Jump to content

pantheory

Senior Members
  • Content Count

    827
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by pantheory

  1. I could be wrong, not the first time of course, but I would eat my hat if this was evidence for another universe. Before when observing such galactic motions it was attributed to one or more "great attractor(s), " dark flow(s), etc., in our universe.

     

    My single hat is not straw so it would be a "hard chew," but the evidence must be very conclusive before I would acknowledge being wrong, not just speculation like I consider this article. Something like the evidence Hubble found concerning other galaxies. I believe the universe is a far simpler place than multiple-universe models all would suggest. IMO multiple universes are currently not needed to explain anything other than as supposed evidence to support other speculations.


    TJ McCaustland,

     

    Now the question is who wants to pet Schrodinger's Cat? :P

     

    I would be game for it as long as the pussy was warm and well, instead of cold and dead. After all Schrodinger knew his way around the bedroom according to history, and could "properly" set up an experiment there according to his own tastes :eyebrow:, as well as a different one in the lab.

  2. I would have to agree that some potential for something had to exist…though I wonder if "exist" is meaningful with respect to that point in…ah…in... (fill in a new word here)

     

    The False Vacuum, AKA the Zero Point Field, may have more energy within it than the rest of the universe combined. So it certainly wouldn't be correct to call it nothing.

     

    Also the idea that a beginning potential of some kind "had to exist," certainly is a logical conclusion. Potential energy in physics is classified as a type of energy, so I see nothing wrong with using the word "exist" for potential energy, but I understand your thinking that another word might be better than the word "exist" to describe a beginning Potential Energy of the Universe.

  3. As relativity describes the beautiful relationship between space and time. Time flows, so does space. Dark energy is responsible for the expansion of space. So I concluded that dark energy should also be responsible for time to flow. Is that a good idea?

     

    Mainstream theory does not generally attribute the expansion of space to dark energy, only the accelerated expansion of space. Of course you could say that time flows, but the flow of space is not usually accepted or considered the expansion of space. So your idea seems unrelated to present day theory, or interpretations of it IMO

  4. Using the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, a group of astronomers led by Joseph Hennawi of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy have discovered the first quadruple quasar: four rare active black holes situated in close proximity to one another. The quartet resides in one of the most massive structures ever discovered in the distant universe, and is surrounded by a giant nebula of cool dense gas. Because the discovery comes with one-in-ten-million odds, perhaps cosmologists need to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive cosmic structures.

     

    Using the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, a group of astronomers led by Joseph Hennawi of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy have discovered the first quadruple quasar: four rare active black holes situated in close proximity to one another. The quartet resides in one of the most massive structures ever discovered in the distant universe, and is surrounded by a giant nebula of cool dense gas. Because the discovery comes with one-in-ten-million odds, perhaps cosmologists need to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive cosmic structures...........

     

     

     

    http://phys.org/news/2015-05-astronomers-baffled-discovery-rare-quasar.html

     

    It would be interesting to me to known if these quasars have spin alignment with each other as some contiguous quasars have shown (if they could measure it).

  5. UCLA researchers create new method that targets tumors with the same effectiveness but a significant reduction in both side effects and cost.

     

    Pancreatic cancer:

    Pancreatic cancer, a devastating disease with a five-year survival rate of 5 percent, is difficult to detect early and symptoms do not usually appear until the disease is advanced. As a result, many people are not diagnosed until their tumors are beyond the effective limits of surgery, leaving chemotherapy as the only viable treatment option. The chemotherapy drug most often used for pancreas cancer is gemcitabine, but its impact is often limited.

     

    Research:

    Recent research has found that combining gemcitabine with another drug called paclitaxel can improve the overall treatment effect. In the current method, Abraxane — a nano complex containing paclitaxel — and gemcitabine are given separately, which works to a degree, but because the drugs may stay in the body for different lengths of time, the combined beneficial effect is not fully synchronized.Initially the treatment tested in mice.In the mice that received the drugs inside the nanoparticle, pancreas tumors shrank dramatically.And also tumor spread, to nearby organs was eradicated in these mice.

    attachicon.gif51159.jpg

    For more information.

     

    The eradication of tumor-spread to nearby organs is very big. If cancer does not metastasize (spread) it can eventually be eliminated by chemo therapy and/or radiology.

  6. A question to the scientific minds out there.

     

    As gravity has an effect on light and other electromagnetic radiation could light and other EM radiation have an equal and opposite effect on its surroundings and thus account for all the excess gravity out there?

     

    I'm sure this has been ruled out by more qualified people than me in the past, can anyone throw any light on this?

     

    Thanks

     

    I think this is good conjecture. But like all conjecture it is a matter of opinion. As others have pointed out, EM radiation exerts pressure, and just as gravity "attracts" and bends light, so does light "attract" and gravitationally influence matter. Also as others have mentioned, the extent of both is small compared to the effect needed to explain the many supposed effects of dark matter including observed orbital velocities of spiral galaxies and clusters. This would be the standard-model answer and explanation for your query.

     

    As to other possibilities there is an observed effect called the Tully-Fisher relationship where the Luminosity (intrinsic brightness) of a spiral galaxy is directly proportional to the maximum observed orbital velocity of the galaxy to the 4th power. In astronomy it can be written like this:

    L (Vmax.) 4

     

    This approximate relationship for orbital velocities of spiral galaxies means that there is a relationship between the brightness, the intensity of galaxy starlight, and a spiral galaxy's orbital velocity. This relationship is a factor in the MOND gravity formulation and some other formulations trying to provide an alternative explanation to dark matter.

     

    MOND gravity, as well as other proposals, assert stronger gravity at galactic scales. The most well-known of these is MOND proposed in 1983 by Mordehai Milgrom, an Israeli Physicist. In 2004 Jacob Bekenstein, a Mexican-Israeli theoretical physicist, developed the first complete relativistic gravity formulation with MONDian behavior, called TeVeS. Still another proposal is called Scalar-tensor-vector gravity (STVG) which also proposes stronger "MOG" gravity. Other proposals not involving stronger gravity have been Metric Skew Tensor Gravity (MSTG) proposed by John Moffat, which proposes the additional gravity tensor influence of electro-magnetism. And a number of other lesser known or generally unknown proposals which propose such things as vortex mechanics at galactic scales, attempting to explain all venues that dark matter is presently thought to explain.

     

    So your conjecture could be on target concerning the effect of radiation on the rotation velocities of spiral galaxies, at least indirectly IMO if any other model of gravity turns out to be correct in the absence of dark matter. :)

  7.  

    That it was/is called that by creationists carries zero weight — this is science conversation. Most likely, creationists would call something a theory thinking that they were discrediting it, and thinking of the terms as meaning "guess"

     

    It was called the theory of evolution via natural selection (stemming, most likely, from Darwin's book whose title begins as "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection"). Natural selection is a mechanism within the theory. It is a fact that natural selection happens, i.e. it has been observed. It is a fact that evolution has been observed. But the overall explanation for evolution is still the theory of evolution. (i.e. "Evolution" can be used in more than one context. It can be a fact, it can be a theory. But those are two different things.)

     

    OK

  8. Strange,

     

    Natural Selection as a foundation tenet of Evolution, is no longer debatable. Find me a scientist that does not believe that the following statement is fact.

     

    "Species adapt to their environment. Natural selection leads to evolutionary change when individuals with certain characteristics have a greater survival or reproductive rate than other individuals in a population and pass on these inheritable genetic characteristics to their offspring."

     

    This is the foundation tenet of natural selection.

     

    The statement above is now known fact IMO, regarding what was once called the theory of natural selection (and still is by creationists). Evolution theory in general is much broader theory and will remain theory since aspects of it can and will change over time. Still semantics being argued with valuable exchanges of ideas IMO mixed in :)

  9.  

    Yes. I disagreed before and I still disagree. I never compared theory with fact, you did. They are two separate things.

     

    Evolution is a fact. It has happened. Separate from this is the theory of evolution, which is the framework that explains what has happened. However, this is not the same as saying that the theory of evolution has become the fact. They are distinct. The facts support the theory.

     

    Similarly, time dilation and length contraction are facts — these are phenomena that have been confirmed by experiment, as has the gravitational deflection of light, and other phenomena. The framework that explains these phenomena is the theory of relativity. Again, the facts support the theory.

     

    The theories will always remain theories. That's the pinnacle in science. There is no moving up from there. Nothing about that says that they could not be replaced if something better came along. Your comparison of theory vs fact is incorrect. It doesn't work that way.

     

    Again, we are just arguing semantics IMO. You have clarified your points.

     

    I'll try to better clarify mine: "facts" are verifiable observations which may have once been considered theory only -- like the Earth is round. You gave even better examples such as time dilation, length contraction.

     

    Theories cannot necessarily be verified, such as the warping of space, and the time dilation of Special Relativity can be otherwise explained.

    Via : define: scientific fact:

     

    “A scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.”

     

    https://www.google.com/search?biw=1252&bih=558&q=define%3A++scientific+fact+&oq=define%3A++scientific+fact+&gs_l=serp.12..0i22i30l10.5759.12236.0.15857.22.22.0.0.0.1.605.3082.0j17j1j5-1.19.0.msedr...0...1c.1.62.serp..4.18.2927.CdihO9KuqBc

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

     

    “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

     

    Words have more than one definition for them even in science, so I agree that these definitions themselves are debatable concerning a single preferred definition. I know that many scientists would agree with you that when theory becomes fact it still can be considered theory by scientists. As for me, I prefer a definition of "fact" like the one above, where fact and theory would be separate and in contrast with each other.

     

    I think more in agreement with your statements, I will clarify and change my previous statement below.

     

    "In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory."

     

    to be changed to:

     

    "in science once a theory is "confirmed" (known to be fact, such as Darwin's theory of natural selection for instance) then that foundation aspect of the original theory (Evolution theory) will no longer be seriously debated amongst scientists." IMO

  10.  

    Thanks

    One last issue with regards to spiral galaxy;

    In all the articles which you have delivered, I couldn't find any information about the spiral galaxy structure.

    Please advice how the science explains the different activity and rotation curve at each segment - Bulge, spiral arms and Hallo.

     

    Additional information.

     

    When astronomers are claiming rotation curves of galaxies they are not talking theory. Since the late 1970's, or earlier, they have been able to fairly accurately measure the rotation curves of the bulge and the disc (arms) of a spiral galaxy by redshift differentials from one side of the galaxy to the other. Beyond that they measure the movement of neutral hydrogen where the movement of individual stars are difficult to observe or measure. This is primarily where the divergence of predicted velocities differ the most from observed velocities. This is called the Halo of the galaxy, the domain of the dark matter hypothesis.

     

    The Bulge of the galaxy is presently, based upon observations, thought to more closely follow Newtonian dynamics generally without the need for dark matter. The stellar disc begins to diverge from Newtonian dynamics, but the Halo of hydrogen's velocity greatly diverges from predicted velocities based upon measurement, without the dark matter hypothesis or some other explanation.

    In a word, no.

     

    The shape of the earth would never rightly be considered a theory, in the scientific definition. In a sense, it's too small. And your use of evolution and theory in such a juxtaposition falsifies your earlier claim. Evolution is a fact — it has occurred. And we have the theory of evolution which explains how it happens. We have the theory of relativity in physics, which is very well confirmed.

     

    I was not talking about theories in modern times, but the shape of the Earth was once considered a matter of conjecture or theory, at least by some, as recently as 6-7 hundred years ago. Of course this assumes that the idea of theory existed before Columbus with a similar meaning to it. IMO we are talking semantics here. I also consider that the theory of Evolution is not fact, but this too is semantics. Yes, the main points of the theory of natural selection are "fact" (a mountain of evidence to support it), but the modern theory of Evolution involves much more than this, much more than what Darwin originally proposed. Some of this modern theory might change over time such as the mechanics of epi-genetics, for instance, which involves good hypotheses IMO but will likely change to some extent over time.

     

    IMO neither theory of relativity, SR or GR, is necessarily fact and either or both could be replaced someday. For instance, if there is truly a background field such a dark matter or a Higgs field, the Zero Point Field, dark energy, or another field, then any of these fields, or combinations thereof, could be the basis for a preferred reference frame concerning motion, and Special Relativity might lose favor to Lorentz theory or a better theory someday.

     

    General Relativity has been around for a hundred years and has shown success at Solar System distance scales, but its warped space proposal has never been observed at galactic or universe scales. At these scales the hypothesis of dark matter must be added to it. GR might be replaced someday if a better model explains all venues predictably better with or without the inclusion of dark matter. Not saying that MOND gravity or that any of its presently proposed known alternatives are a better model, but such a better model could exist. That's why I think both SR and GR should still be considered theory rather than proven fact.

     

    Do you disagree?

  11. I'm not sure that I fully understand the basic Concepts of modern science.

    Therefore, Please advice if you agree with the following descriptions:.

    Observation: Whatever we see. For example we see redshift of farthest galaxies.

    Evidence: a direct outcome from this observation that had been proved by confirmed theory or physics law. For example based on the redshift observation and Doppler Effect we know for sure that all the farther galaxies accelerating from us. Therefore, this is evidence.

    Theory: Any unconfirmed/unproved Idea or Speculation which can give a feasible explanation/ solution for that observation or evidence.

    Confirmed Theory: A theory which had been fully confirmed. However, it is forbidden to use the same original evidence for confirmation. Different evidence or a fully proved lab test is needed to confirm a theory.

    No Math: It is also forbidden to confirm theory by Math. (unless it is based on a proven physics law or confirmed theory.) For example It is perfectly O.K. to develop a formula in order to get a theory of the dark energy in the universe, but this math can't be used as an approval for that theory.

    Hypothesis: any theory which had been accepted by our elite scientists. For example Dark energy.

    Argument: any idea or speculation which had been offered by any one of us.

    Illogical argument: Any unrealistic argument which had been disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. Trash must be the only place for those arguments

    Logical argument: Any argument which can't be disapproved by confirmed theory or real evidence. It is forbidden to disapprove an argument by Hypothesis.

    Physics law: Fully confirmed thesis. However, we must use this law for its specific scale. For example Newton law is applicable for objects but not for particles.

     

    I’ll give you a few suggestions. In science the words “proof,” “proven,” “know for sure” are seldom used concerning theory.

     

    “based on the redshift observation and Doppler Effect we know for sure that all the farther galaxies accelerating from us. Therefore, this is evidence.”

     

     

    The redshift of galaxies is evidence to support the proposal that the universe is expanding and that galaxies are moving away from each other. It is evidence for the related theory but we do not know for sure that this effect could not be otherwise caused and that the universe is not expanding. Other possibilities proposed have been light losing energy as it travels, the most well know of these proposals is called “tired light,” light is bent by gravity as well as redshifted by its passage through the universe, this is called gravitational redshifts, or Einstein redshifts, Light is spread out by its interactions with a background field such as dark matter or a Higgs field. This is called interaction redshifts or aether redshifts, proposals that light losses frequency when interacting with free electrons, part of its energy is absorbed. And there are many other such proposals explaining the observed galactic redshifts that presently cannot be disproved. .

     

    Although it is the present theory, the galactic redshifts could be evidence for other theories and hypothesis other than the universe is expanding.

     

    Theory: Any unconfirmed/unproved Idea or Speculation which can give a feasible explanation/ solution for that observation or evidence.

     

     

    This is only the common use of the word, not the meaning in science. In science a “theory” usually involves a collection of different hypothesis that point to the same conclusion. It is usually considered to be well tested and which has had many predictions believed to be supported by evidence.

     

    “Confirmed Theory: A theory which had been fully confirmed. However, it is forbidden to use the same original evidence for confirmation. Different evidence or a fully proved lab test is needed to confirm a theory.”

     

     

     

    In science once a theory is “confirmed” it no longer is considered theory. An example is the “Earth is a spheroid in shape.” It is now referred to as fact. Other modern examples might be that “the surface of the Earth is divided into plates and these plates continuously move.” The basis for Plate tectonics theory, and “natural selection” whereby there is a mountain of evidence to support it. It is one of the primary foundation tenets for biological evolution theory.

     

    “Hypothesis: any theory which had been accepted by our elite scientists. For example Dark energy.”

     

     

    Hypotheses are speculation, one of many hypothesis that can explain particular observations It can be the starting point for testing and observation or the continued speculation of both.

     

    "Dark Energy" has probably graduated in many practitioners minds from a hypothesis to a theory since the Nobel Prize was granted for its supposed discovery, even though what Dark Energy really involves is still hypothetical.

    ”Illogical argument” is often a matter of opinion. It is rarely used as a term in science, some simply assert that a certain argument is illogical (or seems illogical) for “xyz” reasons.

     

    “Physics law”: Usually involves a mathematical (physics) formula which has not, or cannot be confirmed, but is thought to be valid for all venues where it has been used or might be otherwise tested. An example would be the Hubble Formula, AKA Hubble’s Law.

  12. It might be your bigger question but it is certainly not the OP - and if you or others want to discuss it then the debate should be elsewhere

     

    I was responding to the quotes in the link that the OP posted, and the question asked therein-- why is this important?

     

    "Why this is important? If water in the early solar system was primarily inherited as ice from interstellar space, then it is likely that similar ices, along with the prebiotic organic matter that they contain, are abundant in most or all protoplanetary disks around forming stars," Carnegie's Conel Alexander, one of the leaders on the study, says."But if the early solar system's water was largely the result of local chemical processing during the sun's birth, then it is possible that the abundance of water varies considerably in forming planetary systems, which would obviously have implications for the potential for the emergence of life elsewhere."
  13. Not surprising. Intra-galactic clouds are known to contain water/ice. The bigger question I think is whether life can evolve in dense warm galactic clouds which contain rocks, water/ice and other matter particulates, could it evolve in asteroids or comets, or are planetary sized bodies and atmospheres needed? The only likelihood, I think, is that a lot of time would be involved in its creation.

  14. Scientific American blog says Earth is still getting hotter but not at the same rate. Per the article, the slowdown is caused by "the timing of two large ocean cycles, known as the Pacific multidecadal oscillation and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation." This slowdown is predicted to end in the next few decades.

     

    If true, this is good and bad news. Good news because it gives us more time to put carbon-free energy sources in place before the worst of global warming hits us. Bad news because it could be an excuse to slow carbon reduction actions and give deniers more fuel (no pun intended) to argue against global warming.

     

    Link:

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2015/02/26/the-pause-in-global-warming-is-finally-explained/

     

     

     

    There is probably a lot more about natural climate changes, trends, causes, and man's influences on it that we don't know about, than what we do know IMO. Here is a link to a study a couple of years ago concerning coming ice ages. Man's pollutants can cause global cooling as well as warming, although global warming is the current fad.

     

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-warming-or-the-new-ice-age-fear-of-the-big-freeze/30336

     

    In any event we should caution on the side of controls since IMO we really don't know what effects our pollutions might cause in the short or long run. Our ancestors will have to inherit our good or bad decisions. We need to be good caretakers.

  15. I think a part of it relates to mutual interests. Politicians are found that think a certain political way which are in line with their constituency. In this way both the politician and their constituency are happy.

     

    I suspect the same thing goes on with researchers. Many think a certain way based upon their education, past studies and research. To provide more evidence for that line of thinking and point of view, groups, foundations, trusts, companies etc. for varying reasons which agree with this line of thinking look for those that agree with them to do related research, or independent research to come to conclusions which may be more compatible with their own views.

     

    I don't think an agreement usually exists beforehand that a certain conclusion to a research project is required before funding is provided. In such cases I expect that when the study's conclusions are in agreement with its funder's beliefs or interests, the results will be highly promoted by these funders, if not only the researchers themselves will promote their research and their results.

     

    So I don't believe a conflict of interest is necessarily involved in most cases.

  16. "It was off topic then and is still off-topic now. We have no problem discussing these issues - what we object to is News stories being hijacked by every member who has a personal theory (/ or a disagreement with a mainstream theory) which is contradicted by said News Story."

     

    I don't see my response being off-topic. The topic was gravity waves being detected related to the Inflation era of cosmology. My response was to question whether gravity waves were really detected considering other possibilities which I mentioned, and if so why would they necessarily be a product of the Inflation era, also considering other possibilities. Mainstream news stories and papers make assertions and come to conclusions which one can discuss, or question why their conclusions may be valid or not. In my response I made no mention of any particular alternative theory, but alternative possibilities should have been discussed IMO, not just the mainstream interpretation. As we now know their news story interpretation of what they had observed could likely have been wrong.

  17. When this story originally broke here in the NEWS I cautioned concerning the interpretation of gravity waves, and particularly gravity waves relating to Inflation since there were other likely possibilities for this polarization. My posting was considered hijacking or off-topic and was removed from the NEWS section to its own thread, seen below. I believe this was a form of censorship to stop contention rather than to allow a differing opinion. Allowing differing points of view is one of the primary hallmarks of good science and related discussions. This was not the first time such censorship has occurred to me when questioning possible errors or misinterpretations in news reports and related papers.

     

    There will always be those that strongly dislike dissenting opinions and make snide remarks against persons rather than offering their own opinion. IMO moderation should uphold the right to on-topic descent within every thread if disrupting language is not used, and reprimand those insulting dissenters rather than discussion of their own perspectives. Otherwise if we all agreed what would be the main purpose of science forums if not to discuss differing opinions?

     

    Posting #13 removed my comments concerning claims of gravity waves as being off-topic, from the original thread below.

     

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82239-bulging-biceps-surfing-gravitational-waves-bicep2-results-thread/

     

    My comments concerning the claim of gravity waves:

     

    http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/82309-were-gravitational-waves-actually-detected/

  18. Hello!

     

    Cosmic inflation: BICEP 'underestimated' dust problem

    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29305985

     

    It's half year old, but I don't see it being mentioned in some thread (at least searching for BICEP).

     

    "But what can be said now, adds Prof Coles, is that BICEP's March claim "was premature, to say the least"."

     

    Best Regards!

     

    Look down for the subject BICEPS2 evidence for Inflation NOT, to see comments.

  19.  

    I came across the two articles below and wonder if anybody knows of any developments with regards to revised galaxy rotation curves and/or the total amount of dark matter?
    'Lost in Space: Half of All Stars Are Rogues Between Galaxies' http://www.space.com/27682-rogue-stars-between-galaxies.html
    'Milky Way has half the amount of dark matter as previously thought, new measurements reveal' http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141009091600.htm

     

     

    The dark matter hypothesis is based upon rotation curves of galaxies. This latest observation claims that stellar speeds in our outer galaxy are somewhat less than previously calculated based upon observations. If such new calculations and observations are more correct then there would be less hypothetical dark matter needed to explain the Milky Way's rotation curve.

     

    There are other explanations than dark matter to explain rotation curves of galaxies, rotation rates of galaxies in a cluster, and the observed extent of gravitational lensing, but only a few of these alternative hypothesis/ explanations are generally known; most of them remain unknown. The point is that dark matter is still an unproven hypothesis developed to explain what are believed to be non-visible gravity influences that may or may not be real.

  20. Here is the question

     

    At the Big Bang, the universe were created and started expanding. The universe includes us, the Earth, the Milky way galaxy, and also the CMB.

    So the question is: how is it possible for us to observe a radiation that was emitted at the time we were born?

    It looks like the archer running faster and being killed by its own arrow.

     

    Hi michel123456,

     

    As you know all radiation is believed to be stretched out based upon expanding space, this accordingly being the reason EM radiation becomes longer and redshifted over time. The recombination era was supposedly a hot part of the beginning universe and the theoretical source of the MBR; its radiation accordingly has been vastly redshifted since then. Expanding space is considered synonymous with an expanding universe. So the microwave background is not moving with us, it is theoretically absorbed and re-radiated in all directions which we observe as a background temperature. Since according to the BB model the recombination era was the source of this radiation, it accordingly would be observable in all directions from us.

     

    As you also know other cosmologies have proposed other explanations to explain the MBR.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background

     

  21. I think this discovery could be related to predictions of Halton Arp concerning some quasars being spin-offs from a parent quasar. In some cases Arp, and others, believed that the linear alignment of quasars with different redshifts all came from a seemingly obvious parent quasar and galaxy, which appear to have emerged from a parent galaxy. If this is a valid interpretation, then in time galaxies could develop surrounding the quasars and all spin-offs could be in spin alignment with each other and an alleged parent galaxy. This interpretation was and is very controversial because the redshifts of the aligned quasars completely diverge greatly from each other. With this interpretation the redshift of quasars could not be an indications of their distances from us. Most astronomers and theorists then and now believe such alignments observed by Arp and others, are only perspective alignments and that the quasars are instead millions or billions of light years from each other and do not emerge from a parent. But this standard interpretation leaves no explanation for such spin alignments of quasars over great distances as is being observed based upon this study.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.