1. Where do elements past iron on the periodic table come from?
Why have mainstream scientists completely ignored Peratt's work, David? You provide a reasonable answer to that question and I might be willing to discuss your question ... not that answers weren't already available on some of the sources I've linked during these discussions.
2. There is evidence from alpha-lyman lines which might indicate that QSOs are at a greater distance than suggested by Arp.
The mainstream just INTERPRETS alpha-lyman lines as meaning quasars are at great distance. But their cause is not at all certain.
Do you know that mainstream astrophysicists are having trouble coming up with enough neutral IGM hydrogen to explain them using their theory?
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm "Even a small amount of diffuse neutral hydrogen would produce a smooth absorbing trough shortward of a QSO’s Lyman-alpha emission line. This is called the Gunn-Peterson effect, and is rarely seen, implying that most hydrogen in the universe has been re-ionized. A hydrogen Gunn-Peterson trough is now predicted to be present at a redshift z » 6.1. Observations of high-redshift quasars near z = 6 briefly appeared to confirm this prediction. However, a galaxy lensed by a foreground cluster has now been observed at z = 6.56, prior to the supposed reionization epoch and at a time when the Big Bang expects no galaxies to be visible yet. Moreover, if only a few galaxies had turned on by this early point, their emission would have been absorbed by the surrounding hydrogen gas, making these early galaxies invisible. So the lensed galaxy observation falsifies this prediction and the theory it was based on. Another problem example: Quasar PG 0052+251 is at the core of a normal spiral galaxy. The host galaxy appears undisturbed by the quasar radiation, which, in the Big Bang, is supposed to be strong enough to ionize the intergalactic medium." And there are other problems. The number of absorption line systems does not monotonically increase with redshift. Low-z quasars such as 3C 273 (z = 0.16) have as many absorption lines as high-z quasars. The mainstream claims that means neutral hydrogen clouds doing the absorbing are not uniformly spread through space, and are more abundant at closer distances (recent times). There are problems with that interpretation, however, compared to other observations, like those mentioned above.
Some alternative cosmologists would say that the absorption systems are due to layering in the quasar and its surrounding nebula and that no linear or monotonic relationship with redshift is to be expected.
http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/top-30-problems-big-bang-theory.htm "The absorption lines of damped Lyman-alpha systems are seen in quasars. However, the HST NICMOS spectrograph has searched to see these objects directly in the infrared, but failed for the most part to detect them. Moreover, the relative abundances have surprising uniformity, unexplained in the Big Bang. The simplest explanation is that the absorbers are in the quasar’s own environment, not at their redshift distance as the Big Bang requires."
And finally, there is lots of ongoing activity to explain the observations by still other alternative means ... some apparently quite successful.
For example, consider these descriptions from a 2004 APS conference:
http://www.flux.aps.org/meetings/YR04/APR04/baps/abs/S3530.html
"The Key to the Computation of the Spectra of the Quasars and Cosmic Acceleration, Jacques Moret-Bailly, Jerry Jensen, Francoise Michelot (Universite de bourgogne, Physique, Dijon France), The "Coherent Raman Effect on Incoherent Light" (CREIL), shifts the frequencies of normally incoherent light without blurring of the images or loss of order in the spectra, so that it may be confused with Doppler effects. CREIL operates in gases having quadrupolar resonances in the megahertz range. When CREIL is taken into account, the propagation of light in cosmic low pressure gases involves both absorptions and emissions in an intricate combination of frequency shifts. The propagation of light in the extended photosphere of extremely hot objects is very complex. This is because CREIL requires a Lyman excitation in atomic hydrogen to achieve hyperfine resonances in the first excited levels. A bistability emerges which chains Lyman absorptions into line patterns which coincide at discrete redshifts. Current theory predicts very bright accreting neutron stars. These should be small, very hot objects surrounded by dirty atomic hydrogen. Their spectra have exactly the characteristics of the spectra of quasars. The intrinsic redshifting of Quasars as defined by CREIL events, drastically reduces both the size and distance to quasars, and clearly identifies quasars as the missing neutron stars. A full interpretation of quasar spectra does not require jets, dark matter, variation of the fine structure constants, or a strange synthesis of iron. CREIL or CREIL-like processes may also be useful in explaining other astrophysical problems, such as redshifting proportional to the path through the corona of the Sun, and the blueshifting of radio signals from Pioneer 10 and 11." ... "The redshifted repartitioning of the spectral lines observed in the spectra of the quasars is generally considered as stochastic. However, several authors have argued a periodic redshift pattern emerges that the is an integer function of the basic redshift and z_b = 0.062. This function results from a Coherent Raman Effect in Incoherent Light (CREIL) during the propagation of quasar light in an extended halo of atomic, neutral hydrogen. CREIL computations correctly interpret quasar Lyman features without unphysical clouds or ionic winds; and does not require new spectroscopic or astrophysical parameters. The non-linearity of the combination of Lyman absorptions and coherent Raman effect explains both the observed positions of the spectral lines, their shape and their high contrast."
"Large Quasar Redshifts due to Non-Doppler, Non-Expansion Mechanism, C. F. Gallo (Superconix Inc), Quasars appear associated with gassy environments, particularly galaxies that usually exhibit smaller redshifts. The usual interpretation is that the Quasar is distant while the intervening galaxy is closer. Quasars also exhibit complex spectra, particularly the “Lyman alpha forest” of lines, again with smaller redshifts, again ascribed to closer intervening hydrogen clouds. Since the number of such absorption features increases with Z of the Quasar, this is a self-consistent picture, but not independently proven. An equally self-consistent interpretation is that the intervening gassy material PARTIALLY CAUSES the Large Quasar Redshifts via a Non-Doppler (or Non-Space Expansion) Redshift mechanism such as Raman, CREIL, Compton, Plasma or Wolf effects. This is in addition to the overall Hubble Redshift, but puts Quasars at closer distances than standard models. These Conclusions are supported by several decades of published astronomical observations which suggest that High-Z-Quasars are in close proximity to their associated Low-Z-Galaxies. Comparing Neutrino Redshifts to Photon Redshifts would yield conclusive evidence for resolving the competing models."
3. You continue to state that QSOs are 'proven','proved' to be associated with Arp catalogue objects. You have yet to address optical alitgnment and statistical issues in those conclusion.
You claim I've failed to "address optical alitgnment and statistical issues in those
(sic) conclusion." ROTFLOL! David, you clearly didn't read what I posted ... again. My assertion that QSO's are associated with nearby objects in fact consists primarily of optical alignment and statistical reasons.
4. There is some confusion in your presentation of the electric sun model
I never claimed the EU theorists have a final definite model, David. I told you that a miniscule amount of research has gone into this theory compared to the Big Bang theory. But provided there is a mechanism to attract electrical energy from interstellar space to the sun, it would explain all of the observations that are still baffling mainstream theorists ... even with their zoo of magic gnomes. Many parameters are still unknown so your asking for a definitive answer at this point is disingenuous. They are unknown in part because NASA has been so focused on dark matter and the other gnomes they've not bothered to investigate anything more mundane ... anything that is contrary to those other gnomes. Heck, they won't even respond to something as clear cut as Peratt's model for galaxy rotation. So what do you expect, David?
There are about 10 others that have been asked of you at other times but you will not answer as well.
I'm perfectly content to let readers of our exchanges read them and decide for themselves who is ignoring the others questions. I don't claim to be an expert but I do think if the mainstream wishes to dismiss peer-reviewed theories published in mainstream journals they should do so formally in peer reviewed articles. Not send you out to do it for them like this.
If the galaxy has stars rotating as discussed by Peratt(which you knew so well you kept mis-spelling his name)
Come on David ... provide a peer reviewed article challenging Peratt's work. Can you do it or not? Can you provide ANY publish article, paper, or statement to the media by ANY mainstream astrophysicist that specifically mentions Peratt's work and states specifically why it is wrong? No? Why must we take your word for anything in this matter, David? Is science now to be conducted on internet forums like this where posers like you get to make the decisions instead of via peer reviewed work published in scientific journals?
