After reading the (very) long Arp thread, what are the implications of these findings on accepted views?

Will I have to teach my children a different history on the orgins of... well everything? i.e is there an origin? How long has the universe been here? How big is it? etc etc.

When these findings become accepted (hard to see how they will not), what excatly will be affected?

There are few things in cosmology which one can relably address with an air of certainty. The redshift - distance relationship is one of those few things. Whether or not there is any kind of intrinsic redshift may be a legitimate subject of study, but there are limits. It will be a hard, uphill, and probably losing battle to argue that any but a small fraction of the observed redshift is intrinsic, because of the strong certainty of the redshift - distance relationship in cosmology.

Things that are farther away have a larger redshift, that's what I mean by redshift - distance relationship. It is a fundamental part of modern cosmology, it is well supported by strong emiprical evidence, and it is firmly accepted by the vast majority of people who have actually studied cosmology. No intrinsic redshift mechanism stands a chance of being accepted, if it contradicts the accepted redshift - distance relationship, unless supported by evidence that is at least as strong, if not stronger.

Personally, I disagree. I find it hard to believe that the Arpian claims will ever amount to anything more than grist for the discussion board mill. I could be wrong, but naturally, I don't think I am. The claims are weak at best, and involve only a few interesting objects which may or may not turn out to be of fundamental importance. But there is no reliable systematic pattern to be found in those arguments, which would in any way suggest that the accepted redshift - distance relationship is anything other than correct.

The empirical evidence for intrinsic redshifts is soft, and the theoretical models even softer. Somebody on the Arpian side will have to do a lot more work, and show a lot more success before posing a serious threat to standard cosmology.

It is hard enough to give precise answers to these questions, even well within the bounds of standard cosmology. I don't think anyone can reliably predict what effect an Arpian success will have on them.

__________________
Don't try this at home - We're what you call "professionals" - MythBusters.

An incorrect and dying theory has a certain signature, and I'm afraid Arp's arguments have all the signposts in perfect position for a dying idea. Note that true revolutions in science start outside the mainstream and gradually gain momentum as more and more undeniable evidence builds on their side. The progress for dying ideas is the opposite-- supporting evidence comes only from the original proponent, and from a rapidly shrinking inner circle of faithful, while mainstream science plows on like a streamroller with discovery after discovery consistent with the growingly certain mainstream idea.

As a fairly long-term participant in the Arp thread, I thank and salute you, Tim and Ken, for providing a good summation and thoughtful opinion, respectively, of this issue. It's often difficult to envision the curvature of the earth from the midst of the forest.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

You're probably having more of an impact being out there among the trees than we are just kind of spouting the "party line". On the other hand, what I find frustrating about threads like that is the futility in trying to educate people who don't want to be educated.

To be fair, the Arp thread members are much more inclined to deal with facts than are some other ATM supporters. I've found the thread enjoyable.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

What exactly is the mechanism of "intrinsic redshift" or what are the claims?

soihope cannot answer your question (the handle is a sock puppet of a banned BAUT member).

The claims are ATM ones, and details can be found in the Arp et al. thread.

This thread is now done.