Quote:
Originally Posted by a1120028
I said I'm not going to post re creation etc but just wanted to clarify why I started this thread.
The idea I brought up was I feel there may be some merit to the idea that there is a non-cosmological component to redshift in high redshift quasars and active galaxies.
|
Redshift indicates recession. High z objects appear to be at cosmological distances. There is no evidence for a "non-cosmological" component to redshift
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1120028
Some questions arise
Is there a connection between galaxies and certain types of galaxies and the quasar?
|
The closest quasers subjected to deep imaging techniques display nebulosity, and are likely the active cores of galaxies in the remote far distant universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1120028
Are quasars ejected from galaxies, and infact proto-galaxies themselves?
|
No. Quasers are believed to be super massive black holes on a feeding frenzy in the cores of active galaxies. They are confined to an early epoch in the Uinverse's history. Their vast distances are confirmed by their redshifts and their lyman alpha forests.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1120028
Is there some other astrophysical process that can explain the redshift anomalies.
|
No
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1120028
These questions are asked and looked at in depth in the documentary "The cosmology quest".
|
in depth? This sounds like what the anti-evolutionists use in their propoganda - magnify differences of scientific opinion to create the impression that the entire edifice of science is wrong, even though my TV is still working and emitting alpha and beta particles, and the infrared remote control works too. Same with that stupid "documentary" - "what the bleep do we know", which misconstrues evidence and opinions to create a false impression of the state of modern science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1120028
Someone once said, and I fear it's an ominous prediction "In the future whenever we point a telescope skyward, we are only going to find what we already know is there".
|
To date this has not been the case. The explosion in astronomical knowledge is awesome.
Quote:
Originally Posted by a1120028
I have become intrigued by the fact that if we take certain quasars associated with galaxies such as NGC 7603 and treat them as is if they are at their observed distance, ie in the vicinity of the associated galaxies, and not at their proposed red shift distances then no new ultra high energy process is needed to explain them. If this idea turns out to have merit it casts new light on things such as dark matter/energy and the BB theory.
That was the general idea.
I didn't intend to get into a theological debate. So if anyone has any ideas on the redshift thing please let me know. I'd be interested to hear them.
|
But they are not. You are using the discredited ideas of Arp. His observations were made on a previous generation of imaging equipment and have been falsified by modern investigations.