Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astronomy
The biggest problem with this analysis is that today there are tens 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.
|
Meaning that we don't currently have any evidence that they are correlated, or that we have studied all these quasars and the nearby AGNs in detail so that we have evidence that they are not correlated?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astronomy
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.
|
I don't see why this conclusion can be drawn from the fact that host galaxies are seen. After all there are galaxies in local neighborhood, so just by seeing a galaxy doesn't tell much about it's distance.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Astronomy
Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations. In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations that Arp suggests exist.
|
But doesn't it feel strange that Arp (and others) finds these almost everywhere he looks. This is not a case where Arp has looked enough places to occasionally find one.
By the way, you forgot to include most convincing types of observations to your analysis, namely bridges between high and low redshift objects and high redshift objects silhouetted in front of low redshift objects.