Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 20 2012 08:50pm)

I really don't care if physicists and cosmologists have rejected it. They reject everything that is against the big bang. Duh.

Quote (novocane @ Mar 20 2012 07:58pm)

Thats fine, but do you really expect people to believe you and big bang conspiracy websites over the top scientist in the world? It is jsp though so who knows


There are definitely holes in the big bang theory, and to be honest any theory trying to describe our universe as a whole is going to have some flaws.  But, at the moment, stephen hawking and I think the big bang seems to be the best explanation

Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 20 2012 09:08pm)

Oh noes, the top scientistststs are going to smash my bigs bangs conspiracies websites.

Why don't you present an argument instead of appealing to authority?

Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 20 2012 06:32pm)

And to prove that Redshift != Distance.
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.

Quote (novocane @ Mar 20 2012 08:23pm)

wow thats really interesting. oh wait..

"Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[6] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[7][8][9] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:
"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]"

talk about out fucking dated

Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 20 2012 09:29pm)

Where's that study?

Quote (novocane @ Mar 20 2012 08:23pm)

wow thats really interesting. oh wait..

"Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s; however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly since then: the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[6] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[7][8][9] As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp's postulates directly. A recent study stated that:
"... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."[10]"

talk about out fucking dated

Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 20 2012 10:03pm)

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.