Phillip Helbig wrote:
I once did a back-of-the-envelope calculation that if QSOs were really
ejected from M33 as Arp claims, then one should be able to DETECT THEIR
PROPER MOTION WITH VLBI. To my knowledge, no-one has tried this. This
would falsify his theory of ejection.

At M33 distance a velocity of 0.01c gives 0.001" or arc movement per
year which would be detectable in a reasonable period of time. I assume
that the velocity would need to be of the order of 0.003c to 0.01c to
ensure escape from the galaxy.

R Tomes wrote: {about quasar associations with low redshift galaxies}
If a statistical study of the above claims was made with comprehensive
samples of galaxies and quasars by computer analysis and it yielded
extremely low probabilities (like say 10^-10) would cosmologists abandon
the big bang and cosmological red shift assumptions? If not, why not?

Not immediately. IF this transpired, it would be one argument against
the standard model, compared to several more in favour of it. If one
thus rejected the standard model, one would have a lot of explaining to
do as to why all the other arguments seem to work. So, IF this
transpired, one would probably first---following Occam's razor---look
for things one might have overlooked in this analysis.

Fair enough to look, but if a very substantial part of quasar redshifts
was shown to be non-cosmological then standard cosmology would be in
tatters. Of course a high standard of proof will be needed.

To be fair, it is difficult to get observing time for Arp objects. On
the other hand, I think Arp would have been better off sticking to the
data rather than associating himself with very off-the-wall theoretical
explanations for his stuff.

Well I suspect that he felt he had gathered so much data that falsified
the big bang that it was time to start looking for an alternative. I am
not sure what you are referring to as "off-the-wall", as the theoretical
grounds are quite consistent with standard physics, just not with
standard cosmology.

Also, he tends to play the "I've been
mistreated and misunderstood" angle too much, so perhaps one can't blame
those who steer clear of looking into his claims. (In one book, he goes
on and on about the opposition he has come up against, but the dust
jacket says he is "on the staff" of the Max Planck Institute for
astrophysics. If that's discrimination, then I'd like people to
discriminate against my astronomical work!)

LOL! Well I am not on the staff of anything, so I have nothing to lose
by doing analysis of this type. I have the statistical capability to do
this but would like guidance from a professional astronomer as to the
data sets to use and their limitations. If people are worried about
associations with "off-the-wall" stuff, then I am happy to accept that
advice privately and they can decide later whether to associate
themselves with the outcome.

Ray Tomes