[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Also if Quasars are ejected from Seyfert galaxies and the Doppler component is subtracted to reveal periodicity, why don't Seyfert galaxies exhibit the same effect?

This has been well covered in the Narlikar model... i'll mention below, well worth a read.

But then people much more qualified than myself have asked the same questions and have concluded that redshift periodicity and quasers being ejected from galaxies is baloney.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...2ca922c9c10466

hang on there... "people more qualified than me said"... i'm not happy with that... invoking hierarchy?... lets keep going on logic, we are smart lads here.

The above 2005 paper was criticised for selection effects, along the lines of... you need to relate the quantized redshift steps according to the ejecting seyfert.... (relative). Note: this is called the Arp/Burbidge "quasar ejection scenario"
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0603169

Then, the above 2006 paper was also criticised for selection effects... along the lines of... selection effects and filters relating to including the ejecting galaxy.

But, to me, if you think about it, that was the whole point! That is the model. It is the relative redshift to the ejecting galaxy that is absolutely critical, and the selection effects thereof. This is the only way statistics will ever make sense with a 'Bohr' style model...

It would be fair to say this is still be rigorously re-analyzed...

An old but logical idea is that Quasar redshift maybe gravitational instead of cosmological in which case they can be much closer.

This has never found favour amongst cosmologists.

Regards

Steven

This does not explain the observed quantization, in all directions. Unless of course we are some how in the middle of the 'pulses' of formation, as if we are the stone tossed into the pond... Ptolemy would be proud.

The quantizations 'unusually' group into discrete steps at z = 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+z2) = 1.23(1+z1)

Carl's Bohr style model comments obviously ring here... and one of India's most celebrated astrophysicists Jayant Narlikar (he is a national hero) has developed an intrinsic redshift model along the lines of this: http://www.springerlink.com/content/t1051925605842n8/

This model also requires ejection activity, interconnecting gases, quantisation along the bohr lines of thought, ejection along minor axes most likely around 'active' sefert style galaxies.


Further trouble, for expanding space, is the observations (photo graphs) of quasars 'infront' of active galaxies:
http://peregrinacultural.files.wordp...ed-ngc7319.jpg
closeup
http://bourabai.narod.ru/arp/img/NGC7319quasar2.jpg

Ofcourse, if they are meant to be located at their redshift=velocity distance, it is a ridiculously flukey chance that a giant active galaxy is going to have a pin-hole to let the quasar shine through a galaxy of dust, stars, matter, gas, plasma, even through in some of those lenses if you want.

cmon... I don't think they are using current knowledge, i think they are trying to add epicycles to a theory on life support.

What else can they do?

How about being scientists and scientifically falsifying something.
Also take a good look at alternatives.

(bear in mind we are mainly commenting on a popular science magazine here, and the editors there of. Many scientists, including India's national hero, have been working on these better fitting models for decades.... collecting press, awards, honors along the way)

So the call might just be... hey.. lets give the other guys a 1/4 page in the mag... ?

Regards