From: metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)
Subject: Re: Standard model of QSOs
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:00:01 GMT


clements@vax.oxford.ac.uk (Dave Clements) writes:

> Sorry Tom, but there *does* exist a redshift-brightness relation for radio
> galaxies all the way from essentially 0 redshift right up to the most
> distant galaxies known at z = 3.8. This is the K magnitude z relation; K is
> an infrared band at about 2.2 microns. You could see this in eg. Lilly 89
> Ap. J and many other places.

     Most radio galaxies are among the objects whose redshift interpretation
is disputed.  In other words, that redshift is not obviously cosmological. So
in this discussion, invoking radio galaxies is a circular argument.  The
cases which are clear, undisputed examples of cosmological redshifts are
normal galaxies out to about z = 1.1.

> One would not necessarily expect QSOs to follow such a diagram if the
> processes responsible for their emission change on a timescale smaller than
> the look back time to the appropriate redshift. Indications from the
> stamndard model are that QSO phenomena last a short time explaining the
> scatter in all plots of QSO properties vs. redshift etc.

     And under the local hypothesis, these redshifts are also not expected to
show strong correlations with most quasar properties for even more obvious
reasons.

> Just as an aside, in the meta model, the 'qso's are powered by stars, and
> the redshifts come from gavity. Thus, since a star's power output is
> determined by its mass, and the redshift is determined by its mass, there
> should be a good brightness-redshift relation for your meta QSOs. We don't,
> as you rightly say, see such a relationship. But, this is a win for the
> standard model, not the meta model, as explained above.

     In the meta model, as mass gets larger, so does redshift; but also, so
does opacity.  Highly redshifted quasars would emit less light than less
redshifted ones both because of this opacity, and because they are cooler. If
you have by now acquired a sense of why quasars are predicted in the meta
model, you will see that this result is required, not asserted ad hoc.

> [On another topic] I was specifically refering to the correlation of X-ray
> cluster emission and the SZ effect shape in contrast to the optical light
> distribution in A665. The X-ray emission (perfectly standard in a galaxy
> cluster) is offset from the optical centre and the SZ profile is offset by
> exactly the same amount, exactly as you'd expect if the microwave decrement
> was from the SZ effect. ie. the CNBR is emitted behind the z = 0.3 cluster.

     I didn't catch the part about the spatial correlation of the SZ profile
and the cluster X-ray emission.  Which reference was that again?  Of course
this still fits well with Lerner's ideas about the CMR.  What it would set
limits on is my assertion that we have no experimental evidence to show that
the CMR is farther away than about 100 parsecs, perhaps generated by the last
local supernova explosion.  -|Tom|-

-- 
Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.