Quote:
Originally Posted by Amber Robot
Have you ever looked at an image of a quasar host galaxy? See, for example this link. If these are not at cosmological distances then there is a completely new type of galaxy that is very different than every other type. When you look at these images you can sometimes see fully-blown spiral galaxies, If these are not at cosmological distances, and are at local distances, then they are very, very small. And then you have to explain why the redshift-distance correlation should not apply to these galaxies like they do for other local galaxies. |
Yes, they are new type of objects, they are intermediates between quasars (which in Arp's model also are new type of objects) and galaxies. If there is a spiral galaxy in the making, then I don't see any problems in spiral structure being already visible, at least not in principle.
Redshift in Arp's model is "More from Arp et al" stuff but briefly, redshift decreases with age of objects and quasars are newly created objects in Arp's model. But, if one starts to argue against these local quasar models, one should already know these basic issues about them, no? (Similarily, if I would argue that Big Bang theory doesn't work because it puts Earth in the center of the universe, or some other clearly false argument, then surely you would suggest that I should learn about Big Bang theory before arguing against it.)