On Jan 16, 2008, at 11:25 AM, Jordan Hayes wrote:
>>> Halton Arp was discredited when we started using modern telescopes.
>>> Get with it.
>>
>> Oh really? Evidence, please.
>
> It could be another example of a biassed wiki article, but his seems
> to say that he's not in the running for being right.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
Yes, another example of wiki bias. But the article links to a very extensive review of "Seeing Red" by Tom Van Flandern:
DON'T READ THIS BOOK. For if you should decide after reading this review to disregard this advice, you will need to prepare to have your universe turned upside-down. Should you then make your way through this small print, 306-page tour de force, you will very likely come away doubting what you thought you knew of the large-scale structure of the universe. The cosmological interpretation of redshift for quasars and active galaxy nuclei has been challenged often before, although never so successfully. But one seldom sees serious suggestions that even the redshift-distance relation for ordinary galaxies may be wrong, as you will see here. And as if the implied revolution in cosmology were not enough, your view of the professionalism of scientists and academics in general, and of astronomers in particular, will be another casualty of your reading....
Shane Mage
"This cosmos did none of gods or men make, but it always was and is and shall be: an everlasting fire, kindling in measures and going out in measures."
Herakleitos of Ephesos, fr. 30