Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

There exists a gravitational component to red shift, and the article doesn’t specify whether this was being taken into account.

I don’t know whether the mass of a quasar would be large enough to produce significant redshift in the case cited. Is there any more recent news on this?


19 posted on 10/15/2010 12:39:22 PM PDT by Erasmus (Personal goal: Have a bigger carbon footprint than Tony Robbins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: Erasmus; Fred Nerks
I don't know of any more recent news.....

There was a thread where Fred Nerks had posted a photo ( I think) of this Quasar and it appeared that it was part of a Galaxy that was closer than the Quasar's redshift would indicate....

I was looking for that thread when I saw the one I posted the link to above.

22 posted on 10/15/2010 9:16:00 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

To: Erasmus; Fred Nerks; SunkenCiv; GeronL; PatrickHenry
Found it...on a thread about the Sun....:

Oct 01, 2004 Quasar in Front of Galaxy

***********************************EXCERPT*******************************************

October 3, 2003: the big bang was proved wrong. Again. And here is the proof (image above). The galaxy, NGC 7319, is a Seyfert 2, which means it is a galaxy shrouded with such heavy dust clouds that they obscure most of the bright, active nucleus that defines a normal Seyfert galaxy. This galaxy has a redshift of 0.0225. The tiny white spot is a quasar either silhouetted in front of the opaque gas clouds or embedded in the topmost layers of the dust. The redshift of the quasar is 2.114.

Why does this prove the big bang wrong? One of the two major foundations of the big bang is that redshift is proportional to distance. That means the larger the redshift of an object, the farther away it must be. The other major foundation of the big bang is that all redshift is a measure of velocity. Again, the larger the redshift of an object, the faster it is moving away from us. Combined, these two foundations become the expanding universe, which can be traced backwards to the big bang.

Look at the picture again. By the big bang principles, this quasar must be billions of light years farther from us than the galaxy, because its redshift is so much larger. And yet the galaxy is opaque, so the quasar must be near the surface of the dust clouds or even in front of them.


63 posted on Sun 22 Mar 2009 01:24:24 AM PST by Fred Nerks (fair dinkum!)

23 posted on 10/15/2010 9:28:09 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson