[ExI] discordant red shifts

[Pat Fallon]

Hi Spike,

Thank you for the reply...

> This topic fits perfectly with our recent discussion on how observation
> seems to suggest something really weird is going on, but we can't accept it
> because we have no theoretical basis for explanation.
>...
> Conclusion: we cannot explain how a star can be massively red shifted, so we
> are stuck with having to say that Arp's data is indeed intriguing but his
> theory must be wrong.  That's pretty much where I am now.  I have read his
> suggested explanations, and don't believe them.  The day someone somewhere
> can figure out how a star can be massively red shifted without receding
> velocity is the day I send Halton Arp my sincerest and most heartfelt letter
> of congratulations and apology for my own egregious skepticism.


But one could use the same logic and ask that if quasars are indeed at
the cosmological distances suggested by interpreting their red shift
as recessional velocity, what would explain the prodigious energy
output that allow them to be seen at that distance?

The most luminous quasars radiate at a rate that can exceed the output
of average galaxies, equivalent to one trillion suns. This radiation
is emitted across the spectrum, almost equally, from X-rays to the
far-infrared with a peak in the ultraviolet-optical bands, with some
quasars also being strong sources of radio emission and of gamma-rays.
Some quasars display changes in luminosity which are rapid in the
optical range and even more rapid in the X-rays. This implies that
they are small (Solar System sized or less) because an object cannot
change faster than the time it takes light to travel from one end to
the other.

No larger than our solar system with the energy output accross the
whole spectra equal to a trillion suns.

I find it easier to accept some of the explanations proposed for how
light from a star could be massively red shifted, than the proposed
mechanisms for quasar energy production.

I agree completely that paradigms are usually not overthrown save by
new ones. However, I also think that the hallmark of a failed theory
is ad-hoc adjustments to fit new, paradoxical observations. I have the
sinking suspicion that the last 50 years or so of the Big Bang will
prove to be a collosal swerve off the road to understanding our
universe...I keep waiting for the news flash on the nightly news where
they interview some astrophysicist who sheepishly says, "boy, we were
WAYYYYY off."

Pat