>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.
Better than what? Arp goes into some detail as to the probabilities of
his observations being concident with line-of-sight. His case is
strengthened by his observations of a number of paired quasars apparently
ejected in opposite directions from galactic nuclei. Rather than saying
that his views do not seem to be holding up will under scrutiny, perhaps
you should scrutinize the basis of his detractors.
>
>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?
I don't think you have yet grasped what Arp is saying. Arp says that
recessional velocity is an improper interpretation of redshift.
Underlying your question is the assumption that redshift is due to
recession. I understand that Hubble maintained through the end of his
career that redshift might be due to something else than recessional
velocity, but today the association of redshift and recession are
ingrained quite strongly, as you inadvertently demonstrate.
> How does he explain the microwave background?
I've loaned the book to a friend who is reading it now. I better not
comment on that from memory.
>Does he explain elemental abundances?
I don't recall.
>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.
You two must not be challenging any overarching principles of origins.
Because of my observations and interpretations of coal seams being
transported organics rather than from swamps (which lends support for a
global flood), I have been _more than_ "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'll take my chances. :-)
Bill