Originally posted by meteor
The dynamics of galaxies is reasonably understood...
Is that why they can't understand the mechanism for the gravitational rotation curve of the matter in the galaxy without inventing a whole host of hypothetical entities (MACHO's and WIMP's etc.)? The Plasma Cosmology model needs no hypothetical entities to explain the rotation curve. It simply uses the observed galactic magnetic fields and intergalactic electric currents to explain it.
He says that the quasars show such high redshift because that is a "inherent" redshift of the quasar. Wait. Why has to have a quasar inherent redshift and not, for example, my book or my wardrobe? If objects would have inherent redshifts then it would have been discovered in laboratories here in Earth
His theory is full of nonsenses: How he explain that tre vast majority of the observed quasars are NOT near any galaxies?
The fact is that many quasars are physically associated with host galaxies of much different red-shift. The problem is how can you explain the association if you assume the doppler interpretation of red-shift which puts the quasars in very different regions of space from their observed host galaxies? The phenomenon is far too common to explain it as a simple coincidence. Thus we must admit that the quasar is getting red-shifted by some other mechanism or that it is traveling at strangely high speeds wrt the host galaxy which would require a mechanism such as the ejection from the host galaxy.
Here is a quote from
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm
"Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often
Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified."
Can yet another falsification make a difference in the belief structure of science? I doubt it. There is surely some inventable mechanism to fix yet another problem with the core assumptions of the BBT (another hypothetical kludge-particle which is conveniently only emitted in the vicinity of a quasar, perhaps?)
Like the Earth-centric Model of the solar system, the BBT gets reinvented again and again with hypothetical entities such as inflation, WIMP's, MACHO's, etc. (the modern-day form of Ptolemy's equally hypothetical "epicycles"), until finally, at this point in time around %99 of the entire known Universe must now be made of hypothetical Dark Matter/Energy particles to account for the BB interpretation of its observable properties.
15 billion years old? Give me a break, there are known structures in the Universe (such as the Great Wall of galaxies) that would have taken HUNDREDS of billions of years to form under the assumptions of the BBT and its observed "flatness".
see this link for example
http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf067/sf067a08.htm
see also the "Fingers of God" section from
http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm. Here is a quote.
"The "Fingers of God"
The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of the galaxies we can see from Earth that are located in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by presuming that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster itself takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.)
Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Again - Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything! A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate.
How astrophysicists can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become.
It is ironic to remember that Galileo got into trouble with the Church by defending the work of Copernicus. Copernicus' voice is coming down to us today through the ages - "If you think that all the galaxies in the Virgo Cluster are in a couple of straight lines that point directly at Earth, you are wrong!" Arp is, indeed, today's Galileo.
So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest. And the Virgo galaxy cluster most certainly does not take the shape of long "Fingers of God" pointed directly at Earth. The Big Bang Theory is false.
"
