At 08:59 am 30-01-05 -0800, you wrote: >"Iconoclastic" - >Adj. Characterized by attack on the established belief structure or the >institutions which uphold it. > >How can a nearby spiral galaxy contain a quasar whose light spectrum indicates >that it is billions of light years away? > >It cannot if the normal, and almost universally held, assumptions on which our >"mainstream cosmological paradigm" have based for the past 50 years - are >correct. > >But it can and they are not. > >One of many such stories: >http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/01/050111115201.htm > >Some few observers (outside the mainstream) might consider this finding to >make a 'prima facie case' that red-shift is NOT an accurate measure of >distance, and that there is a very strong gravitational component to redshift, >and by inference that *everything*... well, if that is so great an >exaggeration lets say: __almost everything which science now assumes about the >age and dynamics of our universe is incorrect__ that the universe may NOT be >expanding at all, and certainly not in an inflationary manner, and >furthermore, that there is no necessity for a "big bang" at all, from a >re-evaluation of the evidence. > >A sequential succession of "little bangs" fits the evidence better (in size, >each would be the extent of our "Virgo supercluster," for instance, which was >our particular "little bang"). > >Is the preceding analysis (of the "#1 neglected science news story of the past >decade") is the iconoclastic conclusion just the raving hyperbole of a >professional iconoclast? ... perhaps, but if it were not so shocking... >especially to the career status of so-called experts, maybe it would be >considered an understatement, as much more could be made of this finding >(including a "cover-up"), because.... > >We have actually known details about several of these red-shift "anomalies" >for at least 20 years, maybe longer, but they have been consistently pushed >aside by the professional mainstream of cosmology as something akin to >"measurement error" (sound familiar, vortexians?). This is because the >implications of them being accurate are not just "unsettling," they are >absolutely devastating to the majority viewpoint. Now that firm and undeniable >proof is beginning to accumulate, to the stage that it can no longer be >censored and held in abeyance, and it is starting to leak-out around the >seams.... when will the dam break? > >In the meantime, readers of vortex will probably be among the few on the >fringes of science who really appreciate the impact of this coming >"icononclash"... as a similar situation is also ongoing in the alternative >fields which they follow most intently. Note to mention past high level >cover-ups. > >Jones
Interesting - and now for a bit of name dropping - ;^) I remember corresponding with Halton Arp after Clayton and I read his fascinating book on this subject some 20 years or so ago - I seem to remember he was then working in Germany. I even carried out a mathematical analysis on the probability of his "lines of quasars" having a statistically significant alignment. I'm glad to see that his discoveries are finally getting through to the astronomical establishment. About ruddy time, too!!! Grimer
