View Single Post
  #12 (permalink)  
Old 07-January-2005, 05:30 PM
VanderL VanderL is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,606
Default

Quote:
I assume that you mean "could I list some of them", as these are not the sort of things thaqt acquire names.
Sorry, as I explained earlier, English is not my native language.

Quote:
For starters there is the fact that quasars ar seen to be in the center of galaxies with redshifts exactly matching the galaxy, yet Arp et. al say that quasars are emitted from galaxies and have an intrinsic redshift vastly different from the "host galaxy".
There is no contradiction in Arp's model.


Quote:
Arp ignores quasars with observed host galaxies
In Arp's model quasars evolve into galaxies, where is the problem with host galaxies?

Quote:
"many" quasars are seen to be aligned with low redshift galaxies.
Wrong, the quasars are aligned across a specific type of galaxy (Seyfert/disturbed galaxies), you don't seem to know what the model is about apparently.

Quote:
Arp's biggest failing, IMHO, is his reliance on 2-dimensional images to support a premise requiring three dimensions.
We would all like to have more 3-D information, but Arp's model does not rely on 2-D images where did you get that idea? The distances to the parent galaxy of the individual quasars of a quasar pair can show if the axis of alignment is offset, I suggest you read more of his work.

Quote:
He can say "it looks like" all he wants, but it does not change the fact that he has no other objective evidence to support his contention.
Again, read his work,

have fun.