Quote:
Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 06:28 PM
No, this is a common failing of Arp and those who support him. It is the argument of intrinsically low luminosity that is not supported by any of his research to date. These also leads to a failure in logic. Arp contends that QSO's show low luminousity, then shows two-dimensional images which he contends show association between QSO's and low reshift galaxies, then says see, this is why the QSO'as are low luminousity. (Josh, in the EU thread, gave a latin saying for this which fits perfectly) Arp is using his premise to arrive at a conclusion when the premise itself is the thing which is being argued.
|
No, that's an improper characterization. Arp did not start with the premise that quasars are low intrinsic luminosity. That is an implication of his model. If they're nearby, then given their observed magnitudes - they're low luminosity.
__________________
"The scientist who asks the right question reconnoiters a new patch of the unknown, and may, with luck, bring it within the constricted but expanding boundaries of the known."
~Timothy Ferris (The Red Limit) 1982
|