Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 18 2012 04:43am)
Evidence for Intrinsic Redshift:
The Tully-Fisher Relationship (TFR) is utilized to identify anomalous redshifts in
normal spiral galaxies. Three redshift anomalies are identified in this analysis: (1)
Several clusters of galaxies are examined in which late type spirals have significant
excess redshifts relative to early type spirals in the same clusters, (2) Galaxies of
morphology similar to ScI galaxies are found to have a systematic excess redshift relative
to the redshifts expected if the Hubble Constant is 72 km s-1 Mpc-1, (3) individual
galaxies, pairs, and groups are identified which strongly deviate from the predictions of a
smooth Hubble flow. These redshift deviations are significantly larger than can be
explained by peculiar motions and TFR errors. It is concluded that the redshift anomalies
identified in this analysis are consistent with previous claims for large non-cosmological
(intrinsic) redshifts.
Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
David G. Russell
Owego Free Academy, Owego, NY 13827 USA
The issue of periodicity in quasi-stellar object (QSO) data sets is re-examined in the light of the failure to detect a periodicity in the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey, and of a recent clam that edge effects might have generated a spurious periodicity of 0.089 in log_10 (1+z) in earlier data sets. A new methodology is described by which the contribution of which edge affects may be assessed. It is shown that they have not induced a spurious periodicity in the earlier data sets. Several possible factors are discussed which may tend to mask the periodicity in the 2dF Survey. Thus the earlier evidene for the periodicity in QSO redshifts is unaffected, although new constraints on astrophysical models may be imposed.
The detection of periodiity in QSO data
W.M. Napier and G. Burbidge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
n the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, 243 redshifts of objects fainter than 25.5 mag. were observed. Remarkably, two of them turned out to be very high redshift at z = 4.800 and z = 4.882. Even more remarkably these two fell only 3 and 1.5 arcsec on either side of an emisssion line galaxy of z = .733. (The ESO Messenger No. 118, p.49 and Vanzella et al. astro-ph/0406591.) The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts/illustrations/Messengerp49.jpg
But if we compute once more the probability of the author’s redshifts falling this close to a given galaxy, alignment, similarity of redshifts etc. one gets 3.5 chances in 10 million of being accidental! This is hardly "a posteriori" since my Catalogue of Discordant Redshifts (Apeiron 2003) lists many similar pairs with even less probability of being chance. Then in the same Messenger issue on p.36 there is a GRB/Supernova of z = .691 connected to a host galaxy of z = .472. They hasten to inform us that the latter is a "foreground galaxy" but as the picture below shows, there is a continuous luminous connection between the two (Masetti et al. 2003, A&A 405, 465..)
http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts/illustrations/Messengerp36.png
They do not reference the paper Geoffrey Burbidge published titled "The Sources of Gamma-Ray Bursts and their Connections with QSO’s and Active Galaxies" (ApJ 2003, 585, 112.)
Since, as usual, none of the above authors reference the voluminous evidence that quasars are intrinsically redshifted objects ejected from lower redshifted galaxies, there is very little chance of conventional astronomy correcting a huge error in their fundamental assumptions. The consequences for astronomy, and science in general, are discouraging to contemplate.
Please specifically show what are the inconsistencies with the cosmological principle.