Quote:
|
Are you going to start this crap again? I strongly object to these kind of qualifications.
|
Get over it. I agree with Antoniseb on this--Arp's model is silly to those who take the time to review it in detail. The quantification fits, it is not a personal attack, and it's inclusion in the sentence states an opinion.
It is also my opinion that the theory is a load of bunkum, and is beyond silly.
Quote:
|
In Arp's model quasars evolve into galaxies, where is the problem with host galaxies?
|
Ok, pay attention here. Arp says that QSO's are close, display low luminosity, and are ejected by nearby active galaxies. Images of QSO's with their actual associated galaxies show equal redshifts between the QSO and the associated galaxy, none of which are close. Now, does that make the problem obvious, or should I add more to help make it clearer?
Quote:
|
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.
|
See VanderL, this is a personal shot, and I take exception to it. You and I, with a host of others of course, have been discussing Arp's silly model for months now. Do you really think I haven't read the drivel he puts out to support it?
Not to make to fine a point on it, but you are wrong. Arp's
only support are 2d images he has obtained, which
he says show an association.
There is no other quantitative support for his model
If there is VanderL, please point it out to me.