Long before the quasar problem arose, though, Edwin Hubble himself was moved to suggest that inflation might not have taken place in the “early” Universe. He thought that new observational data was necessary in order to decide whether it was definitive. In 1947, he was waiting for the new 200-inch telescope at Mt. Palomar to be built:
“It seems likely that redshift may not be due to an expanding Universe, and much of the speculations on the structure of the universe may require re-examination… We may predict with confidence that the 200-inch will tell us whether the red-shifts must be accepted as evidence of a rapidly expanding Universe, or attributed to some new principle of nature.” (Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific Vol. 59, No. 349).
Unfortunately, nothing definitive has resulted from astronomers working with the Hale telescope or the many space-borne telescopes that have been launched since then. Instead, redshift and inflation have become something of a dogma among the astronomical community and new, ever more arcane mathematical excursions have been added to the mix, as was discussed in part one.
Halton Arp was the lone voice among a crowd of scientists who conformed to the standard Big Bang model when he began to publish papers that did not demonstrate that inflation—or the Big Bang hypothesis—was valid. As Edwin Hubble predicted, Arp’s research using the 200-inch Hale reflector demonstrated “some new principle of nature.”
One of the more interesting images that substantiates the need for a revised cosmology is NGC 4319 and its companion quasar, Markarian 205. Arp called attention to the fact that the lower redshift galaxy is physically connected to the higher redshift quasar. A filament between the two objects violates the measured distances because no such connection should be possible. After all, NGC 4319 (from redshift calculations) is said to be about 600 million light-years from Earth, while Markarian 205 is around a billion light-years away.
If these objects are physically connected they must reside locally with each other at the same distance from Earth. The discrepancy in their redshifts has to be from some other factor not related to their distances—there must be something intrinsic to their makeup that leads to the deviation.
So the big question remains; “If these objects are physically attached, why are their red-shifts different, if red-shifts are indicative of distances?”
Is the paradigm of how our Universe works wrong?
Shades of the aether.
The mysterious UFO hovering over Arizona Monday has been identified. It isn’t a weather balloon and it doesn’t carry aliens.
The object was actually a massive 4,000-pound research balloon released from a NASA organization used to measure gamma ray emissions in high altitudes, according to Bill Stepp of the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas. The balloon was launched Sunday morning at about 7:30 a.m. from Fort Sumter, N.M., and was grounded at about 9 p.m. Monday just south of Kingman, Ariz.
Stepp said the balloon usually floats at an altitude of 130,000 feet, so on a clear day it can be seen for about 170 miles. He said the balloon has raised concern from Albuquerque to Phoenix.
This just goes to show that not all UFOs are balloons, but some balloons can be UFOs!
This was pretty obvious that this was a balloon though, no ambiguity here.
But this one isn’t quite so unambiguous:
CO, May 13, 2009 – Triangle looking object. bright light on each of the three points.
Just about to get into the car heading to work. I saw a bright light that appeared to be a planet or bright star.
I don’t ever recall seeing a planet in this location so took a quick photo. The sun had not come up yet.
Image: This witness photo was cropped and enlarged in an attempt to show the triangular-shaped object. MUFON photo.
The photo shows a light in the sky but upon zooming in a triangle shaped object can easily be seen.
There is a bright light on each of the three points of the triangle.
At first I did not think it was a UFO and still don’t but it’s very unusual looking.
I did not lose sight of it, I had to go to work and figured I had not photographed anything important until I looked at it later.
In addition I saw another object and photographed it. I have no idea what it is but it appears to be moving.
Photographs over the decades haven’t been considered good enough proof concerning unknown aerial phenomenon.
How is it different than the Arizona balloon photo though? Other than the fact it was obviously a balloon, what makes any other photo of an anomaly “false” if we can’t identify what an object is?