The power of anomalies

James R said:
river:

You give the impression that you think that Arp's work has been somehow suppressed by the mainstream astronomy community. Is that what you believe?

If that is what you think, can you suggest a motive for astronomers to suppress Arp? I mean, not just his colleagues in 1980, but the guys in 2006 who didn't even know him personally, for example.

Presumably, you think it's not about oppressing him (because his peers didn't like him, for instance), but about suppressing his ideas. If you're the usual kind of conspiracy theorist (and all indications are that you are), then you must have an idea about why his ideas would threaten the evil mainstream science juggernaut.

Is it because you think there's big money to be made in supporting the big bang theory? Do you think that astronomers would be damaging their gravy train if they admitted the "truth" that there was no big bang and the universe isn't really expanding after all? Or is there some other vested interest you believe is at work here?

Do you, personally, believe the big bang theory, or are you a steady stater?

I'm most interested in why you, as somebody uneducated in astronomy, would suddenly decide to hero-worship Arp. I doubt it's because you understand his ideas or what he did. My guess is that it must be because you see him as fighting the good fight against an evil establishment. Is it because you fear the authority of mainstream science, and you want to bring it down? Or something else?
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_cosmology#Redshift_periodicity_and_intrinsic_redshifts
This objection was made moot by the improved models of gravity-powered accretion disks which for sufficiently dense material (such as black holes) can be more efficient at energy production than nuclear reactions.
Click to expand...
?

question RE light and gravity...
just for arguement sake... could gravity speed up light ?
if it does... would we still see(detect[satellites/obsevatorys etc...]) it ?
 
From RainbowSingularity's link:

"The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are hundreds of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes. Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities', nor that any statistically significant correlations exist.

In addition, it is not clear what mechanism would be responsible for intrinsic redshifts or their gradual dissipation over time. It is also unclear how nearby quasars would explain some features in the spectrum of quasars which the standard model easily explains. ....

Halton Arp has proposed an explanation for his observations by a Machian "variable mass hypothesis". The variable-mass theory invokes constant matter creation from active galactic nuclei, which puts it into the class of steady-state theories. With the passing of Halton Arp, this cosmology has been relegated to a dismissed theory."​
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top