>From WIkipedia, citing three journals:
"Since Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely used. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been used to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[4] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[5][6][7]"
5. W. J. Couch, R. S. Ellis, J. Godwin, D. Carter (1983). "Spectral energy distributions for galaxies in high redshift clusters. I - Methods and application to three clusters with Z = 0.22-0.31". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 205: 1287-1312. 6. Postman, L. M. Lubin, J. B. Oke (1998). "A Study of Nine High-Redshift Clusters of Galaxies. II. Photometry, Spectra, and Ages of Clusters 0023+0423 and 1604+4304". Astronomical Journal 116: 560-583. 7. R. S. Priddey, R. G. McMahon (2001). "The far-infrared-submillimetre spectral energy distribution of high-redshift quasars". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 324: L17-L22.
It's not that Arp doesn't make some interesting observations. It's just that he closes his mind to Occam's Razor in defense of his previous theories.
I could tell you my own personal belief of how the Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy will be rationalized to the Standard Model, but who the hell cares what I think? I'm not a physicist and I know that I am starting from a philosophical starting point, knowing that other people have been down the intellectual road I want to travel down and have gotten stuck
For example, in the mid-90's I "predicted" that it would be discovered that the Universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. It was discovered and it was a shocking discovery for which Nobel prizes will be given - and NOT to me. And that's as it should be, because my "prediction" was a naive surmise based on my own need to rationalize things in my head.
It wasn't science.
Arp does the opposite of what I did. He makes detailed observations and then, as I understand it, expects the huge amount of data he provides to "smokescreen" his relative deficiencies as a theoretical cosmologist. That doesn't make him a bad astronomer, but it does make him a discredited cosmologist.
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>