Above: Galaxy NGC 4319 and it's associated newborn quasar with higher redshift Markarian 205 connected by a plasma umbillical chord.
Sulentic, J.W., and Arp, H.C., The galaxy-quasar connection - NGC 4319 and Markarian 205. I - Direct imagery. II - Spectroscopy, Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, Volume 319, Pages 687-708, Aug 1987
New direct-imaging data are presented for the disturbed spiral galaxy NGC 4319 (z = 0.005) and the apparently connected quasar-like object Markarian 205 (z = 0.072). Image processing of this CCD data reveals (1) an almost continuous luminous connection extending from Mrk 205 into the nucleus of the spiral galaxy; (2) a corresponding feature on the opposite side of the disk, appearing to link a bright UV knot with the nucleus; and (3) extensive morphological peculiarities in NGC 4319 that are consistent with hypothesized explosive nuclear activity. These data support the conclusion that NGC 4319 is an active spiral galaxy that recently ejected Mrk 205 from its nucleus.Arp, H.C., NGC 4319 and Markarian 205 - Why Hide a Cosmic Bridge?
In 1971 with the 5 meter telescope on Mt. Palomar a luminous bridge was discovered between the low redshift galaxy NGC 4319 and the much higher redshift quasar, Markarian 205. Because this contradicted the assumption that redshift was invariably a measure of velocity and distance, it invalidated the hypothesis of an expanding universe. Conventional astronomers fiercely resisted this evidence but as it accumulated for this and numerous other similar examples the results were increasingly suppressed and ignored.
-759725.jpg){kind=link}
2 comments:
OilIsMastery:
Your choice of posting material is well timed.
2009 kicks off the "Year of Astronomy"
And conventional astronomy (if misguided) is kicking off with the American Astronomical Society's meeting in Long Beach, California, and the "drum beat" has heated up at the SpaceDaily website.
This post presents the current best available science on how galaxies form.
There is no way to know how the Universe started or how the first galaxy formed (the first mistake of conventional astronomy was to speculate on "the beginning" of the Universe, i.e., the "big bang" theory).
All science can do is make observations and measurements of what can be detected by science's observational technology NOW.
Conventional astronomy followed this "first mistake" with the fixation on "black hole" theory.
But it gets worse, conventional astronomy has combined speculation on an "early Universe" with the cul-de-sac of "black hole" theory.
SpaceDaily reports that astronomers have postulated the idea that "black holes" created galaxies. See, Black Holes Lead Galaxy Growth, January. 7, 2009 (SpaceDaily) -- "Astronomers may have solved a cosmic chicken-and-egg problem -- the question of which formed first in the early Universe -- galaxies or the supermassive black holes seen at their cores."
Of course, "black holes" have never been seen at the center of any galaxy's core.
At best, ambiguous indirect evidence has been observed that infers the existence of "black holes" at the center of galaxies.
At worst, "black holes" are a mathematical abstraction necessary to prop up the gravitational model because without "black holes" the gravitational model simply doesn't add up. The calculated mass of the observed matter in galaxies doesn't provide enough gravitational "pull" to hold a galaxy together taking into account the rotational speed of galaxies -- thus, the embrace of "black hole" theory even though "black holes" have never been observed and the centers of galaxies, as opposed to having "dark spots" are the brightest locations in the Universe.
So, to further compound the error of "black holes" astronomers have proposed that "black holes" create galaxies.
Never mind, that original "black hole" theory postulated that "black holes" were the result of the gravitaional collaspe of super-massive stars. And that stars are a product of galactic formation.
So, conventional astronomy plunges head-long into contradicting their own theory. And judging by the comments on the conventional astronomy blogs, these people are oblivious to the contradiction. These same comments demonstrate "black holes" act like a Rorschach Test, however commenters want to think "black holes" work, they're free to speculate because nobody can contradict them.
Because there are no observations or scientific evidence to contradict them with (in their world view).
The SpaceDaily article provides a quote from one of the astronomers: "It looks like the black holes came first. The evidence is piling up," said Chris Carilli, of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO)."
And as I stated before the article plunges into the idea that science understands the "early Universe": "Carilli outlined the conclusions from recent research done by an international team studying conditions in the first billion years of the Universe's history in a lecture presented to the American Astronomical Society's meeting in Long Beach, California."
This Picture of the Day article describes the center of the Milky Way according to Electric Universe theory: Milky Way Plasma-focus Plasmoid, April 5, 2006 (thunderbolts.info) -- "Infrared and x-ray telescopes have confirmed the existence of a plasma-focus plasmoid at the core of the Milky Way. This high-energy electrical formation is the heart of the galactic circuit."
The article goes on:
"Recent infrared and x-ray views of our galaxy’s core have revealed a plasma torus (doughnut-shaped ring), or plasmoid, less than two light-years across. Because dust blocks visible light, viewing the core has not been possible until the advent of telescopes that can “see” infrared and x-ray light, which can penetrate dust. The x-ray radiation from the plasmoid is typical of that given off by highly excited stars, indicating extremely strong electrical stress. The strong electrical field in the plasmoid acts as a particle accelerator. Electrons accelerated to high speeds will spiral in a magnetic field and give off x-rays. They also give off x-rays when they pass near a heavier ion."
Please read the remainder of the article and compare the ideas and scientfic evidence presented with those presented in the ScienceDaily article.
Which one has more credibility and matches the observations and measurements recorded?
Which theory matches reality in your estimation?
This post provides compelling scientfic evidence that galaxies are formed from other galaxies. That Pulsars are ejected from galaxies and leave a plasma umbilical cord of sorts attaching the Pulsar to the old galaxy.
There is also scientfic evidence that galaxies form on a line of galactic Birkeland currents.
A reasonable hypothesis is that Pulsars are embryonic galaxies and not "neutron" stars. "Neutron" stars are another made-up idea that doesn't hold up under close inspection.
Astronomy is going down the wrong path, and if it keeps going down this path...
Who knows...what wailing and grinding of teeth will happen?
So far, instead of stopping and looking around, the horse has grabbed the bit and is galloping toward the intellectual cliff...
Correction:
My apology, my comment should read quazar not pulsar. The "neutron" star statement goes with pulsars not quazars.
Post a Comment