Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
dgruss23, in the post immediately after yours, neatly captured the quandry I find myself in.
What is "Arp's model"? I diligently read all 30+ papers dgruss23 cited as " the relevant papers" for the "empirical model". I took this to be the most powerful of Arp et al.'s claims (if you review the posts subsequent to #206, in this thread, you'll see a constant theme of probing and testing this idea).
I concluded that it was quite inconsistent with good observational results, thinking that all diligent readers of this thread would have also reached the same conclusion.
|
Could you point me again to the posts in which you explained why you concluded that the sum of that research is inconsistent with good observational results? Thanks. I only recall you selecting the 1998 paper and commenting on that.
Quote:
|
I mean, if after ~>30 years of (full time?) research, 20+ professionals have only this "empirical model" (later dubbed TER - the empirical relationship) to cite as fruit of their hundreds of person-years of effort, that's pretty weak (and to claim - as several here seem to be doing - that all this work hasn't, in fact, even gotten any (BAUT) Arp supporter further than 'discordant redshifts' ... well, my initial reaction is one of astonishment and disbelief - am I spending all these hours on something as ... well, I'd better not say it).
|
Since you've already concluded that Arp is completely wrong - why are you worrying? Why don't you just respond to the claims that people make as they make them instead of trying to shape the discussion before it happens?
Quote:
You can read the program I had intended here and here.
Now I learn that no one (apparently) is prepared to defend the Arp claim that I set out to 'debunk', so, in the words of a regular Arp et al. poster (with an edit or two): "Why would I waste time [debunking] claims that [no one here] agrees with, think may have been shown to be wrong, or feel the evidence is not sufficient to discuss at this time?"
|
If you want to debunk Arp's work - debunk it. There is no reason for your time reading those papers to have been wasted. Point out what you think is wrong with the claims in those papers and if somebody find a flaw in what you say - they'll respond. You might also present it in little bits. Pick one paper and point to the most serious problem you see - and see what - if anything people have to say.
Quote:
A claim, I might add, that Arp apparently devoted a great deal of his professional life to (how much time do you think it takes to do the research that results in 30+ peer-reviewed papers?)So, to deal with the only part(s) that still seems open:
a) I have no intention of asking anyone to defend anything they do not wish to claim (in the first place). I'm only astonished (and a little disappointed) at the (astonishingly - to me - narrow) scope of the claims which Arp et al. 'defenders', here in the ATM section of BAUT, do (seem to be prepared) to defend.
|
Nereid stop and think about it. We've been round and round about examples such as NGC 7603, NGC 1232, NGC 7319, NEQ3 (although there has been little response to the repeated links to that paper). None of the "Arp Challengers" have acknowledged that it is scientifically viable that those examples could represent genuine redshift anomalies. Why then talk about a model or theory based upon the initial interpretations of observations that are completely rejected by the "Arp Challengers" here? If it is insisted that the evidence in Arp's papers is
"quite inconsistent with good observational results" then any debate about the VMH and other theoretical aspects of the Arp issue would conclude with - "well - there's no evidence that these redshift anomalies are real anyway."
And the scope of what will be discussed is not as narrow as you seem to think. I specifically have stated that (1) I will explain what the VMH is to the best of my ability, but am not convinced it is a correct explanation and therefore will not take on the role of its defender; (2) I am not going to defend the claim that all quasars are local (unless new papers that shed light on that possibility come along) - because I'm not convinced that all quasars are local; and (3) I'm not going to be held to a standard of defending every last claim Arp has made as if my views are lockstep with his.
IF you comment on something Arp has said that I disagree with Arp on, I will let you know.
But setting all that aside - I believe you have a number of people here that are more than willing to talk about the evidence for/against the interpretation that some observations suggest discordant redshifts. I've repeatedly the last 2 days stated that this is a theme that runs through all Arp et al research - but you don't seem to have much interest in that. I don't understand why.
Quote:
|
b) In light of (to me) the debacle over "the empirical model", would some Arp et al. supporter/defender please state, clearly and concisely, exactly what "Arp" claim (or claims) they are prepared to defend? If nothing else, I'd rather not waste any more time preparing a rebuttal to something no one is prepared to defend in the first place.
|
Bridges are evidence for interaction in these Arp systems.
AT least some quasars are ejected from AGN.
We've already devoted a lot of time to these topics, so - having read all those papers, perhaps you could pick an example from the list of papers and explain how Arp's claim within that paper (re bridges or ejected qso's) is flawed.