If all galaxies move away from each other, how can there be filaments?
Perhaps Ned Wright's link will answer your questions: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/lerner_errors.html
Good answer, cristo. Filaments are predicted by quantum uncertainty theories - and fit inflationary big bang cosmologies.
Kasse I think what you are really asking about is this
Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion
Authors: M. Lopez-Corredoira, Carlos M. Gutierrez
(Submitted on 26 Mar 2002 (v1), last revised 27 Mar 2002 (this version, v2))
Abstract: We present new spectroscopic observations of an old case of anomalous redshift--NGC 7603 and its companion. The redshifts of the two galaxies which are apparently connected by a luminous filament are z=0.029 and z=0.057 respectively. We show that in the luminous filament there are two compact emission line objects with z=0.243 and z=0.391. They lie exactly on the line traced by the filament connecting the galaxies. As far as we are aware, this is the most impressive case of a system of anomalous redshifts discovered so far.
Comments: 4 pages, 4 figures, accepted to be published in A&A-Letters
The field surrounding NGC 7603: cosmological or non-cosmological redshifts?
Authors: M. Lopez-Corredoira, C. M. Gutierrez
(Submitted on 9 Jan 2004)
Abstract: We present new observations of the field surrounding the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603, where four galaxies with different redshifts--NGC 7603 (z=0.029), NGC 7603B (z=0.057) and two fainter emission line galaxies (z=0.245 and z=0.394)--are apparently connected by a narrow filament, leading to a possible case of anomalous redshift. The observations comprise broad and narrow band imaging and intermediate resolution spectroscopy of some of the objects in the field. The new data confirm the redshift of the two emission-line objects found within the filament connecting NGC 7603 and NGC 7603B, and settles their type with better accuracy. Although both objects are point-like in ground based images, using HST archive images we show that the objects have structure with a FWHM=0.3-0.4 arcsec. This and the relative strength and width of the main spectral lines allow us to classify these as HII galaxies with very vigorous star formation, while the rest of the filament and NGC 7603B lack star formation. We delineate the halo of NGC 7603 out to 26.2 mag/square arcsec in the Sloan r band filter and find evidence for strong internal distortions. New narrow emission line galaxies at z=0.246, 0.117 and 0.401 are also found at respectively 0.8, 1.5 and 1.7 arcmin to the West of the filament within the fainter contour of this halo. The probability of three background galaxies of any type with apparent B-magnitudes up to 16.6, 21.1 and 22.1 (the observed magnitudes, extinction correction included) being randomly projected on the filament of the fourth galaxy (NGC 7603) is computed resulting ~ 3 x 10^(-9).
Comments: 34 pages, 9 figures, Astronomy & Astrophysics accepted
If you want to get a discussion and learn something, then present it as a PUZZLE. Stop saying it disproves, because it is only one apparent thing. Not enough. But the professionals have to admit that it is a puzzle, requiring more study and eventual explanation. So you can focus on it as something requiring explanation.
those two papers did not get much cited, except by the authors themselves in their later work. However here is someone who did cite them:
8. arXiv:astro-ph/0409025 [ps, pdf, other]
Title: Distances of Quasars and Quasar-Like Galaxies: Further Evidence that QSOs may be Ejected from Active Galaxies
Authors: M. B. Bell
Comments: 11 pages, 6 figures, accepted for publication in The Astrophysical Journal
Journal-ref: Astrophys.J. 616 (2004) 738-744
So Kasse you have hold of something. We are talking peer review journal articles accepted for publication by Astrophysical Journal, and by Astronomy and Astrophysics, and by Astronomy and Astrophysics Letters. Respected journals.
The observation itself is not crackpot. You just have to treat it in an acceptable way.
Before you amateurishly dismiss the whole standard model of cosmology, the expansion picture, you have to carefully consider all the different alternative explanations. That is what M.B. Bell is evidently doing. Little by little. It is a slow process. maybe the filament is only apparent. Or maybe it is real and there is some really neat clever explanation for the different redshifts that no one has thought of yet!
Personally I feel confident that expansion cosmology is basically right, and those who obsessively challenge it are wrong. But I want to be fully open to anomalous observations.
Separate names with a comma.