The end is near!

If he's right he wouldn't be the first "crank" to turn out right.

Galileo was a crank, Copernicus, etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Wrong. They actually had scientific evidence that could be tested. It was and they were vindicated (after the church gave up being assholes, at least temporarily).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It does! That's why it's soooo funny!

Every point in an expanding universe appears to itself to be at the "center". Surely you've read enough about modern cosmology to make a value judgement in favor of "electric" cosmology and such? Yes...? No...?

Hmmm...

Every large scale structure in the universe appears to be moving away from us. As it would to an observer a billion ly away. Google the "raisin bread" or "balloon" analogies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0310533
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309551
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0309274
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308443
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308177
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0308041
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0307418
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305382
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305298
http://xxx.lanl.gov/pdf/astro-ph/0305093

 

I'm still looking for a couple more papers which look at Arp's models and refutes them point by point. So many papers, so little organization.

 

That's not what he's saying. He's saying that, according to observations with redshift, objects are clustered in elongated formations that actually point to observers on earth. Did you read that part. I'm sorry but ff that is not a bogus claim, it destroys redshift as a tool.

 

i like it
allows for gluttony and debauchery

/mottofied

 

Observational bias. Did you read my post about the increasing error bars on more distant observations?

 

It's a bogus claim. You should be able to research it for yourself.