Quasar Group Undermines Big Bang Theory

Science Daily says:

Dr Clowes said: “While it is difficult to fathom the scale of this LQG, we can say quite definitely it is the largest structure ever seen in the entire universe. This is hugely exciting — not least because it runs counter to our current understanding of the scale of the universe.

“runs counter to our current understanding” is slang for it undermines the big bang theory.

According to astronomers a recently discovered group of quasars exceeds in size anything previously believed possible, requiring a fundamental revision of cosmological theory. But perhaps the real mystery is how the scientific media failed to acknowledge that discoveries of this sort were predicted by one of the 20th century’s leading astronomers, Halton Arp. Many years ago, Arp observed that astronomers were misinterpreting quasar redshift, placing these objects at the boundaries of observable space. Quasars, he said, are much closer than assumed and nothing like the size required by the standard interpretation of redshift.

Here’s a video I did on quasars a while back.  I explain what quasars are and Halton Arp’s theories about them.

Wal Thornhill discusses the evidence for the electric sun model that I talk about in my video:

  • Sophistros

    “runs counter to our current understanding” is slang for it undermines the big bang theory.

    No it isn’t. Your statement is a gross oversimplification of what was a deliberately nuanced statement by somebody who knows much more about this field than you do. The new discovery offers a potential (and that word matters) challenge to the Cosmological Principle. Potential, because there is a lot more data that we don’t have that would need to be present for us to have a complete understanding of this object and therefore to know whether the Cosmological Principle was under threat. And even if this data were forthcoming, the Cosmological Principle is not Big Bang Theory. It is not impossible that the Cosmological Principle could be proved incorrect and for Big Bang Theory still to be valid. Many of Arp’s conjectures about redshift were comprehensively debunked as instrumentation became more sophisticated and our measurements more accurate – indeed he has a considerably worse record at predicting the nature of the Universe than Einstein, who had fewer advantages in terms of technological resources.

    • 1. Yes it does.

      2. I know a lot more about this subject than you do, as it pertains to Arp’s work and EU theory. I’ve spent years reading research papers on this subject. I doubt you even know what a double layer is.

      3. Arp’s theories about quasars have not been debunked, and I cite plenty of papers that support his position in my video. Feel free to post papers that support your position. I’m open to reviewing any evidence you have that supports your claims.

      • Sophistros

        What a breathtakingly arrogant reply. You have no idea who you are talking to. Having had more time to browse this site since my original comment I can see there’s no point in further engagement, since you seem to subscribe to a weird combination of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo. The Electric Universe is so wrong it’s not even worth arguing with, a crank theory that falls down at the first hurdle. And as for your attitude to vaccines – well, that belongs somewhere in the tenth century. If you want to carry on along this lonely path, that’s your choice. But you seem to define yourself by disagreeing with the mainstream, which is a dangerous thing to do. You will be wrong most of the time. And you are.

        • It looks like I’m talking to someone who can’t find any papers that refute Arp’s claims, so they resort to name calling.

        • MJ Darling

          I didn’t know I had to sign up to down-vote, so I kept trying and it finally up-voted by mistake! A little pop psychology: “You said, If you want to carry on along this lonely path, that’s your choice. But you seem to define yourself by disagreeing with the mainstream, which is a dangerous thing to do. You will be wrong most of the time. And you are.” This describes exactly how you feel about the knowledge that Michael Suede and Electric Universe people are right…and how you will be treated by mainstream, consensus science when you decide to follow your conscience and come out publicly, and they decide to ostracize you.

  • moroplogo

    Auteur du site ” oviaivo.net “, je voudrai signaler quelques éléments de réflexions .
    Mon fils et moi-même avons déposé une demande de brevet publiée le 17 janvier
    sous le n° WO/2013/008075 , publication PCT- WIPO
    sous le titre :” atoms and molecules for constructions “.

    Y sont décrites (en français ) de nouvelles briques permettant divers montages .
    Le rapport de recherches est favorable, rien n’ y a été opposé pour le moment .
    Grâce à celles-ci, nous avons pu réaliser une fractale remarquable en 3D, qui a pour base des briques ( d’ordre cinq ) rappelant la forme des quasicristaux .

    Cette fractale représenterait l’implantation des quasars éteints et en activité .
    D’ailleurs, plusieurs images de cette requête de brevet , illustrent le site ” OVIAIVO “.
    Les fractales et autres images , sont visibles sur le site : SKETCHFAB sous le nom de ” moroplogo ” (animation possible des figures 3D ).
    Des liens du site conduisent également au brevet et à ces images de fractales .
    Si je parle de tout cela, c’est par rapport au scénario que j’ai avancé .
    L’astrophysicien, David Elbaz, a trouvé un quasar nu (en dehors d’une galaxie ) semblant donner naissance à une galaxie .
    Il pense que ce cas n’est pas isolé , là je partage vivement son idée .
    Personnellement, je crois que ces quasars éteints, inactifs donc invisibles constituent, avec les quasars actifs la trame de ce qui constitue la fractale de l’Univers .
    J’ai lu que ces quasars éteints sont 100, voire 1000 fois plus nombreux que ceux
    en activité et donc visibles .
    Je soumets à nouveau, l’idée que ces quasars éteints ( nus comme le dit Elbaz ) constituent les 26°/°de la matière cachée de l’Univers sous la forme non baryonique !
    Ces quasars éteints se situeraient en dehors de toutes galaxies .
    Il serait préférable d’ attribuer un nouveau nom à ces astres mystérieux dans
    leur phase de repos pour justement les différencier dans leurs deux états .
    La découverte toute récente d’une structure géante de quasars remet en cause les limites de l’Univers et le “big-bang” tel qu’il avait été décrit .
    Ceci veut dire aussi que le scénario que j’ai monté, tient toujours la route :
    Je reste cependant conscient de mon peu de savoir sur ces choses tout en ajoutant que ces idées ( les miennes ) en valent bien d’autres !
    Hélas, je ne peux rien prouver non plus ; je dirai que c’est le 6ème ou 7ème sens
    qui m’inspire .

  • yas

    “it undermines the big bang theory.”

    But it is just fine with “Cloud & rain model” as Universe structure.

  • User870511

    what a joke. I can tell the depth of your understanding of this topic by your need to look at wiki for definitions. I watched only the first video to come to the realization that i just wasted 10 minutes and didn’t feel like wasting anymore. You have a business degree and are an economist…i suggest you stick with economics, and leave the astronomical sciences to people who specialize in that area. National spending on space exploration is less than 1% of the budget, I am pretty sure we can handle that. Your attitude toward mathematicians is unfounded, and contrary to your beliefs, mathematicians are responsible for many ideas, laws, and theories that we use everyday. Your clothes do make you look semi-smart…try wearing a bow-tie next time and people might believe you.

    • Coincidentally, I can tell the depth of your knowledge on this subject by your poor grammar and lack of interest in refuting any of the science I present. The first video covers what quasars are and what redshift is. I don’t even make any arguments in the first video. I simply present the standard theory’s definition of quasars.

      You are an interesting person though. I’ve always wondered why people would bother to take the time out of their day to bash arguments they haven’t even bothered to hear first. Perhaps you could enlighten me as to your thought processes.

      • User870511

        I am a physics major going into astrophysics. Notice I said i didn’t watch anything past the first video. I don’t want to listen to your line of bull through 6 videos. Tell me where in your videos i can find your argument, whatever your argument is, and i will watch that portion of your video. Your whole demeanor and arrogance in the first video is what deterred me. I’ll check this post again soon to see what you come up with.

        • Well, it’s not actually my “line of bull”. I cite research papers for every argument I make, so it’s actually a bunch of other astrophysicists’ “line of bull.”

          The whole series is dedicated to refuting the standard theory of quasars, so watch the whole thing. If you don’t want to watch it, I’m simply going to delete your comments on here since you have provided absolutely nothing of substance so far.

      • User870511

        ok so ive been watching more of your videos and let me tell you, you truly need to stick to economics. Redshifts of 2 objects at the same distance can easily be different depending on brightness. The doppler effect would easily affect redshift. If an extremely bright object emits gamma radiation at 3×10^8 m/s, and travels through dust, debris, etc…the wavelengths of that light will increase and the frequency would drop bringing it down to infrared. Your argument, or moreover disbelief, of dark matter and dark energy is ignorant. There was a time when we could not see atomic particles and now we can, that doesn’t mean they didn’t exist before we could see them. We cannot see dark matter or dark energy but we can see the effects of energy on the outskirts of galaxies. Take a look and you will see that towards the outer edges of galaxies stars and objects move faster than objects in the middle of the galaxy. Tell me, what is causing the increase in speed?

        • User870511

          middle being between the outer edge and the inner center. picture 3 concentric circles around the center of a galaxy, in this example the 2nd ring would be the middle.

        • “If an extremely bright object emits gamma radiation at 3×10^8 m/s, and travels through dust, debris, etc…the wavelengths of that light will increase and the frequency would drop bringing it down to infrared.”

          So you agree with the tired light theory of redshift now? LOL! Bro, you need to do some more research. You’re basically arguing in favor of my position.

          Further, as far as dark matter and dark energy are concerned, The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying, nor has the much more sensitive Xenon 100 experiment. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

          Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data
          Shiga D. ,New Scientist, May 2010


          First Results from the XENON10 Dark Matter Experiment at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory
          Angle J., et al. ,Phys.Rev.Lett.100:021303, 2008


  • Emre Asena

    I for one am open to alternative cosmologies, and I am familiar with the late Arp’s “Seeing Red” book and the gamut of anomalous associations of quazistellar objects with nearby galaxies. But even in the absence of these and other anomalies -and even if they were successfully refuted and dismissed, as many claim they are- in its own terms, the Big bang theory is comprised of just too many arbitrary hypotheses and “epicycles”, but little predictive power. The old medieval Ptolemic system also had arbitrary hypotheses: these were the epicycles themselves. But it at least had some predictive power. I am myself partial to a new cosmology based on variable-G: i.e. the conjecture that gravitational constant G is not a constant under certain conditions, and is responsible for the effects of what we perhaps misinterpret as “dark matter” and “dark energy” from the orbit of stars about a galaxy and from its dark halo. But I am not certain of any of this, of course.

  • Richard Matthews

    It’s interesting to see all of the righteous indignation displayed in the comments on this page, yet nothing to refute it. I am not finding this surprising at all.
    Welcome to the altar of the big bang theory.