Hubble Scores a Ring
Written by Anne Minard
Credit: NASA, ESA and W. Harris (McMaster University, Ontario, Canada)
The Hubble Space Telescope has captured a new image of NGC 7049, a mysterious looking galaxy that blurs the boundary between spiral and elliptical galaxies.
This picture, taken with a small ground-based camera, shows on its central-left portion the constellation of Indus, in the southern sky. Credit: A. Fujii
NGC 7049 is found in the constellation of Indus, and is the brightest of a cluster of galaxies, a so-called Brightest Cluster Galaxy. They represent some of the oldest and most massive galaxies, and they allow astronomers to study the elusive globular clusters lurking within.
Globular clusters are very dense and compact groupings of a few hundreds of thousands of young stars bound together by gravity. The globular clusters in NGC 7049 are seen as the sprinkling of small faint points of light in the galaxy’s halo. The halo – the ghostly region of diffuse light surrounding the galaxy – comprises myriad individual stars and provides a luminous background to the remarkable swirling ring of dust lanes surrounding NGC 7049's core. The dust lanes appear as a lacy ring.
The image was taken by the Advanced Camera for Surveys on Hubble, which is optimized to hunt for galaxies and galaxy clusters in the remote and ancient Universe, at a time when our cosmos was very young.
The constellation of Indus, or the Indian, is one of the least conspicuous in the southern sky. It was named in the 16th century by Dutch astronomer Petrus Plancius from observations made by Dutch navigator Pieter Dirkszoon Keyser and Dutch explorer Frederick de Houtman.
Source: NASA/ESA Hubble site
Filed under: Astronomy, Hubble, galaxies
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:39 am
It's no mystery if you have any clue who Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp, and Jayant Narlikar are.
Quasars, aka baby galaxies, are born and ejected from the active nuclei of Seyfert galaxies.
The quasars grow into elliptical galaxies and as their intrinsic redshift diminishes, the elliptical galaxies become spiral plasmoids.
Duh.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:00 am
"…as their intrinsic redshift diminishes…"
What the hell does that mean?
April 7th, 2009 at 9:08 am
SimonD.,
Allow Edwin Hubble to teach you what it means:
"…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." — Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1947
"… if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions." — Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1937
April 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am
I wonder what the mass is of this hugh galaxy,otherwise it is awesome
April 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am
Allow Edwin Hubble to teach you:
If…
April 7th, 2009 at 10:36 am
Wolter,
Hubble was wise to use the "if" word because it demonstrates his conservatism and philosophical approach to science and hypothesis.
Hubble didn't megamaniacally believe he was infallible and omniscient like Big Bangers do.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:17 am
NGC 7049 is an interesting object in the southern sky that is not targeted very often. In size it is about 4.3×3.1 arcmin, whose magnitude is fairly bright 11.7B and has high surface brightness. A moderate amateur telescope also sees mostly the small stellar-like core with a even haze that fades out to the galaxy's edges.
A mean radial velocity is about 2300km.s^-1, making the distance 29 Mpc. (megaparsecs). The real scale is about 8.3 kpc (kiloparsecs) per arcmin.
Position RA : 21h 19.0m Dec. -48 deg 34 (2000)
Again a nice image from Hubble. Thanks for posting it.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:30 am
Salacious,
"A mean radial velocity is about 2300km.s^-1"
How did you calculate that?
April 7th, 2009 at 11:42 am
star grazer said:
"I wonder what the mass is of this hugh galaxy,otherwise it is awesome."
This must be a fairly large and massive galaxy, being considered among the biggest and most luminous in the group of about 280-odd galaxies.
According to Machetto, F. "A Survey of the ISM in early-type galaxies"; A&A Sup.Ser., 120, 463 (1996) http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996A%26AS..120..463M , the total mass is about 2.3×10^11 Solar Masses (230 billion solar masses.) Compared to our own Milky Way galaxy, whose mass is 5.8×10^11 Solar Masses – so NGC 7049 must be about half the mass of our own galaxy.
Future investigations may find NGC 7049 might be a little larger than this.
Good question though. (Pity the Hubble Press release is so merger on the details.)
Cheers.
April 7th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Salacious B. Crumb Says
Thank you for the info-when I was in Austrailia in early 2007, partly to tour and partly for an astronomy tour,, I viewed this object and was interesting-this picture is awesome.!!!
April 7th, 2009 at 11:56 am
Salacious B. Crumb Says
You're thinking about NGC may be a little larger mass IMHO holds true.
I thank you for the link and the info.
Take care
April 7th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
This galaxy is being purposely taken apart and restructured to better suit the needs of its residents.
We are watching a Kardashev Type 3 civilization in action.
April 7th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
It is my understanding that ring galaxies occur in the aftermath of a collision of a small galaxies proximal to the center of a spiral galaxy. The spiral arms get "splashed" into a ring, similar to a water wave. I might be wrong about this, so I will stand corrected if need be.
OilsMastery's comments are rubbish.
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 7th, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Wow – very impressive structure in the dust ring. Hubble never fails to disappoint.
"SimonD Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 9:00 am
“…as their intrinsic redshift diminishes…”
What the hell does that mean?"
It means nothing SimonD. Hamilton Arp came up with it. He had a theory that quasars were ejected from radio galaxies, based on what he came to believe were close spatial associations between these two types of objects in the sky. Since these types of objects never share a similar redshift, he was forced to conjecture that quasars somehow possess an 'intrinsic' redshift, whatever the hell that means – no viable mechanism to create this intrinsic redshift (that has borne out under scrutiny) has been proposed to this date.
Hamilton's ideas were valid if unlikely at the time – quasars were mysterious; not too much was known about them and not too many were known of full stop. Since that time, many many quasars have been found, with any supposed spatial association with radio galaxies well and truly demolished – quasars are essentially randomly distributed across the sky with no apparent correlation between their positions and that of radio galaxies.
If you want to know more, I'd point you to The Source of All Knowledge – Wikipedia. Look up redshift, intrinsic redshift, Quasar, Hamilton Arp, etc. There's a wealth of good info out there on it all.
April 7th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
@ SimonD:
What Astrofiend really means is that Halton Arp's hypothesis of 'intrinsic redshift' contradicts the so-called "big bang" hypothesis. And, so his hypothesis had to be discredited or the "big bang" was dead.
Halton Arp was a rising star among astronomers until his independent conclusions upset the astrological apple cart.
Arp dared to voice his conclusion based on hundreds of hours of observation time and research.
The astronomy "town" wasn't big enough for both of them. It came down to either the "big bang" or Halton Arp's 'intrinsic redshift' leaving town.
Arp's hypothesis lost and Arp was stripped of his telescope time in the United States, at which point Arp elected to go to Germany to continue his telescope observations at the Max Planck Institute.
@ Lawrence B. Crowell:
“…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.” — Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1947
“… if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picture is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions.” — Edwin P. Hubble, astronomer, 1937
Crowell, are Edwin P. Hubble's comments rubbish?
Are Halton Arp's observations and conclusions simply rubbish?
Crowell, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but after some discussion it was clear you are a pure mathematician that has little handle on the actual observations & measurements.
Pure mathematicians are a death knell for advancement in astronomy.
April 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Hubbles 1947 (62 years ago) doubts have largely been laid to rest. Sorry, nobody who is at all serious in the astronomy-astrophysics community take Arp seriously these days. Hoyle's cosmology ideas are dead as well.
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 7th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Is there a location to find out when Hubble photo were acquired? Would like to find out when this (and other) photos were actually taken.
April 7th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
Lawrence B. Cowell,
That's because mainstream scientists are mentally retarded. And that's their good point.
Hoyle and Arp will forever be remembered as geniuses and pioneers. What the hell have you done lately?
April 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
@ Lawrence B. Crowell:
Actually, just like newspapers are having a tough time, partly because of the internet, so too is "modern" astronomy having a hard time because people who aren't brainwashed in post-graduate astronomy school are looking at the evidence and saying: "What's going on, here, there is no evidence for all these exotics "modern" astronomy has postulated.
Gone are the days, when only astronomers and their acolytes, admitted into graduate school with the implicit understanding that failure to drink the academic "Kool-Aid" was failure to be admitted into the "modern" astronomy "community".
Notice Crowell didn't offer one reason for not accepting Halton Arp's evidence and conclusions.
How can he? After all, the real reason is simple: Arp's conclusions contradicted the "big bang".
Tell the admissions committee that you reject the so-called "big bang" hypothesis and you don't get admitted to astronomy post-graduate school.
It's that simple and that sick.
April 7th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Anaconda: "… and you don’t get admitted to astronomy post-graduate school."
Have you been there? Were you not admitted? You sound so bitter.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:02 pm
As children we must accept what we are told.
As adults we begin to question what we have learned.
As scientists we must produce replicable data.
As humans we stare in wonder at the stars above.. and always will.
April 7th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
@ ND:
I'm interested in science advancing. Right now with the "big bang, black hole"hypothesis, it's like a dog chasing its tail; there is no scientific progress.
I don't like it when a potentially vibrant branch of scientific knowledge is stuck on stupid.
ND, you sound like you're okay with admission committees barring people who don't submit to the party-line.
Are you okay with admission committees declining applications because someone doesn't subscribe to the party-line?
April 7th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
Hubble, like every good scientist before and since, made observations and formulated theories to explain them.
But the moment you choose to ignore new evidence that breaks your theory, or blindly keep following an idea just because someone long ago said something that is known to be wrong today, you stop being a scientist and become a priest.
If you are truly blinded by Hubble, then you must believe that the Andromeda Galaxy is only 750,000 light-years away … NOT.
Why would you believe Hubble's interpretation of galaxy evolution?
He only had hundreds of galaxies to study, photographed on grainy glass photographic plates on manually guided telescopes that are small by today's standards. Today we have many millions of galaxies to study, and computers that can model the gravitational interactions of billions of stars in colliding galaxies.
And if you really do still pray at the alter of Hubble, you must be in total denial of the Cosmic Microwave Background., which wasn't discovered until 11 years after Hubbles death.
The big bang theory dominates because current evidence supports it best.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Ken,
The Big Bang hypothesis predicted a 50 degree Kelvin temperature for the CMB radiation thus falsifying the Big Bang hypothesis.
"When you read the text books, they don't tell the whole story. They don't present these figures: five, greater than five, seven, fifty, and then that they did find three. So that's very strange how the textbooks they hide a part of history." — Andre Koch Assiz, plasma physicist, 2000
"Actually the 3 degree radiation, to me, has not a cosmological view. It is observed in any cosmology. In any cosmology you can predict the 3 degree radiation. So it's a proof of no cosmology at all if it can be predicted by all of them." — Jean-Claude Pecker, astronomer, 2000
"There's no explanation at all of the cosmic microwave background in the Big Bang Theory. All you can say for the theory is that it permits you to put it in if you want to put it in. So you look and it's there so you put it in. That's it; it isn't an explanation." — Fred Hoyle, cosmologist, 2000
Furthermore, radio astronomer Gerrit Verschuur says WMAP is hydrogen in our own galaxy: http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2007/11/big_bang
So yes, I guess you could say we're in total denial.
And I agree that pre-Space Age hypotheses such as gravitation, relativity, the so-called "Hubble Law," and the Big Bang are outmoded and falsified and should be discarded.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:11 am
"The Big Bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion." — Eric J. Lerner, physicist, 1991
April 8th, 2009 at 12:22 am
EU theory predicts my compass should point towards the sun, but my compass points towards the earths magnetic north pole. Wich way does your compass point ?
April 8th, 2009 at 1:49 am
Just because the number depends critically on the age. In the 50ies (when the first calculations on the CMB were done) the number at hand was 5 billion years. But as we all know, the universe is approximately 13 billion years old. I guess, this is a likely explanation.
Gee, I wonder. How can the Milky Way (that is a disk, as one can clearly see in a clear night!) account for a isotropical radiation that looks the same in all directions? It sounds fairly impossible to me.
Question: What is "intrinsic redshift"? I don't want to hear that Arp invented it, I want to know what it means physically!
April 8th, 2009 at 1:58 am
Note to add:
And: If it is really hydrogen, then it has to be neutral hydrogen. Explain me: How can neutral hydrogen be kept in a galaxy, since it does not interact with electromagnetic fields? And why does the neutral hydrogen (that we see in the disk!) go around the galaxy just like the stars, with the same velocity and is not flying away (that it should do, because EM cannot hold it!)?
And btw: We used neutral hydrogen to measure the rotational curves of distant galaxies independently of the stars. Guess what: It is the same! That's strange, since it does not interact with the currents and forces that are supposed to keep the stars on track……..
April 8th, 2009 at 2:12 am
Excalibur,
If you left the Earth's magnetosphere and were close enough to the sun perhaps your compass would indeed point towards the sun. That's not merely an EU prediction but nice attempt at a straw man fallacy.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:23 am
Dr. Flimmer,
"But as we all know, the universe is approximately 13 billion years old."
Anyone who thinks they know the age of the universe has megalomaniacal delusions of divinity and omniscience.
"How can the Milky Way (that is a disk, as one can clearly see in a clear night!) account for a isotropical radiation that looks the same in all directions? "
The last time I checked, planet Earth is in the Milky Way.
"Question: What is “intrinsic redshift”? I don’t want to hear that Arp invented it, I want to know what it means physically!"
Perhaps you should first read Halton Arp so you can criticize intelligently. Here is one of his earlier statements:
"The present observations are used inductively to conclude that the compact objects originate in the nuclei of large galaxies where the physical conditions approach singular values and that their excess redshifts are related to their young age as measured from this event. In my opinion, of the kind of explanations that the current observations require, one of the simplest is one along the lines of [Fred] Hoyle's suggestion that electrons and other atomic constituents can be created with initially smaller mass. Then smaller h? emissions result from a given atomic transition, and radiation from all objects in the new galaxy is shifted to the red. As the galaxy ages, its atomic parameters asymptotically approach that of older matter." — Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1972
April 8th, 2009 at 2:47 am
Well, that's indeed very overwhelming……
There is exactly NO evidence for that. Have you ever heard of the hyperfine structure constant "alpha" with its value 1/137 ? It's the combination of c, e and h and is very critical for electromagnetic processes. There have been lots of experiments to varify if the value of alpha changes. And there is no evidence for that.
On the other hand: Particle physicist are conducting so many experiments and creat tons of "new" particles (crashing old ones together results in creating new ones…). And yet: The particles (electrons, etc) behave as we expect them to do, with the exact mass and so on.
This was probably a good idea in 1972, but not anymore!
Btw: I criticized noone. I just wanted to know what "intrinsic redshift" is, I just wanted an explanation, since I do not know what it is. If the quote, you gave, is really the basic idea of the concept, then thanks a lot. If it's not, then provide a paper or something alike, please.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:52 am
I do not doubt that. But we are not in the center, but probably half-way out. That means that in one direction is more matter than in the other one. And that's only for the disk itself. If you look "up" and "down" there is even less matter. There is no isotropic distribution to see on the horizon. And that is the point: An unisotropic distribution accounts for a highly isotropic radiation? Really?
April 8th, 2009 at 3:26 am
Dr. Flimmer,
"But we are not in the center"
According to the Big Bang we are. The Big Bang is geocentric because according to cosmological redshift, the universe is expanding away from the Earth in every direction thus placing the Earth at the exact center of the universe.
"probably half-way out. That means that in one direction is more matter than in the other one. And that’s only for the disk itself. If you look “up” and “down” there is even less matter."
No evidence of that.
April 8th, 2009 at 3:30 am
Also it's supposed to read smaller "hv" not smaller "h?".
April 8th, 2009 at 4:16 am
@ OilisMastery
"Mesa thinks yousa jackass (and I don't even live in yousa galaxy)
You-sa in big doo-doo dis time! okee-day!" – Jar Jar Binks 1 BE
April 8th, 2009 at 4:19 am
Standard Model: Where wesa goin?
EU OilIsMastery : Don't worry. The Force will guide us.
Standard Model : Ohh, maxi big da Force. Well dat smells stinkowiff.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:20 am
Oilsmastery,
The bigbang theory doesn't claim that Earth or the Milkyway is in the center of the universe.
Just like everything else, you seem to understand about 80% of a subject, and are clueless about the most important 20%. Thus making your opinions or logical thoughts half-assed.
Go figure out for yourself, why the majority of objects in the universe seem to be moving away from us; and you don't have to be in the center of action for this to happen.
Your talk about the "big bang" is equally half-thought out. The term big bang is actually a misnomer. Go do some more research and experimenting on your own, and you just may get what the actual theory suggests.
You also need to get a clue about what scientists believe on their own, and what is accepted. There always has to be a base, whether proven or not to work with. Right now, all evidence points to the theory of the big bang. You have something different.. then present evidence. Stupid quotes are not evidence.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:12 am
Mr.Obvious said:
"Stupid quotes are not evidence."
In your case, ANY actual quotes are not evidence. After you absolutely silly and unjustified attack on SBC which you allege some yet unproved fraud why is your argument is even less convincing. SBC simply showed he again knew what he was talking about and had the evidence to back it up, suggesting you have little or no knowledge of about anything at all except to be plain bitchy. OilisMastery may have "thoughts half-assed" but you as usual you say absolutely zero – except of course to usually hostile criticisms of others.
As for SBC's, his comments are probably the most useful and informative here as it adds to the whole article and even helps someone else. So, what is your exact problem?
Salacious is quite right about you – you do have a serious problem. Stop acting like a child and grow up!
I wonder who the real fraud here is?
April 8th, 2009 at 6:23 am
@ Oills: Ditto
April 8th, 2009 at 6:25 am
I was referring to Mr. Obvious' last post @ 5:20 am.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:46 am
@OIM
Do you know, who one can explain cosmic expansion to children? Take a baloon (an empty one). Paint some dots on it and then fill it with air. The "space" (surface) of the baloon will expand, every dot will rush away from every other dot. Place yourself on one of the dots and every dot will move away from you. Place yourself on another dot and the same happens. And no dot is in the center (there is no center at all on the surface).
This is quite a good analogy. Got it?
And I was referring to the Milky Way and not the entire universe, don't misread my comment.
And there is loads of evidence how the Milky Way looks like and where the sun's position is. Astronomers investigate this for over 100 years. The result is: The Milky Way is a spiral, with a bar. And the center is probably 8kpc (25000 ly) away towards the constellation Sagittarius. I don't think EU is telling you something different.
And my "claim" where the matter is, is just logical thinking. If you have a large disk and you have 3/4 of it in one direction, it is quite resonable to say that there is more matter in that direction than in the other one, is it not? And since our disk is really thin in vertical direction, this argument holds even more.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:30 am
Dr. Flimmer,
"Do you know, who one can explain cosmic expansion to children?"
I don't understand your question. I know that Nobel Prize winning chemist Kerry B. Mullis said that he figured out the Big Bang was bunk when he was only 10 years old.
"Take a baloon (an empty one)."
I'm a natural philosopher not a clown.
"Paint some dots on it and then fill it with air. The “space” (surface) of the baloon will expand, every dot will rush away from every other dot. Place yourself on one of the dots and every dot will move away from you. Place yourself on another dot and the same happens. And no dot is in the center (there is no center at all on the surface).
This is quite a good analogy. Got it?"
The analogy is retarded. The universe is not a balloon, the universe is not hollow, and the universe does not have an intelligent designer blowing hot air into it. Furthermore, the dots on the mouth piece of the balloon are not all moving away from eachother because if they did the balloon would either pop or tear your mouth apart.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:49 am
@ Ken:
I notice that you suggest Hubble is wrong — fair enough — for the reasons you provide, but then all you offer are two reasons: Hubble's inaccurate estimation of the Andromeda and a new discovery of Cosmic Microwave Background.
I've examined the rational for CMB being a sign of the so-called "big bang". If you look at the evidence objectively, there are numerous other explanations for CMB.
This is another case in "modern" astronomy where a fanciful word picture was conjured up (the "big bang") and then when an observation was made that could half-way allow a square peg to be rammed down a round hole, "modern" astronomy did it.
There are too many alternative explanations that don't require the invocation of the "infinity" concept, which, of course, lies at the heart of the "big bang" hypothesis.
Ken, you offer zero reasons why Halton Arp is wrong — ZERO — reasons.
And Arp has hundreds of observatory hours and countless hours of research .
So far, in this thread, I've seen not one reason why Arp's hypothesis of 'intrinsic redshift' is wrong. Rather, all I've seen is a bunch of naked fiat statements.
Even after, I pointed that out not one reason was provided why Arp is wrong.
Of course, the real reason as I've already pointed out is that Arp's conclusion contradicts the so-called "big bang" hypothesis.
And so far, not one person has had the guts to contradict that assertion.
Ken states: "The big bang theory dominates because current evidence supports it best."
That's a joke and only "modern" astronomers who have drank the Kool-Aid at post-graduate school and their mindless, chanting acolytes shallow that baloney.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:01 am
@ Dr. Flimmer:
Flimmer states: "Question: What is “intrinsic redshift”?"
Simple, rather than 'red shift' being a function of speed and distance, it is an instrinsic manfiestation of the quasar independent of speed or distance.
in other words, the physical nautre of the constituent parts of the quasar is the reason for its 'redshift', rather than speed or distance.
Flimmer responds to Arp's hypothesis for 'intrinsic' redshift: "Well, that’s indeed very overwhelming……"
Yeah, like the "big bangs" infinite density, "poof", something out of nothing.
Yeah, that "big bang" sure has a leg up on Arp's hypothesis, alright.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Intrinsic redshift has to do with age and youthfulness, not recessional velocity, thus non-cosmological.
So in this model, the reason why the Andromeda galaxy is blueshifted is because…wait for it…the Milky Way was ejected and born from the Andromeda.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:18 am
"…the Milky Way was ejected and born from the Andromeda."
Something's always spitting something out in this Velikovsky-based delusion of yours, isn't it?
Venus, Quasars… US… very strange.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:33 am
>Excalibur,
>If you left the Earth’s magnetosphere >and were close enough to the sun >perhaps your compass would indeed >point towards the sun. That’s not merely >an EU prediction but nice attempt at a >straw man fallacy.
OilIsMastery:
The Birkeland currents that supposedly powers the sun would create a magnetic field stronger than the earths, thus compasses would point to the Sun. Thats not strawman, thats something EU cannot explain. Why doesnt the compass point at Sun when EU predicts it should ?
April 8th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Excalibur,
Obviously if you're standing on the Earth, the close proximity of the Earth's magnetosphere overwhelms any other magnetic field in the universe, magnetars included, however powerful they may be.
April 8th, 2009 at 10:02 am
Jeffery Keown,
Do you think the magic Stork dropped you off in the cabage patch?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:03 am
@ Anaconda
I'm sorry, I still don't get it. Probably I am to dumb.
What are the constituent parts of the quasar?
What is their physical nature?
You are giving a nice sentence, I wanted an explanation, a physical one! Explain it for a schoolboy, if you like, but explain it!
Hm. Probably I have an idea: It means that some fundamental constants (like, say, the mass of electrons and protons, the unit charge, h or c (just as possibilities)) are not the same everywhere in space. They are different from one galaxy to another. In the Milky Way they are just as we measure them, of course. But in Andromeda or any other galaxy they are different. Is that the idea?
If yes, then this would have earthshaking consequences. Every physical theory and concept could be put away. Even EU. That is, because physics depend on a critical postulate: Every physical law is the same anywhere in space. If that's not "true" anymore, well, then this is the end.
This could only be saved, if the redshift is not arbitrary, but depends on a deeper concept. It must be secured that the interaction between particles, etc is still the same. So a change in the mass of an electron must result in the same change in the proton, so that the ratio of mp/me=1836 still holds.
But then we must find a "pattern" in the redshift measurments, that one redshift is a specific fraction of all the others. Probably like:
R2=R1/(c*n)
where R1 and R2 are the different redshifts, c is someting like the "fundamental ratio" and n is a natural number.
Or I am wrong. Then you must still explain it to me!
@ OIM
Do you know, what the word "analogy" means?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Dr. Flimmer,
"What are the constituent parts of the quasar? What is their physical nature?"
Wha? You mean gravitation, general relativity, the Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy don't explain everything you'll ever want or need to know about quasars?
April 8th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Oh, come on, OIM.
Trust me, I do know what the "standard" explanation is.
I want to understand what the idea is behind your explanation of quasars and their "intrinsic redshift". It seems to be clear to you, but it is not for me. So I am asking for an explanation FROM you about the idea YOU prefer about them!
And since OIM seems not to be able to present it, probably Anaconda can.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Dr. Flimmer,
Rith respect to the nature of intrinsic redshift, I refer you to my comments posted above.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:17 pm
@OIM
Alright, I stick to it:
I understand it this way: The redder a galaxy is, the younger it is, right? So, almost every galaxy in the whole universe is younger than the Milky Way except Andromeda. That would mean that Andromeda is probably the "mother" of all galaxies.
But if the galaxies "shine" redder (determined by the redshift in atomic lines, hence in transition lines) that means that the transition in atomic levels have to be different for the atoms in those galaxies.
But those atoms are "born" when the newborn galaxy is ejected. So this must be true for every "newborn or ejected" atom in the whole universe.
So: This must also hold true for every newborn atom here on earth. The consequences would be that new created atoms should have different transition energies and hence different photons should be detectable.
The problem is that I have never heard of such a measurment.
But another question arises: Why should the transitions be different in those "newborn" galaxies? There must be something "deeper" to it. Is there anything known what could cause this "age-effect"?
And how are those "newborns" created? They are not just popping up and here they are. Where is the source of energy and matter to build them? I mean, energy conservation is one of the most important things of physics!
April 8th, 2009 at 12:34 pm
OIM
On the matter or your Stork Question: Of course not. I just find this intrinsic redshift to be a huge pile of crap. How, in your EU, is distance to galaxies measured? Can it be measured?
I think DrFlimmer has it right. There is no mechanism for the creation of new atoms in your theory. You're just a troll. Simple as that. A very complex one, but a troll nonetheless.
April 8th, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Dr. Flimmer,
Good questions.
If you're interested in answers perhaps you might look here: http://www.haltonarp.com/
"I mean, energy conservation is one of the most important things of physics!"
Not according to the Big Bang it's not.
The Big Bang explicitly violates the conservation of energy and all the laws of physics.
"I myself have had always problems with this point of view [The Big Bang] because they are somewhat against the principles of physics, the most basic principles of physics, which are related with the conservation of matter and conservation of energy." — Andre K. Assiz, plasma physicist, 2000
April 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
Jeffery Keown,
"There is no mechanism for the creation of new atoms in your theory."
It's the same mechanism as the creation of new atoms in your theory.
"You’re just a troll. Simple as that. A very complex one, but a troll nonetheless."
Ad hominem fallacies and personal attacks cannot be considered a logical, scientific, or persuasive counterargument.
April 8th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
I can't believe that I was right, not exactly, but close. The following is quoted directly from Arp's page:
So. Electrons gain mass over time. But I would guess this process would not stop. So over time the electrons become heavier and heavier. Our experiments here on earth are extremely sensitive. I wonder if such an effect wouldn't have been observed. And would be spoken out loud, because it is fundamentally important!
On the other hand: All our accelerators are producing electrons all the time, NEW ones, popping out of the energy of the collisions. And what do you think? Those electrons have ALL, without any doubt, the same mass of about 9.1*10^-31 kg!
Arp's assumption has exactly zero experimental evidence. And since it is so important for his idea, I think it is quite right to say that it is, well, wrong.
April 8th, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Oils,
You've admitted to trolling on your own blog:
oilismastery.blogspot.com/2009/04/missing-link-between-elliptical-and.html
DrFlimmer,
Debating with Oils is an exercise in futility. He's never going to entertain your point of view.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Dr. Flimmer,
"Arp’s assumption has exactly zero experimental evidence."
The Big Bang assumption has exactly zero experimental evidence but for some reason that doesn't stop you from preaching it.
Arp is an observationalist.
Discordant redshift associations have been observed whereas the Big Bang has never been observed.
April 8th, 2009 at 2:19 pm
ND,
"He’s never going to entertain your point of view."
We didn't have any choice but to entertain the Big Bang point of view because it was rammed down our throats from the time we could crawl.
April 8th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
This blog should be used to discuss and illustrate things related to the particular topic. it is too bad so much bandwidth is being chewed up with OM and Anaconda nonsense. If there is any gatekeeper here they would do well to get these people out of here. This is having an effect similar to graffiti tagging — it destroys the neighborhood. OM and Anaconda contribute little except trash.
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 8th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Whistle while you work,
Anaconda is a berk,
He's half as barmy,
As Oil Is Mastery,
Whistle while you work.
April 8th, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Lawrence B. Crowell,
You would have made a wonderful censor for the gestapo's Ministry of Truth in Nazi Germany.
April 8th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
It is not totalitarian in that sense. It is only apparently totalitarian for the same reason that the American Society of Geologists tend not to accept papers on the flat Earth.
Again, bandwidth being chewed up on a greasy snake
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Not accepting something is not the same as censorship.
It's obvious you don't accept the truth.
However, you do more than that because you preach censorship.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:06 pm
All your BS Anaconda and Oils. I started all of this by simply posting about the deficiencies of Arp's theory based on modern evidence. But once again, it is all bitterness and vitriol directed at the 'establishment', and those who, funnily enough, actually go with the overwhelming evidence and the only explanation that makes verifiable predictions about the nature of the universe.
So how about addressing the fact that quasars are no longer statistically any more likely to be found near a radio galaxy than anywhere else? But you're all about ignoring deficiencies in your theory, as much or more than you claim that the scientific establishment does with theirs. You never provide an explanation of how your theories better the currently accepted one. You never point us to any work done by yourself or others to show how your theory fits observation QUANTITATIVELY, or to explain the predictions your theory makes. You never explain how your theory could be proved wrong – what observations could be made that would mean that your theory was wrong or had to be modified. Instead, it's all hand-waving arguments and lah-di-dah; Oils resorts to quoting 1000 year-old scholars or name calling, and Anaconda plays the continual victim. Boo hoo.
The Big Bang theory has gone out on a limb time and time again. It predicted the Isotopic abundances of the early universe. It predicted the microwave background radiation. There are so many small adjustments made to the theory precisely because it puts itself out there to be tested. It has shown to be wrong in its details and modified repeatedly, but mostly it's come through with flying colours, despite the thousands of scientists who would LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN TO PROVE IT WRONG AND WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE!
What the hell has EU predicted? Where has a single EU proponent made a solid prediction and then admitted that if it wasn't borne out by observation, the theory was flat out wrong? What discoveries or insights has EU enabled? Where has a major deficiency of any major theory in science been shown to be perfectly and naturally explained by your ideas? But you never address such fundamental problems with your ideas. Answer me this – do you believe it is possible that you are wrong? How would we be able to know if your theory was wrong? Simple question.
Answer me, not with 'yeah, but you big bangers do this and such and such and blah blah', or 'ooh, all riled up because we're attacking big bang'. You're making the claim that your theory is superior, so the onus is on you to take the proper scientific approach, make some predictions and put yourself and your theory on the line.
I ask you again – do you believe it is possible that you could be wrong? If so, how would you know? I know big bang is almost certainly wrong in it's current form, but it is undoubtedly, far and away, the most successful cosmological theory ever devised. So I'll go with it until a smarter man than I comes up with something better.
Anaconda – feel free to not address any of the points raised above and go on a 'damn-the-man' rant like usual.
Oils – you may now resume quoting Beethoven as proof of your ideas.
April 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
One piece of evidence that OM is not thinking scientifically is that he (she — nah, only men get this stupid, women are smarter on this and know when they are wrong) proclaims "the truth." You will find few scientists prating on about how they have the truth. They might say, I have data, or these data fit this theory, or this theory predicts (***) and so forth.
Again this is not censorship. An editor or reviewer refusing a paper because it is bogus is not censorship. This is a blog which deals with astronomy, and it should ideally involve discussions properly in line with that. OM and Snake post pseudo-science, and if there were gatekeepers or standards they should be politely asked to take their EU crap elsewhere.
Lawrence B. Crowell
April 8th, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Astrofiend,
"I started all of this by simply posting about the deficiencies of Arp’s theory based on modern evidence."
What deficiency would that be? The observations and pictures speak for themselves.
"So how about addressing the fact that quasars are no longer statistically any more likely to be found near a radio galaxy than anywhere else?"
Assuming that's true, what has it got to do with anything?
"You never provide an explanation of how your theories better the currently accepted one."
Discordant redshifts have been observed whereas the Big Bang has never been observed.
"You never point us to any work done by yourself or others to show how your theory fits observation QUANTITATIVELY, or to explain the predictions your theory makes."
It was provided but you ignored it which is no surprise: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ…405…51N
"You never explain how your theory could be proved wrong – what observations could be made that would mean that your theory was wrong or had to be modified."
You ought to look at yourself in the mirror. According to the Big Bangers, the theory cannot possibly be falsified.
"Right now the Big Bang theory is a solid part of science as we understand it. Anyone who doesn't accept it is regarded by most of the people in the scientific community as essentially a crackpot." — Alan Gluth, professor, 2007
"It's impossible that the Big Bang is wrong." — Joseph Silk, astronomer, 1988
So what were you saying about falsification again? Big Bang, thy name is hypocrisy.
"It predicted the Isotopic abundances of the early universe."
"The Big Bang theory predicts the density of ordinary matter in the universe from the abundance of a few light elements. Yet the density predictions made on the basis of the abundance of deuterium, lithium-7 and helium-4 are in contradiction with each other, and these predictions have grown worse with each new observation. The chance that the theory is right is now less than one in one hundred trillion." — Eric J. Lerner, physicist, 1991
"It predicted the microwave background radiation."
Incorrectly by 5 orders of magnitude. 10 x 10 x 10 x 10 x 10.
"LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN TO PROVE IT WRONG AND WIN THE NOBEL PRIZE!"
Already been done. Hannes O.G. Alfvén. Welcome to 1970.
"What the hell has EU predicted? Where has a single EU proponent made a solid prediction and then admitted that if it wasn’t borne out by observation, the theory was flat out wrong?"
Hmmm. let's see.
"But then if there were events of this character, discharges between planets and so on, I put one of the most outrageous claims before the scientific readers, that in the solar system and in the universe generally, not just gravitation and inertia are the two forces of action but that also electricity and magnetism are participating in the mechanism, so the Lord was not just a watchmaker. The universe is not free of those forces with which the man makes his life easy already more than 100 years. They were unknown practically or little known in the time of Newton in the second half of the 17th century. But today we know that electricity and magnetism, these are not just small phenomena that we can repeat as a kind of a little trick in the lab, that they permeate every field from neurology into botony and chemistry, and astronomy should not be free. And it was admitted by authorities that this was the most outrageous point in my claims. But the vengeance came early and swiftly. In 1960, already in 1955, radio noises from Jupiter were detected and this was one of the crucial tests that I offered for the truth of my theory. In 1958, the magnetosphere was discovered around the Earth, another claim. In 1960, the interplanetary magnetic field was discovered and solar plasma, so-called solar wind, moving rapidly along the magnetic lines and then it was discovered that the electromagnetic field of the Earth reaches the moon ." — Immanuel Velikovsky, cosmologist, 1966
"What discoveries or insights has EU enabled?"
Ever heard of the magnetosphere? Solar plasma? Birkeland currents? Didn't think so.
"Answer me this – do you believe it is possible that you are wrong? How would we be able to know if your theory was wrong? Simple question."
After you.
"I ask you again – do you believe it is possible that you could be wrong? If so, how would you know?"
You don't know what my theory is. I'm not even sure I have a theory.
"…their theory is incorrect but they don't have an accepted theory to replace it and that I think is very psychologically bothersome to particularly scientists who have gone into science in order to be certain about the world, to be sure that they're right and so forth, and it's a very insecure position. Some scientists have joked that, well, a scientist would rather be wrong than uncertain. We sort of have to live with uncertainty which is, well, it's an interesting and challenging situation." — Halton C. Arp, astronomer, 1998
"Oils – you may now resume quoting Beethoven as proof of your ideas."
And you can resume quoting yourself.
April 8th, 2009 at 9:25 pm
RE: OilIsMastery & Anaconda
The Troll's Brain and MEMORY
April 8th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
@Oils – If obsolete quotes somehow prove scientific fact, you would be forced to worship Bill Gates by using a computer with no more than 640k memory.
Responding to proof that you are wrong by dodging the proof and changing the arguement just proves your trolling or that you worship dogma. You are the priest I described and have no credibility discussing science.
You lose.
@Anaconda – So typical! … the moment you utterly fail, instead of accepting that the evidence proves you wrong and learning from it, you sink into flinging insults.
You lose … and need to grow up.
April 8th, 2009 at 11:43 pm
Extract from Wikipedia (click on the link):
Common Characteristics of Cranks:
April 8th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
"What deficiency would that be? The observations and pictures speak for themselves."
Uhh – the deficiency that I explicitly stated – that his theory was based upon the spatial proximity of quasars to radio galaxies, a proximity that we now know hasn't the slightest chance of actually existing…
"Assuming that’s true, what has it got to do with anything?"
Umm – if Arp's theory states that quasars are ejected from radiogalaxies, and uses the supposed alignments of these objects as evidence, then it has everything to do with it.
"Discordant redshifts have been observed whereas the Big Bang has never been observed."
Oh – well that settles it. Proof that EU is a superior theory. I was hoping for some sort of quantitative physical argument, but that'll do.
Alfven proved the BB wrong? Wow! Amazing how such a feat has been ignored by history. Must be those damn scientists again. Oh well – I'm sure he'll be vindicated one day, if you keep posting hard… Incidentally, did you want to provide a paper reference for that?
"It was provided but you ignored it which is no surprise: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ…405…51N"
Wow – scaling particle masses with epoch – that is getting desperate to find an alternative to GR.
"According to the Big Bangers, the theory cannot possibly be falsified."
Yes it can. The microwave background could have never been found. The isotopic abundances could have been all wrong. Anisotropies in the microwave background could show the theory is wrong. Structure could be found in the multipole components of the microwave background that show that the BB either did not happen or that it happened far differently to how we imagine it. The list goes on.
"Ever heard of the magnetosphere? Solar plasma? Birkeland currents? Didn’t think so."
Of course I have. Well understood in terms of stock standard plasma physics. So how does that strike one up for EU?
"“Answer me this – do you believe it is possible that you are wrong? How would we be able to know if your theory was wrong? Simple question.”
After you."
I've already stated that I don't believe in the BB religiously. It is almost certainly wrong in many of it's details. It could be completely wrong – but since there is nothing to better it at the moment that has even the merest hint of the explanatory power of the BB, I'll run with it for the time being. It would be a lot of coincidences for it to get this much correct and then be completely wrong. I've stated some ways in which this could be shown, and I;d be happy to find more; I'm not afraid of it being shown to be wrong – it can stand or fall on it's own. So what about you – one simple question that you wouldn't answer – deferred it to me. So I answered it. So what about you?
"And you can resume quoting yourself."
I love quoting myself, seeing as I'm far and away the best and most brilliant person I know or have ever heard of.
So as I would say "I'm getting the hell out of here for the Easter long weekend. Feel free to reply but I won't be in 'til Tuesday. Happy Easter".
I'm out. Sorry if I missed refuting any of your points – it's been fun.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:03 am
Astrofiend,
"his theory was based upon the spatial proximity of quasars to radio galaxies, a proximity that we now know hasn’t the slightest chance of actually existing…"
Are you blind or something? If you aren't blind, have you ever seen a picture of a quasar? NGC 7603 and it's quasars? NGC 4319 and Markarian 205? NGC 7319? Have you ever seen the Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations?
You must be one of those people whose religion is: "I'll see it when I believe it."
"Alfven proved the BB wrong?"
Among other people.
"Wow! Amazing how such a feat has been ignored by history."
It hasn't been ignored by history
It's been ignored by the Big Bang cult of which you are obviously a part.
Were you also amazed when history ignored heliocentrism for 1400 years?
"The microwave background could have never been found."
Every cosmology predicted CMB. The Big Bang was the only cosmological hypothesis that was wrong by 4 orders of magnitude. 50 degress Kelvin, thus Big Bang falsified.
So here is my Popperian claim: if the CMB is found to be 50 degrees Kelvin as predicted by the Big Bang, then I will consider EU falsified.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:55 am
Following this "discussion", I did a bit of "deep thinking" and formulated my own Multiple Universe Model.
It has become clear to me that everybody lives in their own Universe, which they created for themselves by observing what goes on around them, filtered through their life experience and accumulated preferences and prejudices.
If I didn't have some Real World Work to do, I would search for some suitable mathematics which I can extract out of their context to quantify this mechanism. I can find such mathematics in the work of Heisenberg and Schrodinger – all I need to do then is some cross-breeding of those mathematics with some C.G. Jung quotes.
Most of these Universes are quite similar to each other in most respects – however, some are radically different.
Unfortunately, most people believe that they all live in the same Universe, that they are right, and that everybody else is wrong. Hence all those arguments and "discussions", and hence the history of the World being mainly chronicles of wars…. and threads like this one…. ah, well…
The only thing stopping me from writing a paper and receiving a Nobel Price really is the fact that people in the Nobel Foundation haven't got a clue.
Now that I think about it:
In the light of my new insight, every year, each of the Nobel Prices should be awarded separately in each of those Universes. Everybody would accumulate lots of them and could be quoted with great credibility by everybody else.
Feenixx, The Only Person In The World Who Knows The Truth (TM)
April 9th, 2009 at 1:16 am
OilIsMastery:
Obviously you missed the analysis of the Birkeland currents that was done in a previous post on this forum. The magnetic field from the Birkeland currents would be stronger than earths magnetic field, using only accepted and laboratory confirmed physical relations. A compass would then ignore the weaker earth-field and follow the Sun's stronger field.
1. EU predicts strong galactic Birkeland currents that power, for one, our Sun.
2. That electric current must have a surrounding electric field, predicted by established physical laws.
3. Calculating the strength of this field, given the the first assumption, shows the field must be stronger than earths.
4. A compass would follow the strongest field.
But for some reason, compasses point towards earths magnetic north, not towards the Sun.
The only logical conclusion is that one of the assumptions are wrong, and the only assumption that have no proof, is 1. above. Ergo, EU fails in its prediction.
EU fails the simple compass test, EU fails completely.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:26 am
OilIsMastery says something I perceive as strange:
"The Big Bang was the only cosmological hypothesis that was wrong by 4 orders of magnitude. 50 degrees Kelvin"
OIM, can you explain what "orders of magnitude" means in your Universe? In mine, it means powers of ten.
btw, in my Universe, temperature is measured…
…either in _degrees_ Fahrenheit or Celsius…
…or in kelvin (lower case, and not relative, hence not a kind of a degree)
April 9th, 2009 at 3:02 am
Arp an observationalist?
Yes, of course. Claiming that electrons gain mass over time is absolutly based of observation! Also he refers to gravitons. Observed all the time!
—————-
Irony intended
April 9th, 2009 at 4:07 am
Dr. Flimmer,
"Arp an observationalist?"
Compared to you I mean.
"Also he refers to gravitons. Observed all the time!"
You're the one who believes in gravitation and gravitons. I don't.
April 9th, 2009 at 4:18 am
Excalibur,
Straw man fallacies are not persuasive or convincing. Especially to me.
April 9th, 2009 at 6:38 am
It distresses me to abandon this site (for a few weeks at least) in search of more fertile, relevant discussion of current topics in modern astronomy. The inane level and length of discourse at this site no make it valuable to me to accumulate information of the cutting edge of astrophysics for the educated layperson, having to wade through such massive postings of pseudoscience is no longer worth the time or trouble. I hope you get back to normal soon, I'll miss your commentary.
April 9th, 2009 at 10:28 am
Ouch!
I'd like to look at the previous pages of comments, and I can't. My Browser (Firefox 3.0.8 on a Mac with OSX 10.4.11) hangs when I try. Reloading the page takes me back to the last page of comments…….
April 9th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
MUHAHAHAHA
So, what am I then?
Even your hero Arp "believes in" (better: knows about) gravitation. But gravitons are merely a hypothesis at the moment, so I take care with them….
April 9th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Another poor impersonator hiding behind the truth…
You should be ashamed.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Feenixx:
I've had the same problem with IE7! Try clearing your browser's cache and cookies; then click on the required page number. That should solve the problem.
April 10th, 2009 at 12:44 am
IVAN3MAN Says:
"I’ve had the same problem with IE7! Try clearing your browser’s cache and cookies; then click on the required page number. That should solve the problem."
It didn't, and I didn't think it would (considering we are using different browsers).
April 10th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Sometimes I have those problems with this page, too. I consider it to be a "rush-hour-problem".
April 10th, 2009 at 7:44 am
I'm having problems again with reading previous comments. I'm using Firefox 3.0.8, and tried the above solution with no luck.
April 10th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Delete all universe today cookies and you'll be able to jump to previous pages of comments.
April 12th, 2009 at 4:12 am
There is simply too much to comment on…but I'll make a few points.
I do try and stay on topic, although, if other commenters bring up other issues, I have been known to respond. I should resist that temptation.
Lawrence B. Crowell would want to shut down alternative hypothesis from discussion…hmm?
The mission statement of UniverseToday is to entertain discussion of alternative ideas and theories.
Crowell started off denying 'charge seperation' existed in space. The first objection (line of defense), but 'charge seperation' of plasma in space has been demonstrated so many times, somebody must have taken him aside and explained the state of scientific understanding.
And Crowell now acknowledges 'charge seperation' in space.
This is a comment board with a mission statement explicitly citing the discussion of alternative ideas, not a peer reviewed journal.
Excalibur creates a strawman. The 'Electric Sun' hypothesis does not postulate Birkeland currents coming into the Sun. Rather, a diffused 'drift current' of electrons coming from the heliopause, the Sun's "cell membrane".
If you are going to criticize a hypothesis, and by all means do, then understand it and don't missstate it.
April 12th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Question: What powers the Birkeland and/or the drift currents?
April 13th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
The snake misrepresents what I said about charge separation.
I suppose in line with alternative ideas we should welcome with open arms serious discussion on geocentrism and how angels push the planets around. Sorry, but Anaconda and Oil are rubbishing up this site.
Lawrence B. Crowell