Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
If you, VanderL, or iantresman, or dgruss23, or turbo-1, or ATKINS, or TomT, or any other BAUT member wishes to argue the idea that quasar redshifts are quantised, or that the observational data is consistent with "an ejection model", or any other ATM idea, then you are welcome to do so.
|
I had not made an appearance here for a reason, although I find it interesting that you call me out on this thread. I find the arguments for quantized redshifts interesting, but not compelling, and I'm not prepared to defend them from a gleeful and vigorous attack at this point. I am prepared to gleefully and vigorously defend bridges as evidence for interaction between objects of discordant redshifts, as are many of us. Unfortunately, the "More from Arp et al" thread is almost entirely bereft of mainstreamers, and has been for over a month. I think your last post was in early April. We may eventually get to a discussion of redshift quantization, but I doubt that it will be soon. We have lots better fish to fry.
__________________
The ether of general relativity therefore differs from that of classical mechanics or the special theory of relativity respectively, in so far as it is not 'absolute', but is determined in its locally variable properties by ponderable matter.
Albert Einstein, "On the Ether", 1924
|