Big Bang dissent

David Campbell (bivalve@mailserv0.isis.unc.edu)
Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:34:08 -0400

Despite Arp's dismissal of scientists, non-Big Bang models do get published
and discussed in scientific journals if they provide reasonable support.
In fact, some do not seem well-supported with my limited knowledge of the
evidence.

However, Arp's views do not seem to be holding up well under scrutiny. I
vaguely recall seeing an article in which one of Arp's purported links
between objects of different redshift was shown to be coincidence due to
our line of sight. As this is a plausible explanation for any apparent
connection between objects of different redshift, the burden is on him to
prove his explanations to be better. Unquestioned examples of high
redshift or blueshift objects ejected from close galaxies do exist, so it
should be straightforward to show similarities.

I think that the recent ability to observe high-redshift galaxies
associated with high-redshift quasars would be further support for the
conventional view. Also, does he have an explanation for why all the
quasars got ejected away from us to high redshift and none towards us to
high blueshift? How does he explain the microwave background? Does he
explain elemental abundances?

In general, I see a lot more freedom in developing and expressing
alternative views than the quote suggests. After eleven years of college
education in science, I am about to propose some sizable rearrangements in
bivalve classification. Some of these are in conjunction with my advisor,
who has had even more years of scientific influence without getting
stultified. The risk of becoming "completely impervious to reality" is at
least as great, if not higher, with regard to one's pet theories as it is
with regard to prevailing scientific wisdom.

I am also reminded of some debating advice: "If you do not have the law,
argue the facts. If you do not have the facts, argue the law. If you do
not have either, pound the table." Dismissing the facts and arguing about
the law (e.g., postmodernism or much politics) suggests that the arguer is
short on facts. Name-calling suggests a general lack of good arguments.
It is one thing to say "You've got it all wrong and here is the evidence"
and another to say "You've got it all wrong because you are a stuck-up
idiot who will not listen to me, the fount of all wisdom." God often has
reason to address us in the latter way, but all of us need to examine our
own ways.

David C.