d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > A Few Challenges From The Qur'an And Me > Stick To The Topic
Prev1424344454674Next
Closed New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Aug 16 2012 11:20pm
Quote (Voyaging @ Aug 16 2012 11:15pm)
with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.

The first instance of observing the host galaxies around quasars was announced in 1983 by Gehren as published in the Proceedings of the Twenty-fourth Liege International Astrophysical Colloquium. p. 489-493.


lolwut? The fact that quasars are near galaxies or superimposed on top of them doesn't mean that they're at redshift distances. That's non-sequitur. In fact, Arp uses quasars with differing redshifts to teh galaxies, which quasars are nearby or superimposed on top of galaxies and are connected to the galaxies by a bridge of matter to show that there is such a thing as intrinsic redshift and that the cosmological distances suggested by redshift are wrong. That last study in my post with the 2 pictures is a good example of that.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 16 2012 11:23pm
Member
Posts: 24,639
Joined: Jun 27 2008
Gold: 0.00
Aug 16 2012 11:33pm
I'm not going to disagree with the studies you pointed out, but it doesn't prove the Big Bang incorrect in anyway.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Aug 16 2012 11:34pm
Quote (simpleforce @ Aug 16 2012 11:33pm)
I'm not going to disagree with the studies you pointed out, but it doesn't prove the Big Bang incorrect in anyway.


If you actually read the studies and knew the implications of them, you would understand that they prove the big bang wrong.
Member
Posts: 25,367
Joined: Apr 30 2010
Gold: 566.22
Aug 16 2012 11:35pm
How can this thread keep going?
Member
Posts: 24,639
Joined: Jun 27 2008
Gold: 0.00
Aug 16 2012 11:39pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 05:34am)
If you actually read the studies and knew the implications of them, you would understand that they prove the big bang wrong.


they provide specific studies for specific subjects.
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Aug 16 2012 11:43pm
Quote (simpleforce @ Aug 16 2012 11:39pm)
they provide specific studies for specific subjects.


That's an amazing conclusion you've drawn, but, sadly, it's so vague and non-contentious that it doesn't really say anything. They are studies that disprove fundamental postulates of the big bang, such as the CMB being the IGM, no time dilations on quasars which is supposed to occur in an expanding universe, and intrinsic redshifts disproving the Hubble Relation which, the Hubble Relation when taken in reverse through time is THE fundamental reason we believe a big bang happened.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 16 2012 11:43pm
Member
Posts: 24,639
Joined: Jun 27 2008
Gold: 0.00
Aug 16 2012 11:44pm
Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 05:43am)
That's an amazing conclusion you've drawn, but, sadly, it's so vague and non-contentious that it doesn't really say anything.  They are studies that disprove fundamental postulates of the big bang, such as the CMB being the IGM, no time dilations on quasars which is supposed to occur in an expanding universe, and intrinsic redshifts disproving the Hubble Relation which, the Hubble Relation when taken in reverse through time is the fundamental reason we believe a big bang happened.


all theories.

And wait ... are you saying the Universe as a whole is not expanding?
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Aug 16 2012 11:47pm
Quote (simpleforce @ Aug 16 2012 11:44pm)
all theories.

And wait ... are you saying the Universe as a whole is not expanding?


Yes, I am saying that the universe is not expanding. And if you understood the scientific definition of a theory, you wouldn't be using that to brush off the studies.
Member
Posts: 24,639
Joined: Jun 27 2008
Gold: 0.00
Aug 16 2012 11:52pm
Do you agree that galaxies are constantly spreading outwards from some center of the universe? (In general, no specific special cases)
Member
Posts: 20,461
Joined: Jun 16 2008
Gold: 722.53
Warn: 10%
Aug 16 2012 11:56pm
Quote (simpleforce @ Aug 16 2012 11:52pm)
Do you agree that galaxies are constantly spreading outwards from some center of the universe? (In general, no specific special cases)


They aren't moving from a center. They are moving with no center away from everything else. And, no, I don't agree. There are seyfert galaxies that, when their intrinsic redshift is taken into account, actually have a blueshifted Doppler effect.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev1424344454674Next
Closed New Topic New Poll