<a href="http://hubblesite.org/news_.and._views/pr.cgi.2002+23"><img src="http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/2002/23/prc/0223w.jpg" border="0" alt="click to learn more"></a>

"Appearances can be deceiving. In this NASA Hubble Space Telescope image, an odd celestial duo, the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 [center] and a quasar called Markarian 205 [upper right], appear to be neighbors. In reality, the two objects don't even live in the same city. They are separated by time and space."

Arp has a photographic mind - in other words, his thinking is two-dimensional, like the image.

As illustrated in the above pic, it is nearly impossible to know whether the two objects are side-by-side, or whether the spiral galaxy is further away or the quasar is further away, simply because the pic is a two-dimensional image. However, logic would tell us that the quasar is much closer to us then the galaxy.

What say you, John MacNeil ? You've supported Arp in other threads.

Do you see any megastars here ? ;)

Originally commented by (Q)
What say you, John MacNeil ? You've supported Arp in other threads.


And an Arp supporter to boot. John, do you believe that the entire Astronomical community is engaged in a global consipracy to silence Dr. Arp even though his catalogue is still referenced?

It's not a matter of believing in conspiracy, it's more a matter of perspective. And it didn't begin with Arp, it began with Hubble using Slipher's observations to claim that redshift was only an indicator of recession velocity and therefore the universe was chaotic and not systematic. That view was first proposed in 1927 by the Belgian catholic priest, Georges LeMaitre, and Hubble, a devout Christian, confirmed the "big bang" hypothesis two year later, in 1929. That the young scientists of the day were fooled, by the observations of a single characteristic of a phenomena, into following a view that digressed from tested theoretical theories, is merely an indication of the inherent fallibility of human thought.

When the proponents of the "redshift=recession-velocity" crowd supported the 'universe from an explosion theory', they completely renounced Einstein's relativistic theories. The strange thing was, and still is, that they say Einstein's theories support their chaotic view, when Einstein repeatedly said that his theories couldn't possibly support their chaotic view, because they represented two entirely different perspective. Einstein believed in the Unified Field Theory and said so right up until his death. He also said that we would see who's view prevailed over time, which I've quoted in the "A Strange Ring Galaxy" thread.

So of course I am not surprised to see much of Arp's work still referenced, as much of Einsein's work is still referenced. What is surprising is that so many people believe in Einstein's theories while at the same time believing in the "Ultimate Creation Theory" or the "Big Bang" as many people call it. If the theories are studied it is obvious that they are non-supportive and so a choice has to be made in which theory to believe in, Einsein's relativity, which has been proven time and again and which supports his Unified Field Theory, or the universe from an explosion theory, which has no real science supporting it and which is the product of the catholic religious orginization.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
The strange thing was, and still is, that they say Einstein's theories support their chaotic view, when Einstein repeatedly said that his theories couldn't possibly support their chaotic view, because they represented two entirely different perspective.

Please provide specific evidence of the incompatibility of relativity with the hot big bang model.

- Warren

John surmises:

the universe from an explosion theory, which has no real science supporting it and which is the product of the catholic religious orginization.

Well, maybe not just catholic religious organizations:

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/bb_pillars.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bb1.html

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html


Really, John, your arguments are thinly veiled.

As usual, Q, you refrain from the discussion and post references to more goofy reports that are mere speculation and which have as much credence as Santa Claus. Actually, Santa has more: We know there is such a thing as snow, we know there are reindeer, we know there are sleighs and we know there are big fat men with white hair and beards. Ergo, when the deer are hitched to the sleigh in winter, with a fat man driving, the deer drawn sleigh flies through the air so the fat man can visit every house in the world in a single night.

Actually, given the scope of the known universe and the logistics of Santa Claus, it is far more likely that Santa Claus is real than it is likely that the "big bang!" is real.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
It's not a matter of believing in conspiracy, it's more a matter of perspective.

Perspectives are better than conspiracies, I'll give you that. You can't argue against a conspiracy claim as there is no evidence for the conpiracy and you can't prove a negative.At least with perspectives you can use facts against them.

And it didn't begin with Arp, it began with Hubble using Slipher's observations to claim that redshift was only an indicator of recession velocity and therefore the universe was chaotic and not systematic.

Sorry, what began with Hubble? That the Universe was not systematic?

Actually, the big swing was more to do with the Universe being thought to be static and shown to be dynamic. Let's drop these systematic and chaotic terms. No one, that I know of, believes the Universe is chaotic.

That view was first proposed in 1927 by the Belgian catholic priest, Georges LeMaitre, and Hubble, a devout Christian, confirmed the "big bang" hypothesis two year later, in 1929.

What has their religious affiliations got to do with anything. Einstein had solved his own field equations by then and realised they led to a dynamic Univese. Which is why he introduced the famous cosmological constant to keep the Universe static. He later admitted this was a mistake. But you know that don't you.

As Einstein was Jewish do you think that had anything to do with his change in views?

It was also pointed out to me a while ago that Hubble did not agree with the interpretation of Redshift as an indicator of recession.

That the young scientists of the day were fooled, by the observations of a single characteristic of a phenomena, into following a view that digressed from tested theoretical theories, is merely an indication of the inherent fallibility of human thought.

Or it's an indicator that previous ideas where flat wrong and experimental data can always disprove a theory.

When the proponents of the "redshift=recession-velocity" crowd supported the 'universe from an explosion theory', they completely renounced Einstein's relativistic theories.

I'll go with chroot on this, your evidence for this is?

The equations of Relativity had already shown the Uinverse to be dynamic and Hubble's work supported that. It was support for Einstein not a renunciation.

The strange thing was, and still is, that they say Einstein's theories support their chaotic view

What's with this chaotic thing? No one refers to the Big Bang as chaotic. Unless you really mean probablistic in the sense of quantum theory. But that would mean you really do not understand the differences between The Big Bang model and Quantum Theory.

, when Einstein repeatedly said that his theories couldn't possibly support their chaotic view, because they represented two entirely different perspective.

Ah, I think you are confusing the two. Einstein never liked quantum theory but none the less contributed much towards it. Things like Einstein-Bose and Einstein-Fermi statistics come to mind.

But anyway, as you apparently can't differentiate the issues here I think your argument lacks credibility already.

Einstein believed in the Unified Field Theory and said so right up until his death.

The relevance of this is?

He also said that we would see who's view prevailed over time, which I've quoted in the "A Strange Ring Galaxy" thread.

And so far the evidence is very much with the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics and redshift as evidence of the Universe expanding after having started at a single point. You are aware of all the evidence, aren't you?

So of course I am not surprised to see much of Arp's work still referenced, as much of Einsein's work is still referenced.

So what? Arp was a good observor, as pointed out above, his conclusions where bad though.

What is surprising is that so many people believe in Einstein's theories while at the same time believing in the "Ultimate Creation Theory" or the "Big Bang" as many people call it.

Given that Einstein endorsed the concept and contributed towards the model, why is this surprising? As I say, the original concepts where that the universe was static (not systematic) and the models said it was dynamic (not chaotic).

If the theories are studied it is obvious that they are non-supportive

Again, you evidence for this is?

The Big Bangs success is precisely becuase the evidence supports it. Or are you saying the cosmological background radiation is not predicted as a derivative of Relativity. What of early element abundances and so on.

and so a choice has to be made in which theory to believe in, Einstein's relativity, which has been proven time and again and which supports his Unified Field Theory,

You do realise that the Big Bang models are one of the greatest successes of Relativity. Relativity and a Unified Field theory have little to do with each other. Look up Yang-Mills and Brane theories. Hint, Yang-Mills was neglected for a long time as Einstein disagreed with it but it now forms the basis of a Unified Field Theory. Again, you show a lack of understanding of the issues.

or the universe from an explosion theory, which has no real science supporting it

There is bucket loads of evidence supporting it. To deny this is tantamount to sticking your head in the sand.

and which is the product of the catholic religious orginization.

What's with the religious affiliations again. It has no bearing on the issue. Unless, as said above, that is your real agenda.

Thed,

My agenda, if it could be called such, is merely to observe phenomena and try to interpret it according to physical laws, without bias. That I don't believe in the current chaotic view of the "Big Bang!" theory is obvious. When I say 'chaotic' I mean the universe as described as the result of a large explosion and which is now expanding in all directions. For such a result to have occurred from the original explosion, there could have been no organization of systems from the exploded mass. If you believe there could have been, then perhaps you should explain the theory of system organization while the exploded universe is in a continual expansion and how it could possibly fit into the timeframe of universal origin of 20 billion year, or less, as stated by the "Big Bang!" theory.

If you read the thread "On 'Non-Supernatural Intelligent Design': Viable Epistemology/Probative Science Tool?" in the "Science & Society" forum, you will find that I am the one who repeatedly stated that I believe in science and that I consider all religions to be man made belief systems. You will also find out that the other participants in that thread repeatedly refused to discuss the subject at hand because the evidence I presented, and which they repeatedly called for, conflicted with their view. I can understand someone having firm beliefs, even unshakeable beliefs, but there really is no exscuse for not discussing the subject in a rational and objective manner. After all, this is a discussion, not a conflict. At some point you will come to learn that I believe that life, and science, exist on other planets than this one and that other sciences have space programs more advanced than ours. You should not let that belief on my part cloud your reasoning or prevent you from discussing the subject in this thread from a logical point of view. At no point will I ever present evidence that is not factually based and my opinions will be deduced from my current understanding of phenomena. I would expect your evidence and your opinions to be as objective, lest the thread degrade, such as happened to the one I previously mentioned from 'Science & Society'.

The only religious aspect I see to the origin of the "Big Bang!" theory is that it was started by the Belgian catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, right after he was appointed to a professorship at the University of Louvain, a catholic university. At the time that he presented the theory of the origin of the universe, he had no previous astronomical experience. When Hubble, also a devout Christian, confirmed that theory two year later, he also had no previous astronomical accomplishments. When Hubble was given the directorship of the brand new and largest telescope in the world, with which he confirmed that theory, he had no previous accomplishment in astronomy. Hubble was a socialite and received his appointment because of who he knew and not because of merit. Originally he trained to be a lawyer. It was no secret in those day that the church, as well as many other scientist, were opposed to Einstein's theories and when confirmation was obtained, in 1919, there was not universal acceptance. It is not inconceivable that the church had Hubble put in place as director of the largest telescope in the world, and later used him to confirm their "Ultimate Creation Theory". After Hubble confirmed LeMaitre's Ultimate Creation Theory, he refused to talk about it for the rest of his life and actually became something of a recluse, where before he made the confirmation he was an extroverted socialite who sought the limelight. Whether or not you believe there was a set-up to install a major creation event belief above and before the minor creation event of the earth and life on the planet, is immaterial to the discussion if we are talking about astrophysics.

Einstein's theories supported his Unified Field Theory and he stated that on numerous occasion, such as this quote I will give from 1944,

-- "Even the great initial success of the quantum theory does not make me believe in the fundamental dice-game, although I am well aware that our younger collegues interpret this as a consequence of senility."--Albert Einsten

So you cannot say that Einstein supported the "Big Bang!" theory, nor can his theories be used to confirm it when his theories describe the relations between matter and the "Big Bang!" theory describes chaos where all matter is moving away from all other matter. There is no theory that links the reality of Einstein's proven theories and the belief in the explosion that originated everything. All anyone ever presents as proof are further digressions from reality to explain that wishy-washy "Big Bang!" idea.

Saying that the "Big Bang!" is proved because a background radiation is detected is not scientific evidence of anything other than that there is a background radiation, which radiation could be dispersed as readily as gravity or light. The "Big Bang!" has no real science to confirm it, all it has is people observing phenomena and using the disparate observations to fallaciously corraborate a theory that has been adopted by corporate science.

John autobiographs:

My agenda, if it could be called such, is merely to observe phenomena and try to interpret it according to physical laws, without bias,...

...without any understanding whatsoever of Astronomy, Physics, or any other sciences one may wish to include.

You will also find out that the other participants in that thread repeatedly refused to discuss the subject at hand because the evidence I presented, and which they repeatedly called for, conflicted with their view.

And the views of every other rational person.

At some point you will come to learn that I believe that life, and science, exist on other planets than this one and that other sciences have space programs more advanced than ours.

In other words, John believes in UFOlogy and little green men visiting Earth.

You should not let that belief on my part cloud your reasoning or prevent you from discussing the subject in this thread from a logical point of view

Since it is a logical point of view John wishes not to entertain.

At no point will I ever present evidence that is not factually based and my opinions will be deduced from my current understanding of phenomena.

In other words, John has no evidence, only speculation based on misunderstandings.

But of course, Thed will most likely come to similar conclusions. ;)

Q, you have yet to make a significant post. If you don't have anything constructive to add to the thread, why don't you save up all your childish attacks until the end, and then let everyone see how witty you are?

Wasn't gravity the "organizer"?

When I say 'chaotic' I mean the universe as described as the result of a large explosion and which is now expanding in all directions.

Welcome to Step 7.

Saying that the "Big Bang!" is proved because a background radiation is detected is not scientific evidence of anything other than that there is a background radiation, which radiation could be dispersed as readily as gravity or light. The "Big Bang!" has no real science to confirm it, all it has is people observing phenomena and using the disparate observations to fallaciously corraborate a theory that has been adopted by corporate science.

Whether or not you believe there was a set-up to install a major creation event belief above and before the minor creation event of the earth and life on the planet, is immaterial to the discussion if we are talking about astrophysics.

Welcome to Step 9.

You will also find out that the other participants in that thread repeatedly refused to discuss the subject at hand because the evidence I presented, and which they repeatedly called for, conflicted with their view.

I can understand someone having firm beliefs, even unshakeable beliefs, but there really is no exscuse for not discussing the subject in a rational and objective manner.

Welcome to Step 10.

If you believe there could have been, then perhaps you should explain the theory of system organization while the exploded universe is in a continual expansion and how it could possibly fit into the timeframe of universal origin of 20 billion year, or less, as stated by the "Big Bang!" theory.

Welcome to Step 12.

- Warren

Determining the apriority of the origin of gravity will be one of the greatest achievements of astrophysics. It is a similar predilection of which came first, the chicken or the egg. From my belief system it would have to be the chicken and the hard-shelled egg was a later, protective development of chicken embryos. We know that the strength of gravity is dependant on the orbital velocity of mass. The greater the size of the mass, the stronger the gravity.

When the Earth orbits the sun it must be maintained in orbit by more than one source of gravity. If there was no source of gravity attracting it away from the sun, then the sun would simply pull it into itself, eventually. Therefore there must be a controlling gravity source that emanates from the center of the galaxy that keeps a torsion on all bodies within the galaxy in order to keep everything from crashing into everything else.

When we see galaxies behaving gravitationally the same as star systems, such as is indicated by this group;

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010510.html

then we must deduce that a gravitational force exists extant of that galaxy group, which keeps the group from attracting into it's central region and becoming chaotic.

When we see photographs of large numbers of galaxy interacting gravitationally around a megastar, such as NGC 4881, a picture of which is posted previously in this thread, then we must deduce that the gravity field emanates from the ever larger structures that we find and spreads out to all the farthest reaches where matter is interacting. Every time that we find larger constructs, such as the Great Attractor, we see that they are evidence of further organization. This would lead us to logically deduce that a continuous gravity field emanates from whatever construct is eventually determined to be at the heart of the universe, and which extends outward to encompass all matter in the universal system. This is what Albert Einstein spoke of as the Unified Field Theory and the space telescope is giving us pictorial evidence to support his view.

If there was no source of gravity attracting it away from the sun, then the sun would simply pull it into itself, eventually.

This is easily explained with high-school physics, John.

- Warren

John

From my belief system

And as we all know it is a system intrinsic only to John MacNeil.

We know that the strength of gravity is dependant on the orbital velocity of mass.

Wrong. The strength of gravity is dependent on the amount of matter in the mass.

When the Earth orbits the sun it must be maintained in orbit by more than one source of gravity. If there was no source of gravity attracting it away from the sun, then the sun would simply pull it into itself, eventually.

Actually, this is where orbital velocity comes into play. Roughly speaking, it is the orbital velocity of the Earth which balances the gravitational pull of the Sun with that of the Earths inertia.

Therefore there must be a controlling gravity source that emanates from the center of the galaxy that keeps a torsion on all bodies within the galaxy in order to keep everything from crashing into everything else.

Perhaps it's a megastar. :eek:

When we see photographs of large numbers of galaxy interacting gravitationally around a megastar

Yeah, I thought you might say that. :rolleyes: