longer a problem. The question is "what causes the excess red shift"?

 

[Chronos]

I fail to see how radiation recoil is relevant to the issue we were discussing. Why would an 'expelled' black hole suddenly become a quasar while the bully galactic black hole that evicted it does not?

Dear Chronos, if you can rigorously examine and demonstrate that any of these interactions ARE collision or capture events, I wil be happy to review your work. You can start with the M51 system.

Other researchers have already done that... at risk of sounding repetitive

The appearance of M51 is nicely explained by this paper
http://cc.oulu.fi/~hsalo/M51_I_SL_2000.pdf.
An ordinary collision model accounts for observation. The prevalence of the young star forming regions is due to gas cloud collisions. This paper confirms prior studies [as referenced in the paper] where the same conclusions were reached. The case against ejection appears to be pretty solid.

 

[Loren Booda]

Garth,

This acceleration is also that of the Pioneer anomaly (almost).

That Pioneer anomaly, unless it describes a universal constant (not restricted to the Pioneer spacecraft and our solar system), probably signifies a numerologic coincidence with the Hubble acceleration. Can you show it to hold consistently for another spaceship amongst other regions of the galaxy?

 

[Garth]

Garth, That Pioneer anomaly, unless it describes a universal constant (not restricted to the Pioneer spacecraft and our solar system), probably signifies a numerologic coincidence with the Hubble acceleration. Can you show it to hold consistently for another spaceship amongst other regions of the galaxy?

You'll have to wait for "the other regions of the galaxy"!
I quote from some relevant papers:

Nieto et al.: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0308017
"First published in 1998, results from an almost twenty years study of radiometric data from Pioneer 10/11, Galileo and Ulysses spacecraft have been continuously reported by Anderson et al. They indicate an apparent anomalous, constant, acceleration acting on the spacecraft with magnitude aP = (8.74 ± 1.33) x 10^−8 cm/s/s, directed towards the Sun, to within the accuracy of the Pioneers’ antennas."
and Mbelek et al. : http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0310088
"Attempts to verify the anomaly using other spacecraft proved disappointing. This is because the Voyager, Galileo, Ulysses, and Cassini spacecraft navigation data all have their own individual difficulties for use in an independent test of the anomaly."

So make of that what you will - the anomaly seems not to be explained by mundane causes such as gas leakage or anisotropic radiation reaction, I do not believe it is a coincidence that it is almost equal to the Hubble acceleration. But then I am biased!

Garth