Quote:
Originally posted by Duane@Jan 7 2005, 06:28 PM
Except that the "mainstream" as you put it, have shown convincing evidence that the redshift = distance correlation is strong. While it does remain a theory, in that the objects discussed are too far away to get a parallax measurement to prove it, the series of "standard candles" used by astronomers to get out to several hundreds of millions of light years do support the redshift contention out to that distance. Arp has no such quantifying support for his theory.
|
Why - "as you put it"? That's what it is. Either something is the mainstream concensus theory or its not.
There is quantifying support for large deviations from the redshift distance relation - derived directly from standard candles. But to go into that will involve an investment in time that I don't have right now.
But let me add, that the basic picture in Arp's model is an underlying cosmological redshift component (defined by some value of the Hubble Constant) for which redshift increases with distance, with a superimposed intrinsic redshift component. So Arp accepts that the greater the distance, the greater its redshift. But he's suggesting that the intrinsic component can be large enough to produce false distances if it be assumed that the entire redshift component is cosmological.