Quote:
Originally posted by DGR@Jan 7 2005, 06:11 PM
The mainstream suffers from the opposite failing of what you're accusing Arp of - relying on a assumption (redshift = distance) that creates a 3-dimensional interpretation which may in fact be contradicted by the observations.
|
First, there are no observations that contradict the correlation between redshift and distance.
Second, I assume that in this case you are referring only to quasars, and not to galaxies, when you suggest that there is some discrepency between redshift and distance. Quasars being Arp's biggest obvious difference from main-stream astronomers. Certainly there is very consistent and powerful evidence that galaxies have a very tight correlation between redshift and distance. This includes the galaxies that host quasars, such as 3C273.
So, the redshift=distance assumption [as you call it] is well tested and very reliable. This is very different from Arp's [it looks like...] assumptions.