Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo
Bohr style model, mentioned is of MASS.... not quasar position.
I think we are jumping between:
Bohr style model of quasar distance shells relative to earth observations
Bohr style model of mass, providing some form of mechanism for redshift stepping.
What we both think of chance alignments and photos with high redshifted quasars infront of, or linked by arms of ejection to be are well... one of those believe your eyes moments. Yes it can be swamped by large sets, when applied without the hypothesis in mind, such as supplied here.
The analogy holds for the hypothesis of ejections from active seyferts. Karlsson peaks are from the parent to child, it does not apply across population.
The hypothesis is "a component" of redshift is intrinsic.
|
No, no and no.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model
That is all that needs to be read to see what the Bohr Model is about and I suggest that people read it before they go quoting about "Bohr Models" of quasar z quantisation. It has nothing to do with the "mass" of anything except that at high energies it can be used calculate the masses of heavy quark mesons.
It's not a matter of anything being swamped by large datasets. Those large datasets go directly to the problem. If there was a statistically significant population of quasars being produced by an method of ejection, that population would show up in the observations. If there were a statistically significant population of quasars associated in some way with a nearby galaxy, that would also show up in the observations. Put the two together and, ergo, there would be a case for quasars being ejected from galaxies....active seyferts or not. Considering that an earlier stage in the universe all galaxies were quasars, the observational evidence for any ejection mechanism would be overwhelming, if it existed at all. What do we actually find in the data....no evidence whatsoever for actual physical connections or ejection mechanisms of quasars from galaxies...of any type. Where there are associations, it is either due to chance alignments and other optical effects, or the galaxies that the quasars reside in are visible, or the quasars and other galactic objects are in actual clusters much like modern day galaxies.
What's more, if these quasars are being ejected from a parent galaxy, why do all the supposed "ejected" quasars show a redshift, even when the ejected quasars is supposedly in front of the parent galaxy and actually moving towards us in relation to their combined movement. A redshift would imply a movement
away from us, and
behind the parent galaxy. So do these ejections events have for some curious reason a preferred vector of ejection??!!!.
Simple observation and statistical analysis would tell you that in an ejection event, the direction of ejection would be
random and
in any population there would be (to within a reasonable margin) an equal number of quasars traveling in
all directions after ejection.
There would be no preferred direction. The same would apply to the Doppler shifting (which this actually is, if the scenario were the case) of the light from the ejected quasars. You would observe both blue and redshifted objects. Why is it that we see only
redshifted quasars supposedly ejected from galaxies??. If there are ejected quasars
in front of the parents galaxies, that would imply a direction of ejection
towards our general direction. The quasar would in fact be
closer to us than the galaxy and exhibiting a
blueshifted spectrum and a
velocity component of ejection towards us, not away as their actual Doppler (red) shift implies. Blueshifitng of the spectrum cannot be gotten away from, it is a simple law of physics that
all bodies in motion
must obey if they are in fact
moving towards the observer.
So, how could a body that should be exhibiting a blueshifted spectrum have a redshift?? Only one other way...a
gravitational redshift, or a redshift generated by the gravitational field of the object. However, to completely cancel out any blueshift that might be exhibited an ejected object, the gravitational field of the object
would have to be so intense that no light at all could escape from the said quasar. There's only one object that that could be....a
black hole. Yet, the proponents of EU flatly deny their existence, yet they have no credible alternative to replace them. They have a lot of
mumbo jumbo and wild speculation about electrical fields on
scales of size and energies completely outside of the observed processes seen occurring and have
no evidence for their supposed
dominance over gravity on these scales or energies at all,
despite what they may claim. If there were evidence, then it would've been found and studied. There's no grand scientific conspiracy to hide evidence or what not.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand, if the gravitational field was so intense that you had a black hole, you wouldn't even get a redshift either. No light would be getting to the observer to be able to take a reading. But you would be seeing massive gravitational effects on their surroundings. Apart from gravitational lensing of the parent galaxy, which would mean that the observed galaxies would in fact be extremely distorted in appearance (unless the EU crowd have a way of explaining that away too), what other effects would be present. There would be a
massive accretion disk around the hole, if it was in contact with enough material to drag in. That would mean
an enormously hot, fast rotating and highly energetic (in terms of radiation being emitted) disk of gas would be present around the hole. You would then have all the processes which occur in these situations, such as
bipolar jets,
high energy x ray and gamma ray emissions and enormous luminosities. What the EU crowd maintain, through their following of Halton Arp's original hypothesis is that the quasar seen is just a small (in terms of physical size cf to the parent galaxy) ejected blob of gaseous materials exhibiting a discordant redshift.
If that was the case and it was
actually obeying the laws of physics,
there would be a black hole present given that it's supposed to be a redshift only object, even when it's apparently ejected away form the galaxy and towards the observer. And by all rights, if there were a black hole present,
where are the other effects I have outlined?? In fact,
why is there even a redshift at all. Where is the
massive distortion of the parent galaxy from the
gravitational lens being produced by the
gravity of the hole?? More to the point as well, considering how far away these objects are and the time taken for light to travel that distance between the object and the observer, just how old and how long does these supposed ejected objects last for?? Are we going to obey the laws of physics for some phenomena and not for others, which would have to be the case if the EU crowd want to have their cake and eat it too. Or how are the EU fraternity going to explain that or explain away the observed lensing effects of gravity on so many objects that have been observed to date. I suppose there's some
magical quality in EM that will do such a thing but so far science (of any sort)
has yet to come up with any answer to that.
These blobs of gas
can't be held in check by electrical forces for an indefinite period of time. And, if they actually understood anything about EMF (electromagnetic forces) and plasmas in the first place, they'd know that apart from the plasma being
electrically neutral, despite a separation of charges (there's equal numbers of positive and negative charges in a plasma), even in a closed system the charges will
rapidly cancel one another out because there is
no input of energy into the system to maintain the separation of charges. If there were such an
internal mechanism you would have
perpetual motion which
completely violates all the laws of theormodynamics, for a start. If in their opinion the
ejected quasars have a connection with the parent galaxy, where is this input of energy coming from?? The connection
can't last indefinitely and having the connection in the first place would
facilitate a leakage of energy from the system and in fact
collapse the fields being generated far
quicker as it would be an
open ended system. The potential difference between the two end would rapidly cancel out unless there is, in effect, a "battery" or power source maintaining the potential difference.
Where is the evidence for that???.
As for the last statement made, a "component" of redshift is intrinsic. Are we to believe that we can somehow say that "Oh, we do have a redshift being caused by ("what???") yet some of it must be coming from the source itself". You either have a Doppler shift caused by the physical movement of that object through space, which is an intrinsic redshift, if it moving with respect to those other object around it, or if that object is at rest with respect to those others, you have a redshift caused by the metric expansion of spacetime. Unless you have a gravitationally induced redshift, there is no other way to produce any sort of intrinsic redshifting of light (that we presently know of). So far,
no observations made have shown any other cause for this kind of redshift. If there was another observable mechanism,
it would've been found, simple as that. Or are we to believe that EMF can somehow create redshifts and/or blueshifts of light without any apparent physical laws behind the supposed mechanism for doing so, because there is no laws of plasma physics or electrical/magnetic fields which can do this.
Nothing that Faraday, Galvani, Ampere, Ohm or anyone else connected with that side of science came up with a way to change the frequency and wavelength of light in such a manner. Not unless you're
seriously suggesting that what you are seeing is a
radio transmitter (or in this case light) with an external power source, because that's what it would have to be to do this. Redshift and blueshift are caused by changes in the wavelengths of the light generated by movement towards or away from the observer....discovered by Christian Doppler in 1842.
The use of "intrinsic" in this case is a misnomer and a misuse of the word, as it is a misunderstanding of what is occurring and a misunderstanding of the basic science behind the mechanisms producing it. It is also predicated on a mistake of observation and the subsequent belief in that mistaken observation.
(I don't have one - 'only' engineering... + 35 years of experience in industry..) but I have enough understanding of how science works to see all this throughout.. and so do many others, fortunately.
. My comment was related more towards how Alex goes about things.
.. 
