Podcast Interview with Halton Arp

Dr. Arp talks with Electric Politics about his observations of red-
shift and his thoughts regarding what that means for cosmology and
science generally.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podc...ar_heresy.html

On Jun 3, 8:45 am, wrote:
Dr. Arp talks with Electric Politics about his observations of red-
shift and his thoughts regarding what that means for cosmology and
science generally.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podc...ar_heresy.html



"Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made
up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity
component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by
mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the
matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete
steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their
parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They
continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift.
Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3,
the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and
begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its
parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings.
Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed
indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an
indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger
fraction of a quasar's total redshift."

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Double-A

In article .com,
Double-A wrote:


http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Double-A


Yep we know and its not accepted for a variety of reasons. One being that SNR's
show time dilation consistent with z.

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

In article .com,
Double-A wrote:

"Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made
up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity
component....."




1) Spectra of high-z galaxies, when shifted back into their rest frame, match
the spectra for local galaxies

2) HST observations of these objects confirms high-z counterparts to low-z
galaxies

3) More modern observations of QSO's using better quality equipment shows no
problem with QSO redshifts and supposed "connections" and bridges such as in
Stephens Quintet are easily explained

4) No redshift quantisation (bear a trace due to clustering) has been found
(Tang, Su Min; Zhang, Shuang Nan, "Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift
Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data",
in The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 633, Issue 1, pp. 41-51 (2005))

and most importantly

5) Blows a huge hole in your claim the "physics cabal" surpress heretic ideas.
Arp works for the Max Planck Institute.




--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

and most importantly

Why are you working so hard to protect that which is wrong puddleduck?

Does it pay you better than the truth?

In article . com,
wrote:

and most importantly

Why are you working so hard to protect that which is wrong puddleduck?


Why is it wrong, oh loony rainbow bright?

Does it pay you better than the truth?

BWAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA


--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

wrote:
and most importantly


Why are you working so hard to protect that which is wrong puddleduck?

Does it pay you better than the truth?


More to the point, once the wrong ideas are demonstrated to be such,
such as those of Dr. Arp, why do you continue to take his side. Is
modern physics too far above your head to understand?

In article ,
Scott Miller wrote:


More to the point, once the wrong ideas are demonstrated to be such,
such as those of Dr. Arp, why do you continue to take his side. Is
modern physics too far above your head to understand?


I guess that's a rhetorical question to Zanthius ;-)

--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).

Official maintainer of the supra-cosmic space fluid pump (Mon and Tues only).

More to the point, once the wrong ideas are demonstrated to be such,
such as those of Dr. Arp, why do you continue to take his side. Is
modern physics too far above your head to understand?

I didnt exactly say that I was protecting Dr. Arp.

But I am definately not protecting logical inconsistencies. To do that
would be far below my head.

Double-A wrote:

On Jun 3, 8:45 am, wrote:
Dr. Arp talks with Electric Politics about his observations of red-
shift and his thoughts regarding what that means for cosmology and
science generally.

http://www.electricpolitics.com/podc...ar_heresy.html



"Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made
up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity
component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by
mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the
matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete
steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their
parent galaxies with inherentiredshift values of up to z = 2. They
continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift.
Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3,
the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and
begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its
parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings.
Any additional redshift (over and above its inherent value) is indeed
indicative of the object's velocity. But the inherent part is an
indication of the object's youth and usually makes up the larger
fraction of a quasar's total redshift."

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm

Double-A

So sad for you, it doesn't support the Flowing Space Theology.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Causation of gravity is missing frame field always attempting
renormalization back to base memory of equalized uniform momentum."
-- nightbat the saucerhead-in-chief

"Of doing Venus in person would obviously incorporate a composite
rigid airship, along with it's internal cache of frozen pizza and
ice cold beer."
-- Brad Guth, bigoted racist

"You really are one of the litsiest people I know, Mr. Deco."
--Kali, quoted endlessly by David Tholen as evidence of "something"