Talk:Intrinsic redshift

What is this article about? "Intrinsic redshift" implies (to me) a redshift associated with a particular object, as opposed to mechanisms that apply to all sources in the neighborhood. In that sense, the gravitational redshift is intrinsic, tired light is not, and scattering may or may not be, depending on the location of the scattering medium. The alleged synonyms each have their own problems. I don't understand Reboul's table at all. In short, I am deeply unhappy with the content of the article, and question whether it should exist at all. --Art Carlson 11:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a problem with definitions. The article is about published redshift theories that are not Cosmological, Doppler, and Gravitational, of which there are many. I have seen all manner of loose terms, such as:

"Non-Cosmological", which could mean also Doppler or Gravitational, but in fact means none of these.
Intrinsic, which as you say, could mean Gravitational, but does not.
Anomalous, which could just mean "unusual".

So what term do we use to lump together all redshift theories that are not Cosmological, Doppler, and Gravitational? I chose "Intrinsic redshift" out of several possibilities, all of which are not precise. I hoped that the article definition would clarify the term.

Reboul's table obviously needs clarification, but esentially, he categorised intrinsic redshift theories. The first column of his table refers to the object in which a redshift was measured, the second column, the type of study, and the last column, the category of theory.

Should the article exist? Definitely. It shows that other theories are considered (or have been considered) for explaining redshift. I'm not claiming that any of these are correct. But as Reboul found, several hundred peer-reviewed papers to 1981 have at least discussed other theories.

--Iantresman 13:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is called "intrinsic" redshift, it should have at least one reference to an article or book that calls it as such. Ian, you say that you saw it somewhere; please include the reference.

Oh, and it is generally believed that Doppler is the only (or at least the main) cause of Cosmological redshift. Obviously, "Cosmological redshift" is a redshift, it can't be a cause of redshift! Harald88 13:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS I just read an article commenting on Wolf redshift, and I agree with Art that "intrinsic" is a misnomer, just as for tired light. IMO it would make more sense to call it "List of redshift mechanisms", as appendix to the article "Redshift". Harald88 15:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Harald88. In that case, how about calling the article: "Redshift theories (alternative)"? And then additionally, it would make sense to try and distinguish and described (though many of these do not involve alternative theories):

Redshift term	Examples papers using term
Redshift term	in title	in abstract
Intrinsic redshift	Show (5)	Show (48)
Non-cosmological redshift	Show (7)	Show (16)
Non-velocity redshifts or Non-Doppler Redshift	Show (7) Show (4)	Show (7) Show (12)
Anomalous Redshift or Discordant redshifts	Show (24) Show (25)	Show (58) Show (52)

Indeed, I felt that this subject should be mentioned in the main redshift article, but Joshua doesn't seem to accept that this stuff is discussed anywhere (let alone in peer reviewed articles), so perhaps just a link would suffice. --Iantresman 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion

Original request | Your comment

This article has to go. Claiming that it is based on an obscure clearinghouse paper published in the 1980s doesn't cut it as a rationale for including the article. The article is Original Research and a POV-fork and will go. Please see the AfD page. Thanks, --ScienceApologist 15:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the article is based on one reference is false (you completely ignored the other 30+ references).

The other references refer to some that aren't even about the subject (some are about helioseismology for example). --ScienceApologist 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming the article is based on "an obscure clearinghouse paper" is false. The article you refer to appeared in "Astronomy and Astrophysics Supplement Series" [1]

It is definitely obscure. Look at how many papers cite it. --ScienceApologist 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming that the article is original research is false; Wikipedia says "the only way to show that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article", and this is done.
Claiming that this article is a point-of-view fork, is false; Wikipedia says this is "creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated". The article on redshift does not include the majority of material in this article. The main redshift article is about Cosmological, Doppler and Gravitation redshifts; this article is about theories which have been published in peer reviewed journals that propose non-Cosmological, non-Doppler and non-Gravitation redshifts. See the difference?

Except your article is so shoddy it lists some observations as theories. This really represents some terrible POV-pushing. --ScienceApologist 14:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Iantresman 16:48, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time for prolonged bickering about this topic. There is research published in professional astronomical journals that discusses the topic of intrinsic redshifts. Ian has linked to those articles. That alone is enough to justify the existence of this article. As for the writing of the article - that is something that can progress. I don't think it is unfair to make sure that the article states that the hypothesis of intrinsic redshifts is a speculative, minority view. However, there is a use in having this article as a reference to what an "intrinsic redshift" might be.

One of the difficulties is that there are a lot of different controversial redshift mechanisms and some of them may be "intrinsic" and some of them are not. For clarity it should be understood that the Hubble relation defines the cosmological redshift. Expansion of the universe is the accepted mechanism for cosmological redshift. Tired light mechanisms provide another attempt to explain cosmological redshift.

Intrinsic redshift specifically refers to variations in the observed redshift of individual objects (galaxies, quasars ... ) that vary from object to object such that two objects at the same distance might have vastly different redshifts. Note that "intrinsic redshifts" - if real - may be superposed upon the cosmological redshift. So properly speaking, anything that attempts to explain all of the observed redshift as cosmological (expansion, tired light) belongs in the main "Redshift" article - or an article titled "cosmological redshift". Any redshift mechanisms that are superposed upon the cosmological redshift defined by the Hubble relation would properly belong in the "intrinsic redshift" article.

I see no reason to provide any edits to the article until this issue of its existence is resolved. --DavidRussell 18:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need of a comparison of the proposed mechanisms

The article would be good if it were completed by a comparison of the proposed redshift mechanisms; the author should indicate, for each proposal, by yes or no (table ?), which of the following conditions for a Doppler-like effec tby a light-matter interaction, are fulfilled:

-1 Space coherence to avoid a blurring of the images

-2 An incident wave must be transformed into a single emerging wave to avoid a blurring of the spectra; if the infinitesimal process is a scattering, the incident and scattered waves must interfere into a single wave having the same linewidth.

-3 The relative frequency shift must be, at least approximately, constant. The lack of constance of the observed relative frequency shifts is usually considered as due to a variation of the fine structure constant.

-4 Is it a pure consequence of well known physics, in particular spectroscopy and thermodynamics ?

-5 Is the effect non-Doppler ? The theory must fail if it is applied to a continuous wave, therefore it must contain a parameter measuring the time-incoherence of the light.

JMO 07:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC) Jacques Moret-Bailly[reply]

I don't see the rationale for including this criteria. While they aren't in principle problematic, we already discuss them well on the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua's article re-write

Joshua, I do not accept your withdrawal of the Article for Deletion under those terms. As Art Carson and Harald88 first commented in Talk (see their comments above), "there is a problem with definitions". I AGREED with them both, and as a result of our discussion, made some changes. You've steam-rollered over those discussions, and ignored everybody.

The article was clearly far broader than just "intrinsic redshift", as indicated by the definition, existing comments, and note of suggested article title change.

Where's the information on "Non-cosmological redshifts", or "Plasma redshift", or "Neutrino redshift", or that such theories often result in redshift with distorted spectra, or a timeline of alternative theories? --Iantresman 17:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, let me add, that Joshua's re-write is not an article about intrinsic redshifts - its about Halton Arp. I could very easily write a NPOV article on intrinsic redshifts, but I don't have the time right now. A true article about intrinsic redshifts should include examples from the published research that have led to the intrinsic redshift hypothesis. Those are points that could be added to this article, but I suspect that any attempt to do that would be met with resistance. --DavidRussell 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lantresman, AFAIK (but now I can't see how to verify it), there was pretty much a concensus to rename the article. I propose to stick to that, and to copy the (old) contents of the page to the new-name article, eventually merging in some possible improvements by ScienceApologist (a method typical for Wikipedia but unheard of by him). It may be a good idea to check first, should it be called alternative mechanisms or more general? Anything that is covered elsewhere only takes one or two lines, as a link, so it doesn't really matter for space. Generally I prefer neutral titles, but apparently you don't think so. Harald88 18:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I agreed with that [2], but thought it would be easier to just rename the page, rather than delete it, rewrite it, and move the content elsewhere. However, my criticsm is that Joshua did not consult with the other editors first, and made no attempt to retain or reuse any of the earlier text. That's not how an editing team works together. --Iantresman 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old content was extremely problematic. It included references to Google searches and a grocery list of articles that served no other purpose than to show that Ian knows how to use search engines. Let's try to write decent encyclopedia articles rather than rubbish. --ScienceApologist 18:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should give other people time to work on improving the article. You nominated it for deletion within 24 hours. That sets a very bad tone and undermines your credibility as a fair minded contributor. There is justification for including an intrinsic redshifts article on Wikipedia. As I emphasized in my original comments, it is important to make sure that the article emphasizes the intrinsic redshift hypothesis has very little support in the astronomical community -but with that said the reasons for proposing intrinsic redshifts should be given fair treatment. --DavidRussell 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, since your User page is currently protected [3], I'm posting this warning template here.

I consider your edits, without discussion, to be vandalism.

Please stop removing content from Wikipedia; it is considered vandalism. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you..

"Plasma redshift" doesn't exist. It is a figment that I haven't seen mentioned in the literature. If it is separate from scattering and is part of plasma cosmology, include it there. Otherwise it is already dealt with on the redshift page.

"Non-cosmological redshift" is a catch-all term that isn't descriptive and doesn't deserve and article on Wikipedia. There are lots of non-cosmological redshifts, and they are all dealt with in the redshift article.

"Neutrino redshift" could have a page of its own. That I do not necessarily object to.

--ScienceApologist 18:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"accept general concensus"?

1. A scientist can't "accept" concensus for he/she is part of the contributors to an eventual concensus. Only a layman or stranger to the field can "accept" concensus of such experts. Thus that is nonsense, as if scienctists are part of some kind of fanatic sect.

I disagree. Scientists can reject ideas based on their own designs. Scientific consensus points this out. --ScienceApologist

That's what I say. A scientist doesn't need anyone else to tell what to think. And if they all think alike it's called consensus and a good sign. It's in sects and totalitary states that adherents must think like the crowd; that is anti-scientific. Harald88 00:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is explicitly in violation of the policies here. --ScienceApologist 01:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. I wonder who determined such a claimed concensus, and how. If it can't be supported by something good, it's just POV pushing. Harald88 20:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the article linked above. --ScienceApologist 23:02, 4 January 2006

(UTC)

, where, under which header? Harald88 00:11, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consultation Part II

I'm quite content for there to be an article on "Intrinsic redshift", but that still leaves room for another article. This is not a re-interpretation of redshift. It does not deny the existing information on the redshift article. I envisage it covering:

(a) Explanations of the following terms, regardless of whether the phenomena actually exist, since they are used in the literature (see table above). We all have a rough understanding of what the terms mean, and we have an obligation to convey that meaning to other people

Non-cosmological redshift

This is already covered in the redshift article. Please do not create thie neologism article based on your own original research. --ScienceApologist

Non-velocity redshifts (Non-Doppler Redshift)

This is already covered in the redshift article. Please do not create thie neologism article based on your own original research. --ScienceApologist

Anomalous redshift (Discordant redshifts)

This is only used in the context of quasar controversies and Arp. The "discordant" idea is that quasars are associated with nearer objects. This can be handled on this page. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intrinsic redshift

We have this page. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quantized redshift

A separate concept that has been shown to be nonexistent by a recent paper. This does not rise for a need for a separate article. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(b) Summary of other redshift theories, again regardless of whether they are accepted or not. There are Wiki articles on Flat earth, Phlogiston, N-rays, etc. If the Simkin effect has been proposed as causing redshift, and as Joshua says, this is due to atmospheric polution, then we say so. And even if Joshua hasn't heard of "plasma redshift", nor can find it in the literature, then he leaves it to those of us who have.

No, you cannot just create articles that are non-notable. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(c) There is plenty of scope here for context, reason for the theories, evidence for, evidence against, implications.

We could include these on article that already exist such as Halton Arp's page or non-standard cosmology page. You refuse to admit this or even simply address this point. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(d) JMO above suggested the "Need of a comparison of the proposed mechanisms" which would be useful too.

The vast majority of this information is not included anywhere in Wikipedia.

I disagree with this. The redshift article provides plenty of context. --ScienceApologist

1. I propose the article name: "Redshift theories (alternative)". Any others?

I object in principle to this kind of article. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2. I propose that I include my original text as a starting point.

Your original text was fraught with errors and was original research, points you haven't come to terms with or admitted. I propose you nominate a neutral author if you are intent on creating this. --ScienceApologist 23:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with this is that a person who holds a non-neutral view on the topic can write a proper NPOV article on the topic. While I strongly support the interpretation that there are intrinsic redshifts (and have published research supporting that interpretation) I am quite capable of writing an article that is very neutral on this topic - an article that states the reasons some researchers support an intrinsic redshift interpretation, but acknowledges that it is a view that is not accepted by the astronomical community.

It is you that consistently fails to maintain a NPOV by your relentless deletions and actions such as nominating this article for deletion within 24 hours of its writing. Frankly, I was going to create an Intrinsic Redshift article for Wikipedia in a few months when I have more time in my schedule. Ian beat me to it. Now you may not agree with Ian's writing, but the topic itself is perfectly valid for Wikipedia. Your knee-jerk request to delete the entire article and subsequent complete re-write demonstrates a lack of patience with and fairness to this process. --DavidRussell 05:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Iantresman 21:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David, why don't you edit this article then? I think the current one describes Intrinsic Redshifts in quality detail. This is where they come from, after all. --ScienceApologist 13:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is going to be done right, I'm going to have to add a lot of material to it, break it into sections and such. I'm not going to put in all that time if it is just going to be wholesale deleted as seems to be the track record of events on the controversial cosmology topics. As I've already stated twice, I don't have a lot of time at the moment to do that. Perhaps this weekend I'll find a little time to provide an example section of what I would do with this article. But it is going to take several months before I'd be able to really devote the time needed to do it right. --DavidRussell 20:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already made explained why I am against this article called "intrinsic redshift". Either call it "Redshift theories (alternative)", or "Comprehensive list of Redshift theories", to make it a useful index (except if uch an index already exists, but I have the impression that all is cluttered around in different articles). Harald88 00:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since "Intrinsic redshift" is not the same as "Redshift theories (alternative)", how about David Russell edits the "Intrinsic redshift" article (this one), to see whether it does contain sufficient information to warrant its own page? I think we might be surprised. --Iantresman 15:19, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't mean to butcher everything, but the title name is awkward. OTOH, if it really is a known term, why not. Harald88 21:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Version

I've provided a brief introduction to the topic of intrinsic redshifts. When I find some time I will try to write several additional sections. I think there should be the following additional sections:

1. Observations - with discussion both for and against the intrinsic redshift interpretation by referring to examples such as NGC 7603, NEQ3, NGC 4319, and perhaps a few others.

2. The intrinsic redshift model of Arp - a brief description of his ejection scenario.

3. Possible intrinsic redshift mechanisms.

4. Evidence for intrinsic redshifts in galaxies.

Each of these sections should be as brief as possible so as not to give undue weight to the topic, but complete enough that the reader can get a handle on the basics of the topic.

--DavidRussell 21:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good start to me. --Iantresman 22:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a criticism section and cleaned up the article a bit to conform more with Wikipedia standards. Hope I didn't offend anyone. --ScienceApologist 04:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no problems with a criticism section, and indeed would welcome one, I would like to suggest some alternative phrasing.

Joshua, where you write "much of Arp's work in this regard has been discredited by the astronomical community", I would argue:

"Much of Arp's work" is rather vague. Which part of Arp's work specifically?
"Discredited"... is an absolute truth, but there is no reference providing verifiability. I think you have to say... "So and so has published evidence criticising a certain aspect of Arp's work" [Citations(s)]
"the astronomical community" is a vague entity. Arp himself is part of the Astronimcal community, as is Geoff Burbridge, and David Russell. Individuals may have provided criticism, but not the "astronomical community" as a whole.
I also note that since David Russell is yet to provide his section on "Evidence for intrinsic redshifts in galaxies", that the criticism may evolve in response.

--Iantresman 11:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to each point in turn:

All of the work described on this page is what is being refered to. Arp does other work that is very valuable.
Not needed since the vast majority of astronomers publish their work regarding quasars and redshifts as though Arp is wrong.
Inasmuch as these individuals who support Arp are a vanishingly small minority, the astronomical community disputes Arp. He's in such a small minority that the group that supports him is easier to define than those who oppose him in this area. By the way, David Russell, a school teacher from upstate New York, is probably not considered part of the astronomical community, despite having publications in rather out-of-the-way journals.
We will ultimately need to be very careful about what qualifies as "evidence for intrinsic redshifts". A lot of Arp's conjecturing has to do with circles and arrows and taking slits across "bridges" that connect quasars to nearby galaxies. Arguably problematic from an astronomical perspective and probably inappropriate for an encyclopedia.

--ScienceApologist 11:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua, I see that you've started your hypocracy on editing again:

Changing the definition from "hypothesis" to "conjecture" [4], which amounts to a weasel word. The Wiki Dictionary says that conjecture is "A statement or idea which has not been proven, but is thought to be true; a guess". And to imply this of Arp's "intrinsic redshift" which is a theory at best, or at least a hypothesis, disgusts me.
That citations for verifiability is "Not needed" because it's "as though Arp is wrong."
That you personally consider it necessary to mention that David Russell is a high school teacher; shall I ask him if he's a communist party member? Ironic coming from a college instructor [5] who claims to be a professor [6]
That you personally consider that David Russell "is probably not considered part of the astronomical community". Can I see your membership card Joshua?
That you personal consider that David's papers are in "out-of-the-way journals". Let's see, Joshua Schroeder is published in the well known "Minor Planet Circular [7]", and David Russell and Halton Arp are published in "Astrophysical Journal" [8] which describes itself as "the foremost research journal in the world devoted to recent developments, [9]".
Your editing fails Wikipedia's policy on Neutral Point of View, and Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, and your best criticism is that the article writer is a "high school teacher".
--Iantresman 12:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman, my 2 cts: ScienceApologist simply pointed out that your claim of David Russell belonging to "the astronomical community" is flawed; that doesn't seem debatable, nor worth a debate. Harald88 14:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've missed something. How did ScienceApologist show that my statement was flawed, unless it is true that high school teachers (regardless of other experience) are excluded from the "Astronomical community"?
And why is ScienceApologist's statement not flawed? The Astronomical Community (that includes Arp), would not have discredited himself?
The "vanishingly small minority" that ScienceApologist talks about looks quite significant to me [10]
--Iantresman 15:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really bothered to reflect upon whether or not I am a member of the scientific community. Heck even if I am, people such as myself that publish work supporting alternative ideas such as Arp are labeled "fringe" anyway. So it is really not a major concern of mine. Depending upon which section of the Wiki article on scientific community you read I am and am not a member of the community. According to the first part I am - I write and publish papers in research journals and communicate with other researchers regularly - including a number of very well known "mainstream" researchers. However, according to the second part that refers to employment and education (presumably Phd in astrophysics) I would not be. Personally, I don't care one way or another what people want to say about my background. If someone wishes to criticize that rather than what I have published or written, then that person is committing an ad-hominem attack.

It wasn't intended to be an ad hominem attack. I was simply making a clarification of User:Iantresman's point. I would much rather have a discussion of merits of ideas rather than who is a "member" or not. Ian sometimes treats verifiability in that regard which I find very distasteful. --ScienceApologist 19:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An example, so that I may learn from my mistakes? --Iantresman 23:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism section

In order to keep the comments organized I'm adding some comments in respect to Joshua's criticism section here:

There are a few parts of your “criticism” section that need to be fixed. In the first sentence, it is really not appropriate to say that the nature of quasars “were” a source of controversy because that implies that there was a point in the past when a significant number of astronomers took Arp’s hypothesis seriously. The literature does not support that possibility. It would be more appropriate to say something like this:

“Arp’s hypothesis that quasars are local and contain large intrinsic redshifts has never gained support from the vast majority of astronomers in the research community.” Secondly, the claim that the discovery of host galaxies invalidates Arp’s hypothesis is false. Arp hypothesizes in his model that the ejected quasars evolve into normal galaxies and has since the early 1970’s. If the quasars evolve into galaxies, then the “hosts” are in fact expected in his hypothesis. This is frequent claim made by those that don’t understand what Arp’s hypothesis actually is.

Third, Arp has never claimed that there are two classes of quasars. In the 1970’s other researchers proposed that. Jaakkola published a paper in 1975 (Ap&SS 37,301) noting that the quasars involved in the local quasars hypothesis seemed to be flat spectrum compact radio sources while the quasars not apparently associated with local galaxies were primarily steep spectrum extended radio sources. This is much the same as trying to take galaxies and break them down into different types and then hypothesize that one type of galaxy forms one way and another type of galaxy forms a different way.

Your last few sentences are editorializing. There are enough variations in quasar characteristics that multiple classes are warranted. So it is not clear that a single model will explain all quasar behavior. It might, but it might not. The question in relation to Arp’s hypothesis is whether or not there is a common characteristic among quasars that Arp specifically has claimed are associated with specific local galaxies, not exhibited by those that apparently are not associated with local galaxies. Arp pointed out from the beginning that it only takes one established case to demonstrate that the intrinsic redshift phenomenon is real.

I’m going to make several changes that are consistent with the comments above.

You obviously don't have very much familiarity with theoretical quasar models, but that doesn't seem to be an issue because the article doesn't mention this.

The one thing that confounds me is the claim that host galaxy observations at the same redshift as the quasar are consistent with Arp's claims of intrinsic redshift. After all, these galaxies are of the sort that would be expected if the redshift was due to the Hubble Law. Is Arp claiming that host galaxies represent a new kind of microgalaxy and a totally new kind of galaxy evolution model?

--ScienceApologist 19:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you obviously don't have much familiarity with the basics of Arp's model. He argues that the entire galaxy (QSO and host) possess the same intrinsic redshift. And he argues that intrinsic redshifts exist in galaxies too (therefore galaxies can have large deviations from the Hubble relation) - not just quasars. So yes, if he is right, these "host" galaxies are much smaller than thought in the standard view that places them at their Hubble distances.

And it also means that galaxy formation models are wrong and Arp has a different idea about how that occurs. It's fine to describe Arp's ideas and I admit to not paying much attention to him, but we need to avoid going out on a limb, as it were, and will have to demarcate exactly how many different ways Arp contradicts mainstream understandings on galaxies, quasars, redshifts, and theoretical astrophysics. -ScienceApologist 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before in our other discussions on other forums. If it is established that Arp is right, then of course one has to look at the implications for various theoretical models. But why drag all that in now when there is not at this time sufficient compelling observational evidence to convince the astronomical community that he is right? Do you really think anybody cares what the implications of Arp's model are for galaxy formation models if they think he's wrong that quasars are local? That's putting the cart before the horse. --DavidRussell 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's Arp who is proposing new galaxy formation models, not mainstream science. We need to be honest about the breadth of Arp's novelty in this area. He's proposing a total overhaul of galactic and extragalactic astrophysics. --ScienceApologist 23:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And none of that has anything to do with my understanding of theoretical quasar models. One theory doesn't disprove another theory - observations do that. One of the greatest failings of many that attack the Big Bang is a failure to understand what observations would actually be capable of disproving the theory. Unfortunately, those that dispute alternative theories such as Arp's often suffer from the same lack of familiarity. You have this notion that the existence of host galaxies contradicts Arp's model and that is incorrect. "Host" galaxies are expected in his model. The quickest way to absolutely prove Arp wrong is to study the M-82 quasars for proper motions. That obviously will take a large amount of time, but if there are no proper motions then Arp must be wrong. --DavidRussell 20:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I base my claims about your understanding of quasar modelling on the following statement you made: There are enough variations in quasar characteristics that multiple classes are warranted. So it is not clear that a single model will explain all quasar behavior. It might, but it might not. This indicates to me that you are not familiar with current unified models of quasars present in the field. --ScienceApologist 22:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of the unified models of quasars - but I am also aware that there are enough observational characteristics (spectroscopic, radio loud/quiet ...)of quasars that vary from object to object that it is worth looking at whether or not the objects Arp proposes are ejected by local galaxies differ in some way from those that do not appear to be ejected (such as the Jaakkola paper I mentioned before). --DavidRussell 23:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of this article I think this statement is correct. I'm sorry I implied that it was Arp's idea. --ScienceApologist

Understanding Arp

However, Arp has proposed that the quasars he has hypothesized are ejected from AGN will evolve into normal galaxies over time. So the discovery of host galaxies around QSO's does not necessarily rule out his empirical model.

What is this supposed to mean? Are the quasars supposed to evolve into galaxies (with intermediate forms), or is a galaxy supposed to evolve around them, or is the intrinsic redshift of the quasars supposed to disappear over time?

In Arp's model the quasar evolves into a normal galaxy, there would be intermediate forms, and the intrinsic redshift is expected to disappear over time (as the object ages or evolves). --DavidRussell 20:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that Arp has a different explanation for the quasar redshift distribution peak? Does he believe that the lowest redshift quasars are representative of the oldest? --ScienceApologist 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he would say that a lower z quasar is older than a higher z quasar. --DavidRussell 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the highest redshift quasars are recently ejected from radio galaxies even though they are not near radio galaxies? --ScienceApologist 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not playing your games Joshua. On the one hand we're discussing the fact that there might be two classes of quasars and the Jaakkola paper. On the other you want to pretend that option doesn't exist. Obviously the observations make it extremely unlikely that Arp is correct that all quasars are local. That I understand and that is readily established in the various comments I've made in our exchange. Take it up with Arp himself if you're concerned about his view. Now to get back to the point - in Arp's model, ejected quasars that are younger have higher redshifts. That applies even if there are two classes of quasars - ejected local and non-ejected cosmological. --DavidRussell 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, doesn't the fact that the quasar redshift equals the normal matter redshift indicate that there is no intrinsic component to the quasar redshift? --Art Carlson 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No - the entire galaxy surrounding the quasar has the same intrinsic redshift as the quasar in his model. With the emphasis on quasars in this issue most people don't realize that expects that galaxies have intrinsic redshifts too. --DavidRussell 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an amazing mechanism that Arp proposes. How far does this intrinsic redshift extend? Would it extend to the haloes of such galaxies formed? --ScienceApologist 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In his variable mass hypothesis (with Narlikar) the answer is yes. If somebody proposed another mechanism you might get a different answer. Of course the viability of the proposed mechanisms has little to do with the viability of the model from the standpoint of logical argument. If in 10 years proper motions were detected and established in the quasars near M-82, then we would not say that the observations must be wrong because we lack a "proven" theory to explain it ... we would look for a theory to explain the observations. --DavidRussell 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arp ... has argued that only a single well established instance of a galaxy or quasar with an intrinsic redshift is needed to confirm that intrinsic redshifts are a real phenomenon.

Sure, but how can you establish an true association of nearby objects without either a dead-on correspondence (like host galaxies) or a statistical argument (which requires many examples)? --Art Carlson 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper motions is one test. If quasars are local and ejected from nearby galaxies, then proper motions should be detectable. The QSO's Arp has proposed are ejected from M-82 provide one of the best examples for such a test because M-82 is very close and thus the proper motions would be larger than expected for other cases. --DavidRussell 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the proper motion samples of SDSS versus the Palomar survey that show quasars as having the smallest proper motions then be enough to disprove Arp? --ScienceApologist 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, M82 was observed by SDSS and Palomar, but obviously a 50-year spread is not enough to observe proper motions for either M82 or the quasars. I'm not sure what exactly you are proposing: are you telling us we have to wait a few thousand years for when the motions become larger than the PSF to determing that M82 is rotating and the background QSOs are still? What kind of test do you propose? --ScienceApologist 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting that the quasars are proposed to have been ejected at high velocity ~10,000 - 30,000 km s-1. A reasonable test has been proposed and it doesn't require thousands of years http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309511 --DavidRussell 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so does the fact that no QSOs were found with proper motions like that from SDSS qualify as a falsification in your book? --ScienceApologist 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the catalog: [11]. You may have to SIMBAD the objects you are interested in, but they are all studied. --ScienceApologist 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How much proper motion should they have Joshua? What is the parent galaxy? How far is the parent galaxy? What is the line of sight for the ejection? What is the range of expected proper motions that could be expected from the QSO's at the distance of the parent galaxies assuming a reasonable ejection velocity? I'll have to look into this more ... my focus has been intrinsic redshifts in galaxies the last few years. And I don't have unlimited time for discussing this on Wikipedia or any other internet discussion forum. The fact remains, the M-82 QSO's provide the best opportunity to test for proper motions in QSO's in a specific case in which a specific parent galaxy has been proposed. In the meantime I'll take another look at the paper you've linked to - I looked at it when it first came out, but that was ~2 years ago. --DavidRussell 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW Joshua, you might want to carefully look at the paper you linked to. It does not test for quasar proper motions. It assumes quasars have zero proper motion and uses them as a reference to test for proper motions of stars. --DavidRussell 00:21, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The paper is not of interest, rather it is the dataset that you should be interested in. Actually, you are incorrect for your claim that proper motions are determined by quasars. While quasars are used to calibrate astrometry initially, there are independent checks to the astrometry that determine them to be immobile. Actually there is a distribution of observed "proper motion" for quasars just as any other object (they aren't assumed to be zero in the dataset). It isn't difficult to determine if there is a zero-proper motion for the QSOs around M82. You are the one claiming that the quasars around M82 are good, so you tell me whether you should see proper motion for them over 50 years. So just enter in the objects into the system and you'll see their proper motions are negligible. --ScienceApologist 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ScienceApologist is final authority on everything cosmological

This is fair warning to those who would oppose ScienceApologist. He considers himself to be the final authority on everything pertaining to cosmology.

This is how he believes:

"If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. "

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3

Interesting, but not surprising, quantized redshift is not covered in this intrinsic redshift entry. But that is how Joushua operates - he removes key evidence, then argues about irrelevant details.

a google search shows quantized redshift refuted 242 quantized redshift confirmed 15,000

Tommy Mandel 02:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Witness his removal of my references from the page which I would call an act of vandalism.

M.B. Bell1 and D. McDiarmid1.(2005) Six Peaks Visible in the Redshift Distribution of 46,400 SDSS Quasars Agree with the Preferred Redshifts Predicted by the Decreasing Intrinsic Redshift Model

M.B. Bell (2006) Evidence that Quasars and Related Active Galaxies are Good Radio Standard Candles and that they are Likely to be a Lot Closer than their Redshifts Imply. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602242

Tifft W.G.. (2003) 1Redshift periodicities, The Galaxy-Quasar Connection. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 285, Number 2, 2003, pp. 429-449(21)

Cocke W.J.1; Devito C.L.2; Pitucco A.3 Statistical Analysis of the Occurrence of Periodicities in Galaxy Redshift Data. Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 244, Numbers 1-2, 1996, pp. 143-157(15)

Oldershaw, Robert L. (1995) New Light on Redshift Periodicities; Quantization in the Properties of Quasars and Planets. APEIRON Vol. 2, Nr. 2, Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_redshift"

Tommy Mandel 04:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Deletion debate

This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splash^talk 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Seeing-red.jpg

Image:Seeing-red.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]