Halton Arp and Censorship

[Mike C]

A blatant example of censorship of science in the united States.

 

HALTON ARP

First of all, I would like to give a brief biography of Halton Arp and his work.

He received his bachelors degree from Harvard College in 1949 and his PhD from the California Institute of Technology in 1953, both *** laude. For 29 years, he was a staff astronomer at the Observatories known originally as Mt Wilson and Palomar observatories. A recognized observer of quasars and galaxies, Arp is the author of the Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies and numerous scholarly publications.

He has been awarded the Helen B Warner prize of the American Astronomical Society and the Newcomb Cleveland award of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He was president of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific from 1980 to 1983 and received the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award in 1984.

 

In 1983, because of some political shenanigans, Halton ARP was denied observing time on the 200 inch telescope by the committee that allocated observing time. The obvious reason was his research on anomalous redshifts that he observed since this cast a lack of credibility on the big bang concept of the Universe. This denial was immediately publicized on the front page of the Los Angeles Times and subsequently posted on all the bulletin boards of other observatories around the world. Many directors from these other observatories and other astronomers condemned this action, but to no avail.

 

He is currently on the staff of the Max-Planck-Institute for Physics and Astrophysics in Munich, West Germany.

He is the author of a book about his work entitled Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies.

 

The word anomaly in the title of this article is used to denote a departure from the implied concept of the big bang expansion of space theory. Anomaly is also used in defining orbital elements regarding planetary motions and has no significance here.

 

For those of you who are not familiar with the meaning of the cosmological redshift, I will give a brief description. Known as the Doppler effect, it was first predicted by Christian Doppler in 1842 and three years later confirmed by experiment on a moving train. You will notice that when you stand near a moving train with its whistle blowing or a race car passing you at high speed, there will be a change in sound pitch from a higher to a lower frequency. The waves approaching you are compressed while they are expanded when the object is moving away. The same principle applies to light waves.

 

However, in the cosmological redshift, space is supposedly expanding the light waves while it carries the galaxies away from us. But Halton Arps anomaly proves that this expansion is not space related but is temperature related. The high redshift quasars are radiating at higher temperatures than their companion galaxies.

 

The redshifts are currently given in km/s. The actual redshift is given as a percentage of the spectrum shift as measured by a spectrograph in comparison to our Suns spectrograph. This percentage, when small, is than translated into a recessional velocity by the majority of astronomers by multiplying with the velocity of light which is rounded off to 300,000 km/s.

At higher Z values, a relativistic formula taken from Edward R Harrisons book on Cosmology, entitled “Cosmology, The Science of the Universe, on page 235, would give the currently accepted value.

Incidentally, I would recommend this book to anyone who would be interested in learning about cosmology.

 

The best examples proving Arp’s contention that I know of are NGC 7603, AM 2054-2210 in the southern sky and AM 0328-222. These three are 100% conclusive in support of Arps theory. Other examples that are less conclusive are: NGC 53, AM 2006-295, NGC 4319/Markarian 205 and NGC 195 where a quasar appears to be in front of this galaxy.

He proved that quasars were associated with galaxies and the establishment astronomers refuted his argument contending that those were chance alignments. There is now conclusive proof that quasars are associated with galaxies in most cases. There are some astronomers that have selected single examples to refute Arps theory and I think he should not have included those and others in his collection. Some of his examples are chance alignments but the vast majority are not and I think the statistical proof he provides in his book confirms that. Another example he could leave off his list is AM 0213-2833 in his Sky and Telescope article that he had published in 1983 in the April issue on page 307. Refuting one example of his given anomalies is unrealistic and does not disprove his theory.

Incidentally, the S & T photos are positive prints and are much better illustrations than his negative illustrations in his book.

 

NS

[Titas Aduksus]

As I understand it, his theory had little/no support yet he wanted to continue searching for cosmic anomalies when time at the observatory was at a premium, I am not sure he has been truly censored if he now has a position at the Max Planck Institute which is highly regarded. He obviously had enough time to form his ideas, time to let someone else have a look through the eyepiece. I am sure his theory is known by others and some through curiosity may even use their own time to test it, if he is right it'll appear again perhaps before he expires [that would make a change!]. I'll make a point of looking out for the books you mention though.

[Mike C]

Titas

 

The 1st solution of the nature of quasars was around 1963 when M. Schmidt solved the riddle of the quasar spectrum 3C273.

This happened 20 years before Arp was denied access to continue his work with the 'anomalous cosmological redshifts'.

 

Santage and the US scientists were already firmly committed to the reality of the BBU.

 

So the reason is obvious as to why he was banned.

 

His work is overwhelming evidence for the erroneous claim of 'space expansion' as the cause of the 'cosmological redshift'.

 

NS

[Titas Aduksus]

I am quite happy with the view that galactic redshift is an indicator that the visible universe is expanding - yes there are anomalies but remember mathematics describes phenomina it does not, it cannot, explain them - rather like Newton and kepplar describing the orbits of planets, with mercury not quite conforming, it was the work of Einstein that accounted for most [but not all] of the error. The final tiny error in the orbit of mercury, when accounted for will probably also wipe out Mr Arp's work. This is along the same lines as the recent discovery of dark matter helping to account for galactic rotation.

 

Suppliment,

 

I have just had a look at some of your other posts in this forum and it seems clear you are somewhat unhappy with science in general, [e.g refuting e=mc^2] If science was in general as far off reality as you suppose neither your mobile phone, microwave or PC would work, not least because the nuclear powerplant you rely on would also be a non-stater...

[Mike C]

I am quite happy with the view that galactic redshift is an indicator that the visible universe is expanding - yes there are anomalies but remember mathematics describes phenomina it does not, it cannot, explain them - rather like Newton and kepplar describing the orbits of planets, with mercury not quite conforming, it was the work of Einstein that accounted for most [but not all] of the error. The final tiny error in the orbit of mercury, when accounted for will probably also wipe out Mr Arp's work. This is along the same lines as the recent discovery of dark matter helping to account for galactic rotation.

 

Suppliment,

 

I have just had a look at some of your other posts in this forum and it seems clear you are somewhat unhappy with science in general, [e.g refuting e=mc^2] If science was in general as far off reality as you suppose neither your mobile phone, microwave or PC would work, not least because the nuclear powerplant you rely on would also be a non-stater...

 

There is a difference between cosmolgy and technology.

Technology is generally the result of 'research and developement'.

 

Cosmology is the result of 'observation and interpretation'.

 

I am a 'free thinking' amateur astronomer and cosmologist. I have studied these subjects for more than 20 years and am thoroughly familiar with what is being taught. Since I am not regimented by the current Latin educational system, I am free to form my own opinions.

 

Arp's anomalous redshifts and the examples he provides are more convincing to me than Lemaitraes (a catholic priest) idea of 'space expansion' that has no REAL evidence for its support.

 

NS

[Tormod]

Arp's anomalous redshifts and the examples he provides are more convincing to me than Lemaitraes (a catholic priest) idea of 'space expansion' that has no REAL evidence for its support.

 

You are free to form your own opinions (as are all of us), but 1. it makes no sense to claim that you are specially good at this because the rest of us has a "latin education" and 2. there is plenty of evidence, but you disregard it because you disagree with it.

 

Whether you favor one explanation over the other does not make you a freethinker, nor does it disqualify the other theories.

 

Oh, and claiming that BB theory has no evidence is ignorant! You may choose to ignore it, but it is there. You will need to come up with something better than cries against censorship... :P

[Mike C]

Tormod

 

There us more than just the lack of evidence for the 'expansion of space'.

 

The CMBR is being promoted as the 'clincher' evidence fo the BB.

 

I have been promoting the CMBR as a 'thermal equalized space temperature' of all the particles and radiations in space. This is in 'compliance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' that states that 'heat will flow from hot to cold' until a uniform temperature is reached.

This is exactly what the CMBR is.

The variation in temperature here is ONLY 7/100,000K. I cannot think of a more uniform temperature than this.

McKellers discovery of a space molecule in 1940 with a temperature of 2K preceded the Gamow et al prediction of this CMBR temperature by a decade or more and with MORE accuracy.

 

There is more. It is not only our science that is censored here in the US but our language 'subliminal psychology, has elevated the popes to the 'supreme being' status.

With his power, he has joined hands with US capitalism to establish the 'new world order' that supercedes our Constitutional Democracy to just 'window dressing'.

I embrace our Constitution as an endorsement of Christ as a PREACHER/REFORMER rather than a sacrificial lamb as the popes promote Christianity.

 

NS

[Titas Aduksus]

New science,

 

I am quite sure that if your wide range of eccentric theories were even remotely plausible you would have published and had them peer reviewed, this is the way science works, if you have not had them published and commented upon by peer scientists then I venture to suggest foistering them upon the amteur population is a little dubious to say the least. You are clearly sympathetic to the works of Halton Arp, others are not. It is generally accepted by the majority that the big bang theory (and it is only a theory NOT a certainty) is currently the most supported hypothesis for the early universe. If you can get Stephen Hawking to support your Ideas then, and only then might people listen to you. As a note I do not believe for one moment that things were as currently envisaged, I believe if we ever find the root explanation for our universe [coming into being] it will something far more exotic than that currently proposed.

[Tormod]

Since New Science's posts is about conspiracy and undocumented hoaxes, I am moving this thread to Strange claims.

[Titas Aduksus]

With all due respect to the moderator team, I suggest that if you look at the actual post's you will find it is not censorship that is being discussed but whether Halton Arp's theories are a viable alternative to current theory, I see nothing wrong with proposing an alternative, indeed there are many past precedents. In my humble opinion this is very definitely cosmology and Halton Arp is a respected scientist even though he has unusual views on some subjects.

[jackson33]

With all due respect to the moderator team, I suggest that if you look at the actual post's you will find it is not censorship that is being discussed but whether Halton Arp's theories are a viable alternative to current theory, I see nothing wrong with proposing an alternative, indeed there are many past precedents. In my humble opinion this is very definitely cosmology and Halton Arp is a respected scientist even though he has unusual views on some subjects.

 

first, i second your post....

 

any alternative to BBT is going to be questioned. any person that writes an essay toward another will be treated in much the same manner, as BBT has been taught as accepted theory, for a long time. in the case of this or like forums the purpose is to reach viewers with an open mind. generally young folks that still claim some sense of logic, in determining a validity.

 

additionally, a good many people with some degree of authority on the issue have been trampled by those opposed to simply questioning BBT. personally i think there are a good number of qualified, educated in science and have opinions which question the very work they portray as correct. some stay with there chosen field, some change to more basic areas and some just get out of it all together. i see it in BBT, Global Warming and to degree in many topics with in the science fields. On BBT and SSU, i see so many similarities i get confused until we get to a singularity and expansion.

[Mike C]

Titus #8

 

The truth does not sell.

I also am an amateur astronomer and theoretical cosmologist so those with the PhD's are not 'open minded' to listen to us amateurs unless we quote their teachings as gospel.

 

Nicolas Copernicus created the first revolution in astronomy in opposition to the power structure then.

So I think another is needed now to restore some truth to science and especially to cosmology that needs to separate itself from the teachings of the Latin church.

 

NS

[Mike C]

With all due respect to the moderator team, I suggest that if you look at the actual post's you will find it is not censorship that is being discussed but whether Halton Arp's theories are a viable alternative to current theory, I see nothing wrong with proposing an alternative, indeed there are many past precedents. In my humble opinion this is very definitely cosmology and Halton Arp is a respected scientist even though he has unusual views on some subjects.

 

Thank you Titas and I agree with you that this is not just censorship but a question of Arps credibility as an observer.

The supporters of the BBU say that those 'anomalous redshifts' are just 'chance alignments' but the examples I gave above, are proof beyond a doubt that Arp is right.

I posted this in the Cosmology sector because this involves the Cosmological Redshift that involves the 'nature' of our universe.

 

NS

[peaceharris]

The CMBR is being promoted as the 'clincher' evidence fo the BB.

 

I have been promoting the CMBR as a 'thermal equalized space temperature' of all the particles and radiations in space. This is in 'compliance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics' that states that 'heat will flow from hot to cold' until a uniform temperature is reached.

This is exactly what the CMBR is.

 

Hi New Science,

I was reading through some of your articles... and guess what... I found out that your opinions about the CMBR is the same as mine.

 

I am certain that the CMBR is Eddington's theoretical 'temperature of space'.

 

Cheers!

[Mike C]

Hi New Science,

I was reading through some of your articles... and guess what... I found out that your opinions about the CMBR is the same as mine.

 

I am certain that the CMBR is Eddington's theoretical 'temperature of space'.

 

Cheers!

 

Thanks for your opinion about this radiation.

 

However technically, space is a 'viod' or vacuum with a temperature of 'absolute zero'.

So the measured temperature is of the space particles such as dust from star eruptions, molecules and the gases. These particles absorb star radiations and reradiate them as the CMBR to comply with the 2nd Law of Thremodynamics.

 

NS

[Eclogite]

The supporters of the BBU say that those 'anomalous redshifts' are just 'chance alignments' but the examples I gave above, are proof beyond a doubt that Arp is right.

I posted this in the Cosmology sector because this involves the Cosmological Redshift that involves the 'nature' of our universe.

Mike, I agree this would be more appropriate back in the Cosmology section.

 

However, there is no way in which the examples you gave are 'proof beyond a doubt'. To make such a claim (with what appears to the casual observer as a high emotional content) is decidedly unscientific. It encourages one to take the most negative connotation of the word amateur in your self professed status as an amateur astronomer.

 

If you insist you have offered proof beyond doubt then the Strange Claims forum may be the right place after all.

[CraigD]

However technically, space is a 'viod' or vacuum with a temperature of 'absolute zero'.

Even more technically, temperature is defined as the average kinetic energy of the particles in an arbitrary volume of space,

[math]T = \frac1n \sum_{i=1}^n E_i[/math]

where: [math]n[/math] is the number of particles; and [math]E_i[/math] is the kinetic energy of a specific particle.

Solving this for a volume of space containing no particles gives [math]\frac00[/math], a case of division by zero. In physics, such a result is considered mathematically undefined, or “meaningless”.

 

So it would be more correct to say vacuum has not temperature, than to say its temperature is 0° K.

So the measured temperature is of the space particles such as dust from star eruptions, molecules and the gases.

True.

 

Interestingly, the temperature of most of the near vacuum of space is very high compared to that of high-density places like Earth’s ground-level atmosphere. Although there’s very little matter in a volume of deep space compared to that in the same volume on Earth, the few particles it has are on average moving very fast, giving a temperature of over 1000000° K, compared to a warm day on Earth of about 300° K. (sources: ”Black Hole Blowback” by Tucker, Tananbaum & Fabian, 3/2007 sciam, wikipedia article “interstellar medium”)

 

It’s important not to confuse the temperature of space (the average energy of the particles in it) with the black-body equivalent temperature of various electromagnetic radiation, such as the Cosmic Microwave Background (the famous 2.725° K). The latter is not a real temperature – no conventional scientist is claiming that the average kinetic energy of particles in space is 2.725° K – but a convenient equivalent measure of a black-body radiation electromagnetic spectrum peaking at a frequency of about 160 MHz (1.6e8 Hz, in the VHF radio frequency band).

 

Critically to New Science’s claim,

These particles absorb star radiations and reradiate them as the CMBR to comply with the 2nd Law of Thremodynamics.

, no conventional scientist is suggesting that the CMBR is actually being emitted by some body (such a clouds of interstellar dust and gas) glowing at this temperature. AFAIK, the main constituent of the interstellar medium, hydrogen, isn’t observed to glow significantly at anywhere near as low a frequency as 160 MHz, peaking mostly in the 750 GHz (7.5e14 Hz, in the high-visible, low-ultra-violet light frequency bands).

 

The extraordinary claim that the CMBR is produced by emissions from interstellar dust and gas requires an extraordinary explanation of how such a thing is possible, explaining both the atomic dynamics and the very even distribution of the CMBR throughout space. Though both are daunting tasks, the latter is especially, as nearly all emissions from ordinary matter, from light-bulb filaments to nebulae in space, are observed to be highly localized around their power sources, while the CMBR is very evenly distributed.

 

Until such proof is presented, the claim of an ordinary interstellar matter emission source for the CMBR is unsupported speculation.