Quote:
Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 06:28 PM
Yes, but the "vast majority" of his models are based on a very small sampling of the objects in the sky. Furthermore, he does not address many more objects that do not show the association he claims for those objects he does include. Finally, the association he makes is still based on his initial premise, taken as true, that there is an association--a premise that he has not provided convincing evidence to support.
|
I can't help you if you look at examples like NGC 7603 and NEQ3 and then claim that there is no convincing evidence that he's provided a scientifically viable scenario. Arp's been accused of falling into a trap of letting his eyes deceive him. It seems to me that in some cases, the mainstream position is allowing its theoretical expectations to deceive it. Intellectual self deception is no less plausible than sensory self deception.
__________________
"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
|