Crisis in Cosmology (Part 2)


The “Standard Model” cosmology was moving with eyes wide shut to conflicting observations related to its “Big Bang” Theory (BBT). What sort of “science” was this!? Hypothetical band-aids kept being hastily attached to the feeble body of “Big Bang.” The theory had become more important than reality! (Background: Crisis in Cosmology (Part 1), Ersjdamoo’s Blog entry of December 21, 2013.)

There is something called the “Einstein Cross” (image above, hopefully). The Einstein Cross (a.k.a. Q2237+030 or QSO 2237+0305) is a galaxy that has an amazing four satellite quasars surrounding it “like Beefeaters guarding the Tower of London.” [1]

(“Quasar” means “quasi-stellar radio source.” There is a “consensus” definition, but the “consensus” is part of the crisis in cosmology.)

Halton “Chip” Arp is an American astronomer and author of the classic “Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies.” He is not part of the “Big Bang” Theory consensus but is a critic of BBT. [2] Halton Arp closely examined a picture of the Einstein Cross and noticed a “luminous connection” between one of the satellite quasars of the galaxy. Arp showed the picture to Phil Crane, a member of NASA’s instrument definition team for space telescope imaging. Crane, with access to sophisticated equipment, determined that all four of the satellite quasars were physically joined to the parent galaxy by “matter bridges.” [1]

What this seemed to mean was that the Einstein Cross was not due to “gravitational lensing.” The consensus science had been saying a gravitational lens caused an optical illusion; that really there was only one quasar which was directly behind the galaxy, and that the light from that quasar was being bended by the galaxy gravity as it travelled toward the Earth. [3] [4]

Above you can hopefully see a photo image of one Howard Yee. This Howard Yee, of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Toronto, may or may not be the same Howard Yee mentioned by author Hilton Ratcliffe in his book, The Static Universe. Yee was “quietly unconvinced” that gravitational lensing was the reason behind the Einstein Cross. Yee reportedly “uncovered the hard physical evidence for bridging.” If there indeed was a “matter bridge” connecting the satellite quasars to the parent galaxy, then the Einstein Cross was not an optical illusion. Yee reportedly confided to Halton Arp,

We put the slit of the spectrograph between quasars A and B in the Einstein Cross… Between them we found a narrow Lyman alpha line – it looks like there is low density gas… between them. [1]

Here was science in action! The next step would be to publish the findings of Arp and Crane in a respectable scientific journal. Huge controversy was sure to erupt, due to the “z” number calculations.

(The “z” is part of a formula where the “local z” equals zero. Z is a ratio between recessional velocity and the speed of light (z = v/c). As you go further out into space, the z number increases. Allegedly, the higher the redshift, the further away is the object and therefore its recessional velocity is higher.)

The “optical illusion quasar” would be further out in space than it seemed. But if the gravitational lensing explanation was wrong for the Einstein Cross, then how else do you explain the “z” numbers? The satellite quasars were at z = 1.70. The parent galaxy was at z = 0.04. Big Bang Theory (BBT) seemed to be in trouble! How could you have redshift z numbers so different, all in one region, the Einstein Cross?

Halton Arp and Phil Crane wrote down their findings about the matter bridge connecting the satellite quasars to the parent galaxy. They submitted their report to a respected astrophysical journal. A “referee” would decide whether Arp’s and Crane’s report would be published.

But here comes a chilling twist to the “science in action” story. The referee had just published his own paper which supported gravitational lensing in the Einstein Cross! So this referee was not neutral in the controversy. It would be like having a referee who owned one of the  football teams making calls during a game. The referee for the Arp/Crane report rejected it for publication.

Arp appealed the decision. The report was sent to a second referee who, reportedly, had an even greater bias than the first referee. The second referee favored theory over observation. “Well,” said the second referee, “this matter bridge must be wrong, because it disagrees with the Big Bang Theory.” He too rejected the Arp/Crane report. [1]

——- Sources ——-
[1] The Static Universe, by Hilton Ratcliffe. Montreal: Apeiron, 2010.


About ersjdamoo

Editor of Conspiracy Nation, later renamed Melchizedek Communique. Close associate of the late Sherman H. Skolnick. Jack of all trades, master of none. Sagittarius, with Sagittarius rising. I'm not a bum, I'm a philosopher.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Crisis in Cosmology (Part 2)

  1. Pingback: Crisis in Cosmology (Part 3) | Ersjdamoo's Blog

  2. Pingback: Crisis in Cosmology (Part 6) | Ersjdamoo's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s