Quote:
Originally posted by Duane+Jan 7 2005, 06:57 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Duane @ Jan 7 2005, 06:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-DGR@Jan 7 2005, 06:46 PM
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.
|
How else can I put this, except to say that you are dead wrong. Arp was imaging QSO's and noted a couple of them "seemed" to be associated with nearer (not nearby, btw) galaxies. He then went looking specifically for other images which he felt might also show an association.
So, he saw something he thought was odd, proposed a theory for the oddness, then set out to find examples of the theory he composed. In the process, he ignored several other lines of research which added weight to the redshift = distance theory, and has provided no evidence excepting images since.
I agree, if the objects are nearby, they are low luminosity. I do not agree, however, that they are nearby and I find the evidence of such an association as provided by Arp wholly unconvincing. [/b][/quote]
Perhaps Duane, you could clarify which component of my quote above is "dead wrong"? You claimed Arp's premise is that quasars are low luminosity and on that basis he seeks evidence supporting the premise that they're low luminosity. On that you were dead wrong. Arp's basis for concluding quasars are low luminosity is a natural result of his interpretation of observations indicating they are local.
Since you are agreeing that we're they nearby, they would be low luminosity, I'm mystified as to what you find to be "dead wrong" about the quote you've selected.