It looked to me so obvious that the 'bluish galaxy' is much nearer to Earth than the one on the right simply because I can see granularity in it, while the other one is much more blurred.
http://science.slashdot.org/story/11/06/01/1937220/why-we-have-so-much-duh-science. Someone should check, if the money of tax payers were really invested into serious research in this particular case and people responsible punished for it.
If the two galaxies were at roughly the same distance from Earth, they would expect the pair to show signs of interactions between them. However, there was no visual sign of interaction between the two. How could this be possible?
If the two galaxies were at roughly the same distance from Earth, they would expect the pair to show signs of interactions between them. However, there was no visual sign of interaction between the two. How could this be possible?
That's ironic, if they saw evidence of interaction they would just ignore it anyway, just as they have with the findings of Dr. Halton Arp.
that studies of NGC 5011C from the 1980's gave an (erroneously) high redshift to this galaxy, implying it was a member of the Cen Galaxy ClusterYep, this is a miniature example of how so-called "scientific facts" actually work. Will you learn from it for future (Big Bang, cold fusion, aether theory)? I seriously doubt it.
Q, Please give me an explanation for NGC 7603 (Seyfert Galaxy) and the high redshift anomalies that are present within the filament that connects NGC 7603 with it's companion.
I could use help on deciphering what is "good science" and what is not, thanks in advanced.
Q, Please give me an explanation for NGC 7603 (Seyfert Galaxy) and the high redshift anomalies that are present within the filament that connects NGC 7603 with it's companion.
Q, Please give me an explanation for NGC 7603 (Seyfert Galaxy) and the high redshift anomalies that are present within the filament that connects NGC 7603 with it's companion. http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm
The problem I see with this is that "cosmological" redshift is based upon the "expanding universe" hypothesis which seems completely circular in reasoning. Playing devil's advocate, IF Arp is correct that the Universe is not expanding, what role does the "cosmological" redshift have in reality?
.. gravitational apparently doesn't apply here due to distance and mass involved).
The problem I see with this is that "cosmological" redshift is based upon the "expanding universe" hypothesis which seems completely circular in reasoning.
Also, where do these theories discuss the possibility that photons traveling through a plasma can also affect redshift?
Q, Please give me an explanation for NGC 7603 (Seyfert Galaxy) and the high redshift anomalies that are present within the filament that connects NGC 7603 with it's companion.
http://quasars.org/ngc7603.htm -cantdrive85
I'd argue that the present system produces far better science than allowing laypersons like you (or myself) to decide what gets fundedI'm against every form of socialism and planned economy in science, but the science itself is mandatory fees based and as such communistic by its very nature. So we need to capitalize basic research more, not less. That is to say, the orientation to basic research has lead the mainstream science outside of the basic needs of the human society, which has to pay it somehow. Now I'm talking mainly about ignorance of cold fusion research, which keeps the economical state of human society low and it brings the risk of global geopolitical crisis, leading into nuclear WWW III. The finding of Higgs boson is nice, but it will not feed us, the scientists the less. And it will not replace the oil and save life environment. The scientists will be first, who will suffer with their own ignorance.
strawman
The problem I see with this is that "cosmological" redshift is based upon the "expanding universe" hypothesis which seems completely circular in reasoning.
...
The distance ladder (based on standard candles and such) is still based upon assumption and theory, hence more circular reasoning.
Stellar parallax is only applicable to stars 1,600 light years and less, being that the Milky Way is 120,000 light years across, parallax offers a VERY limited observational technique of determining distance. Beyond that there are a great deal of assumptions and correlations that must be accurate, even Wiki discusses these possible short comings.
Stellar parallax is only applicable to stars 1,600 light years and less, being that the Milky Way is 120,000 light years across, parallax offers a VERY limited observational technique of determining distance. Beyond that there are a great deal of assumptions and correlations that must be accurate, even Wiki discusses these possible short comings.
http://en.wikiped...e_ladder
btb101
Dec 31, 2012This is one piece of NASA that should not be allowed to fall back to earth in a fiery death. she should be kept on. NASA should make it a priority to keep her flying. Images such as these and the information being provided should be continued for many more decades to come.