Talk:Intrinsic redshift

message: The article would be good if it were completed by a comparison of the proposed redshift mechanisms; the author should indicate, for each proposal, by yes or no (table ?), which of the following conditions for a Doppler-like effec tby a light-matter interaction, are fulfilled:
-1 Space coherence to avoid a blurring of the images
-2 An incident wave must be transformed into a single emerging wave to avoid a blurring of the spectra; if the infinitesimal process is a scattering, the incident and scattered waves must interfere into a single wave having the same linewidth.
-3 The relative frequency shift must be, at least approximately, constant. The lack of constance of the observed relative frequency shifts is usually considered as due to a variation of the fine structure constant.
-4 Is it a pure consequence of well known physics, in particular spectroscopy and thermodynamics ?
-5 Is the effect non-Doppler ? The theory must fail if it is applied to a continuous wave, therefore it must contain a parameter measuring the time-incoherence of the light.
JMO 07:55, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the rationale for including this criteria. While they aren't in principle problematic, we already discuss them well on the redshift article. --ScienceApologist 23:03, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need of a comparison of the proposed mechanisms 

message: However, Arp has proposed that the quasars he has hypothesized are ejected from AGN will evolve into normal galaxies over time. So the discovery of host galaxies around QSO's does not necessarily rule out his empirical model.
:What is this supposed to mean? Are the quasars supposed to evolve into galaxies (with intermediate forms), or is a galaxy supposed to evolve around them, or is the intrinsic redshift of the quasars supposed to disappear over time? 
::In Arp's model the quasar evolves into a normal galaxy, there would be intermediate forms, and the intrinsic redshift is expected to disappear over time (as the object ages or evolves). --DavidRussell 20:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So does that mean that Arp has a different explanation for the quasar redshift distribution peak? Does he believe that the lowest redshift quasars are representative of the oldest? --ScienceApologist 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he would say that a lower z quasar is older than a higher z quasar.  --DavidRussell 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So the highest redshift quasars are recently ejected from radio galaxies even though they are not near radio galaxies? --ScienceApologist 23:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   I'm not playing your games Joshua.  On the one hand we're discussing the fact that there might be two classes of quasars and the Jaakkola paper.  On the other you want to pretend that option doesn't exist. Obviously the observations make it extremely unlikely that Arp is correct that all quasars are local.  That I understand and that is readily established in the various comments I've made in our exchange.  Take it up with Arp himself if you're concerned about his view. Now to get back to the point - in Arp's model, ejected quasars that are younger have higher redshifts.  That applies even if there are two classes of quasars - ejected local and non-ejected cosmological. --DavidRussell 00:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Whatever, doesn't the fact that the quasar redshift equals the normal matter redshift indicate that there is no intrinsic component to the quasar redshift? --Art Carlson 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No - the entire galaxy surrounding the quasar has the same intrinsic redshift as the quasar in his model.  With the emphasis on quasars in this issue most people don't realize that expects that galaxies have intrinsic redshifts too.  --DavidRussell 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an amazing mechanism that Arp proposes. How far does this intrinsic redshift extend? Would it extend to the haloes of such galaxies formed? --ScienceApologist 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:   In his variable mass hypothesis (with Narlikar) the answer is yes.  If somebody proposed another mechanism you might get a different answer.  Of course the viability of the proposed mechanisms has little to do with the viability of the model from the standpoint of logical argument.  If in 10 years proper motions were detected and established in the quasars near M-82, then we would not say that the observations must be wrong because we lack a "proven" theory to explain it ... we would look for a theory to explain the observations.  --DavidRussell 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sure, but how can you establish an true association of nearby objects without either a dead-on correspondence (like host galaxies) or a statistical argument (which requires many examples)? --Art Carlson 19:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Proper motions is one test.  If quasars are local and ejected from nearby galaxies, then proper motions should be detectable.   The QSO's Arp has proposed are ejected from M-82 provide one of the best examples for such a test because M-82 is very close and thus the proper motions would be larger than expected for other cases.  --DavidRussell 20:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would the proper motion samples of SDSS versus the Palomar survey that show quasars as having the smallest proper motions then be enough to disprove Arp? --ScienceApologist 22:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way, M82 was observed by SDSS and Palomar, but obviously a 50-year spread is not enough to observe proper motions for either M82 or the quasars. I'm not sure what exactly you are proposing: are you telling us we have to wait a few thousand years for when the motions become larger than the PSF to determing that M82 is rotating and the background QSOs are still? What kind of test do you propose? --ScienceApologist 22:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You're forgetting that the quasars are proposed to have been ejected at high velocity ~10,000 - 30,000 km s-1.   A reasonable test has been proposed and it doesn't require thousands of years http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309511   --DavidRussell 23:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, so does the fact that no QSOs were found with proper motions like that from SDSS qualify as a falsification in your book? --ScienceApologist 23:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Here is the catalog: . You may have to SIMBAD the objects you are interested in, but they are all studied. --ScienceApologist 23:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The paper is not of interest, rather it is the dataset that you should be interested in. Actually, you are incorrect for your claim that proper motions are determined by quasars. While quasars are used to calibrate astrometry initially, there are independent checks to the astrometry that determine them to be immobile. Actually there is a distribution of observed "proper motion" for quasars just as any other object (they aren't assumed to be zero in the dataset). It isn't difficult to determine if there is a zero-proper motion for the QSOs around M82. You are the one claiming that the quasars around M82 are good, so you tell me whether you should see proper motion for them over 50 years. So just enter in the objects into the system and you'll see their proper motions are negligible. --ScienceApologist 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Understanding Arp 

message: This is fair warning to those who would oppose ScienceApologist. He considers himself to be the final authority on everything pertaining to cosmology.
This is how he believes:
::"If you read the opening sentence it clearly states that the "Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe". No other idea from inside or outside the scientific establishment that has been put forward does that. The now discredited steady state model doesn't do it, and neither do the protestations of Halton Arp, et al. or the plasma cosmology folks. "
::Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Big_Bang/Archive3
Interesting, but not surprising, quantized redshift is not covered in this intrinsic redshift entry. But that is how Joushua operates - he removes key evidence, then argues about irrelevant details. 
a google search shows
quantized redshift refuted 242
quantized redshift confirmed 15,000
Tommy Mandel 02:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ScienceApologist is final authority on everything cosmological 

message: This article survived an Articles for Deletion debate. The discussion can be found here. -Splashtalk 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Articles for Deletion debate

message: I've added two related redshift topics to the See also section, to help readers navigate between them. Checking the Wiki topics on tired light, redshift quantization and intrinsic redshifts shows that they all concern interpretations of redshift --Iantresman 09:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the related redshift topics except for redshift quantization. There is no citation showing that tired light and the Wolf Effect are any way related to intrinsic redshift and there is no context provided in the article to indicate as such. --ScienceApologist 09:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also, related redshift topics

message: :Image:Seeing-red.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Seeing-red.jpg