Quote:
Originally posted by Duane+Jan 7 2005, 07:09 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Duane @ Jan 7 2005, 07:09 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-VanderL@Jan 7 2005, 06:58 PM
I did, and I don't know what you are saying.
Cheers.
|
No problem, I'll try again.
Arp says QSO's are associated with objects that show a lower redshift. Those QSO's that have been resolved to the point where the host galaxy that they are associated with has also been resolved have all (as in each and every one) shown an agreed redshift.
There has not been one single instance of a QSO and the galaxy it is associated with which shows a difference in redshift, nor have any of them been closer than about z=/> 1.5.
If Arp's theory had any substance at all, there would be a least one QSO and its associated galaxy as close as the Seyfert galaxies Arp claims eject these things, somewhere in the sky.
See the problem yet, or do I need to add more? [/b][/quote]
Duane, Arp is saying that QSO's are ejected from active galaxies. In his model as the quasars evolve - they become normal galaxies. He expects that the galactic material surrounding a quasar will have the same redshift as the quasar nucleus - because its all ejected material in his model!
You've created an expectation for Arp's model (quasar and surrounding galaxy should have different redshift) that isn't an expectation of Arp's model.
Now you think he's wrong - that's fine. I could care less whether you think he's right or not. But your characterization of what he is saying is incorrect. If you'll notice I'm not wasting my time trying to convince you he's right. I'm simply clarifying for you where you've incorrectly interpreted what he is saying.