Ray Tomes wrote:
1. The apparent physical connection in the form of bridges between
objects of very different red shift observed in visible and x-ray.

If the cosmologogical red shift
is accepted then one is forced to conclude that this is a chance
alignment (or that the objects are travelling at relativistic
velocities), but Arp has found far too many of these for such a conclusion.

Martin Hardcastle wrote:
How do you assess whether there are `far too many of these'?. In the
standard model, there are bound to be *some*. The question `how many
do you expect?' is extremely hard to answer, and to my knowledge Arp
has not attempted to do so.

Sorry for the slow reply.

Yes, of course there will be some. This can be calculated statistically
how many will fall within what distance. However I suggested the Monte
Carlo approach which is to compare to random datasets or moire simply
the same dataset rotated in space. If for 100 random rotations the
average associations within some range were say 40 with a maximum of 90
and the actual data had 250 associations then it would be very
convincing but if it were 85 then it would not.

However the really fascinating thing in Arp's data are the matched pairs
of quasars at similar redshifts (not identical and too far apart -
both proving it is not gravitational lensing) along opposite sides of
the axis of large nearby spirals.

The Arp proposal does explain the very wide scatter in redshift versus
brightness of quasars compared to galaxies - because only part of the
redshift is considered to be cosmological. I don't think big bang
cosmology can explain this wide scatter.