mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ For complete access to all the files of this collection see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php ========================================================== Redshift What is redshift? If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object has "positive redshift". The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us. This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us. The question is: "Is recessional velocity the _only_ thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astronomers presume?" It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic "_NO!"_ If the wavelength of an absorption line in an object's observed spectrum appears at a wavelength that is, say, 1.56 times its "normal wavelength" (the wavelength at which it is observed in a laboratory experiment here on Earth), then we say this object has a "positive redshift of _z_ = 0.56". The "_z_ value" is simply the observed fractional increase in the wavelength of the spectral lines. The accepted interpretation of this is to say that this object must therefore be receding from us at 56% of the speed of light or 0.56 x 300,000 km/sec. Mainstream astronomers believe that recessional velocity, _v_ = _cz_. This object, therefore, must be very far away from Earth. But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values. Halton Arp Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance. Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars ("quasi-stellar objects") which have extremely high redshift _z _values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are _physically connected to galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by_. Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.Mainstream astronomers try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often. A prime example is the galaxy pair shown at the right. The larger galaxy (M51) in this pair of galaxies is obviously physically connected to its small companion galaxy. The redshift value of the small companion is vastly greater than the redshift of the larger (parent) galaxy. Mainstream astronomers presently are either ignoring this fact or denying that there is any physical connection between the larger and smaller members of the pair. They say the high redshift companion must be "well behind" its parent (because of this difference in their redshift values). That they are obviously physically connected is claimed to be an "illusion". See: [1]http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000724.html Any single image of a physical connection between objects that have widely differing redshifts is sufficient evidence to destroy the "Big Bang" theory. Arp has photographs of many of them. Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining the false assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope. In addition, the redshift _z_ values of quasars seem to be quantized! Unusually tight groupings of those observed values occur at values of _z_= 0.061, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, etc... such that (1+_z_2) = 1.23(1+_z_1). [For example, 1.23(1+0.3) = 1.60]. The very _existence of this quantization_ alone, is sufficient proof of the failure of the idea that redshift is only an indicator of recessional speed (and therefore distance). This quantization means (under the redshift equals distance interpretation) that quasars all must lie in a series of concentric shells _with Earth at the center of the entire arrangement_. Copernicus found out a long time ago that Earth isn't at the center of anything! Arp suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with _inherent _redshift values of up to _z_ = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around _z_ = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger fraction of the object's total redshift. Mathematically, an object's total redshift value is the _product_ of the _inherent_ factor times the _velocity_ factor. (e.g., If an object's inherent redshift value is, say, 0.3, and its velocity redshift is 0.06, then the total redshift that will be measured in light coming from this object is given by (1+0.3)(1+0.06) = 1.378. Which is 1+_z_; making its total redshift value, _z = _0.378._ _In other words, for this example, the object's light is redshifted 30% due to its youth and then that light is shifted another 6% due to its velocity. The total is not the sum (which would be 36%) but rather 37.8%. Evidence Says Arp is Right An image taken by the Chandra orbiting x-ray telescope shows what may be exactly the quasar emission phenomenon Arp suggests is happening. _ _The official caption says: Chandra Images Seething Cauldron of Starburst Galaxy Chandra X-ray Image of M82, at a distance of 11 million light years from Earth, is the nearest starburst galaxy. Massive stars are forming and expiring in M82 at a rate ten times higher than in our galaxy. The bright spots in the center are supernova remnants and X-ray binaries. These are some of the brightest such objects known. The luminosity of the X-ray binaries suggests that most contain a black hole. The diffuse X-ray light in the image extends over several thousand light years, and is caused by multimillion degree gas flowing out of M82. A close encounter with a large galaxy, M81, in the last 100 million years is thought to be the cause of the starburstactivity. Image made with the Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer (ACIS) Notice that, even though no "black hole" has ever been directly observed, the presence of one is often proclaimed (almost like a mantra). In the image shown above there is obviously a line of five or more high intensity, young, X-ray emitting objects being symmetrically ejected from M82. No black-hole magic is needed. There is a high level of plasma activity. There are undoubtedly high amplitude electrical currents producing large pinch forces that create and expel these objects. If there is a "black hole" in the middle of everything, why is matter pouring OUT rather than IN? There is an old saying: "When you hear hoof beats, do not just look for zebras." When there is a powerful _emission_ of material occurring, it might be wise not to immediately postulate the presence of a "black hole" that sucks everything, including light, IN. There are many images taken by the Hubble space telescope available on the internet. Here is one example. The typical "official" commentary is shown (in color). Hubble astronomers conducting research on a class of galaxies called ultra-luminous infrared galaxies (ULIRG) have discovered that over two dozen of these are found within "nests" of galaxies, apparently engaged in multiple collisions that lead to fiery pile-ups of three, four or even five galaxies smashing together. If you read "official" comments usually placed on images such as these, you will see a preoccupation with the DEATH of stars and descriptions of COLLIDING and MERGING and CANABALISING galaxies that are SMASHING together. In actuality it is highly likely, in view of Arp's observations, that what we are actually seeing most often is the _birth_ of galaxies and quasars not their deaths. And, instead of collision, the _separation_ of parent and offspring. Anyone looking at these images in an unbiased way will see "fireworks!" - the birth and ejection of new galaxies. (And, if the universe is really expanding as Big Bang proponents say, everything should be getting farther away from everything else. Collisions of previously unrelated objects should be highly improbable.) Mainstream astronomy is presently trying to explain away a large set of high redshift quasars that are closely associated with low redshift galaxies as being _optical illusions_ caused by "gravitational lensing". Here, below, are ten examples of such groupings. The only way such an optical illusion could occur is if Earth, a nearby galaxy, and a distant quasar (all three) precisely fall on a _single straight line_. Could this happen once? Surely. But dozens of times?! Not likely. In fact the probability is vanishingly small. And if Halton Arp is correct, the quasars are not that far away in the first place. These sets of objects are not illusions or mirages - rather, they are visual proof that Arp is, indeed, correct in what he says: Young, high redshift objects _are_ ejected from the centers of active galactic nuclei (AGNs) and Seyfert galaxies. The images show exactly that happening. The most (in)famous of these supposed "mirages" is the so-called "Einstein Cross" which is simply another example of objects in the process of being formed and ejected from the nucleus of an active galaxy. Arp has observed plasma clouds (having high redshift) connecting the ejected objects in the Einstein Cross. So, modern mainstream astronomy is full of "illusions" and "mirages" (their explanation of why we should not believe our eyes) and "strange and dark" energy, matter, "neutron stars" and "black holes", _none of which have ever been seen or photographed_ but whose existence they continually invoke in order to save their otherwise failed theories. Their attitude is, "Don't believe what you see; believe what we tell you!" Arp says we should believe our own eyes rather than the tall tales of "black-holes", and "gravitational lensing" told by the defenders of mainstream astronomy and cosmology whose continued research funding depends on their "not rocking the boat" of established theory. The "Fingers of God" The diagram above is an attempt to plot the positions of many of the galaxies we can see from Earth in a ninety degree field of view centered on the Virgo Galaxy Cluster. The distance of each galaxy that was used to make this plot is computed by _presuming_ that its actual distance is proportional to its redshift value - as modern astronomers do. As a result, the Virgo cluster takes on the shape of two long fingers pointed directly at Earth. These have become known as "The Fingers of God". (Shown here in red.) Long cosmic sized fingers pointed directly at Earth! This result is false on its face. It is independent proof that the "redshift equals distance" assumption is nonsense. Copernicus discovered many years ago that the Earth was not the center of anything. A galaxy cluster should have a more symmetrical shape than this. Arp demonstrates that the Virgo cluster is much more compact than it appears in this diagram. The high redshift galaxies in the upper regions of the diagram are not far away - they are just very young! And much closer to us than this diagram would indicate. How astronomers can continue to look at this diagram and not see that something is very wrong with their theory is evidence of how disconnected from reality they have become. It is ironic to remember that Galileo got into trouble with the Church by defending the work of Copernicus. Copernicus' voice is coming down to us today through the ages - "If you think that all the galaxies in the Virgo Cluster are in a straight line that points directly at Earth, you are wrong!" Arp is, indeed, today's Galileo. So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest. And the Virgo galaxy cluster most certainly does not take the shape of long "Fingers of God" pointed directly at Earth. The Big Bang Theory is false. _________________________________________________________________ Halton C. Arp is now at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Occasionally he returns to the United States to give lectures and visit family. ___________________________________________________________________ Books and Links: For those who are interested in reading more about this topic: * "Seeing Red - Red shifts, Cosmology and Academic Science" by Halton Arp, 1998, Apeiron, Montreal ISBN 0-9683689-0-5 * "Quasars, Red shifts and Controversies", by Halton Arp 1987, Interstellar Media * IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science - Dec. 1986; Anthony L. Peratt (ed.) [2]More about Halton Arp's work [3]Mel & Amy Acheson on Arp and the mindset of science [4]Arp's Peculiar Galaxies [5]NGC4319 & Markarian205 [6]Exploding the Big Bang [7]Redshifts & the Hubble law [8]Next Page ----> [9]Return to the Main Page [10][hit.asp] References 1. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap000724.html 2. http://www.quackgrass.com/roots/arp.html 3. http://www.dragonscience.com/ 4. http://users.aol.com/arpgalaxy/index.html 5. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/487.asp 6. http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm 7. http://www.heretical.com/science/redshift.html 8. file://localhost/www/sat/files/ouruniverse.htm 9. file://localhost/www/sat/files/index.htm 10. http://www.stats4all.com/asp/login.asp?sSiteName=dascott2