This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

What the spectrum had confirmed was that this indeed was a low density, excited hydrogen filament connecting the two objects of vastly different redshift.

Which is funny because the authors who actually did the work Arp is talking credit for there don't agree. Yee & De Robertis 1991 conclude that a clump of narrow Lya seen near the plane of the lensing galaxy is likely a star forming region in the lens QSO host of a satellite galaxy. This is just one example of how Arp systematically ignored other conclusions when presenting his evidence. After all there is no evidence of a physical connection between the narrow component and the lensing galaxy, if it were a connecting filament perhaps you would expect it to span the velocity space between the quasar and the lensing galaxy, but no. It's offset from the broad component by just 255 km/s while the lensing galaxy is offset by over 200,000 km/s. The spectroscopy also doesn't indicate it's a filament at all. Please stop spamming.

gimp-0 must be a cal-tech alum.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.

The point was, of course, that a line between quasar A and B passed directly between the nucleus of the galaxy and quasar D. On the face of it high redshift gas was indicated near the nucleus of the low redshift galaxy.

Gravitational lensing theory had established that elliptical distributions of mass could lead to quadrupolar images of quasars with a 5th image, dim and non-magnified, near the center, often lost in the glare of the lensing mass. See for example. Elliptic Mass Distributions versus Elliptic Potentials in Gravitational Lenses. Kassiola, A. & Kovner, I : Astrophysical Journal v.417, p.450. http://adsabs.har...17..450K That was published in 1993, 5 years before Arp's book, so Arp was merely observing and confirming something, the 5th image, that had been predicted (not post-dicted) by Gravitational lensing theory.

if you extrapolate the luminosity required for an elliptical to have this M/L ratio it comes out MB = -25 mag.

What an interesting claim. However without any way to scrutinise the calculation this no one should take him at his word.

On the topic of the Einstein Cross you can measure the delay between the quasar images. Quasars fluctuate in brightness and gravitational lensing says that the images will have slight time delays with respect to each other due to the Einstein and Shaprio delays. For Q2237+030, the delays are on the order of 3, 6 and 35 hours [Vakulik 2006]. Yes, hours. And yet if these were separate objects near the lensed galaxy they would be separated by about 4800 light years, and yet they are in almost perfect synchronicity from our unique viewing angle. So either this galaxy is the size of a solar system or it is a gravitational lens.

M.B. Bell and D. McDiarmid of the National Research Council of Canada published an analysis of 46,400 (that's right -- forty six thousand!) quasar redshifts from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

Which Bell himself later retracted.

"It is shown here that a periodicity of Delta(z)~0.6 is imprinted on the redshift-number distribution by this selection effect. Because this effect cannot be rigorously corrected for, astronomers need to be aware of it in any investigation that uses the SDSS N(z) distribution. Its presence also means that the SDSS quasar data cannot be used either to confirm or to rule out the Delta(z)~0.6 redshift period reported previously in other, unrelated quasar data."

Bell & Comeau 2009, arxiv:0911.5700


Hartnett (another periodicity nut) also reached the same conclusion in 2009. Both you and Ratcliffe are guilty of extreme cherrypicking.

What I think many of you guys do not realize is that when somebody publishes one of these papers, it is oftentimes their last. You guys keep on treating everything which is going on as though there is no pressure being applied. Actually, in case after case, papers are rejected -- sometimes without even sending them off for review, on the basis of the claim alone (!) -- and the authors have to shop them around.

There are also examples of younger astronomers not fully understanding the implications, and suddenly finding themselves unable to publish anything at all.

The number of associations between objects of differing redshifts that has been published over the past few decades is in the hundreds by now.

Think about your approach to this controversy: You're refusing to learn it, and jumping at the first straw you can grab that confirms your case.

Instead of learning everything you can about the controversy, you're here convincing others to copy your lazy approach.

This really comes down to your false narratives about what you imagine a big change in theory to look like. You have this false notion that it would be an orderly affair.

I am not your enemy. That's not how you will remember me.

People need to grow up, and realize that politics happens in science too.

Take the time to learn the arguments on BOTH sides. If you are too short on time to read Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies or Seeing Red, then spend an hour watching this Arp lecture here:

https://www.youtu...BfKPAGNM

To fully appreciate the argument that has been put forward, you need learn all of the fronts on which it is happening so that as new press releases come out, you can evaluate for yourself whether or not Arp is vindicated -- and whether or not you believe the claims being made in the press release.

There are no shortcuts to this process of forming your own opinion.

And, btw, all of these people who take the time to announce on phys.org that they are filtering out arguments which they don't agree with, realize that those sorts of behaviors will of course happen in the event of ANY big upheaval in the space sciences - legitimate or not.

These people who do this will be the last to know of any big change happening, and they will of course fall in line in the event that the experts publicly change their positions.

Their announcement is that they are thought followers -- not thought leaders who have the courage to question their own beliefs in the light of ongoing controversies.

It means so little.

And, btw, all of these people who take the time to announce on phys.org that they are filtering out arguments which they don't agree with, realize that those sorts of behaviors will of course happen in the event of ANY big upheaval in the space sciences - legitimate or not.

In your case, they are ignoring a blowhard who leaves dozens of posts worth of gish-gallop/verbal diarrhea on a single article and who responds to challenges to his statement mainly going off on tangents. In short, they're not filtering out arguments, they are filtering out an asshole.

"Any discussion of something new requires dialogue between hypothesis and criticism. If animated and vigorous this is controversy. It is supposed to uncover what is wrong and illuminate what is correct, or possibly correct. The more energetically this process goes on, the more progress can be made, particularly if further testing is stimulated. Controversy can be extremely valuable. But some people on the other side of the present controversy have denied that there was a legitimate controversy. They insist that the issues were all resolved long ago, that no valid evidence of new effects exists, and that further discussion or testing is a waste of time."

- Halton Arp in Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies

The Golem: What You Should Know About Science
Collins / Pinch

"citizens as citizens need understand only controversial science. One reviewer argues: 'it is quite easy to think of political decisions with a scientific side to them where the science is noncontroversial' and offers as an example the effect on medical institutions of the development of a predictive test for Huntington's disease. But if the science is non-controversial, why do those running the medical institutions need to understand the deep nature of the science that gave rise to the results? If the test is uncontroversially valid they can make their decisions without understanding how agreement about the test was reached. Thus ... we stand by our claim that 'For citizens who want to take part in the democratic processes of a technological society, all the science they need to know about is controversial.'"

Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science
Halton Arp

This has already been addressed...see for example: https://youtu.be/...P3Y?t=67

From yesterday ...

https://www.times...y-answer

Nobel laureates condemn 'unimaginative' research funding models
Peer review process punishes academics who 'challenge the dogma' of their field, scientists claim

April 20, 2017

"Research funding bodies do not like researchers who 'challenge the dogma' of their field, and hence give the impression that 'innovation is not valued', a Nobel laureate has warned ..."

A short list of vindications for Arp:

(1) Alignment of quasar minor axes

(2) Numerous apparent interactions of objects of wildly different redshifts

(3) Numerous instances where high-redshift quasars appear aligned with the axes of low-redshift "foreground" galaxies

(4) Intervening galaxies are 4 times more prevalent along lines of sight to GRB's than quasars

(5) Quasars seemingly observed in front of foreground galaxies

(6) A quasar that exhibits 10x superluminal motions at inferred distance

(7) A quasar group so large that it spans 5% of the known universe at inferred distance

(8) No observation of time dilation in quasar variations

(9) Quasars have been shown to exhibit proper motion (!), which should not be possible at inferred distances

(10) Quasar clustering (not expected from Big Bang theory)

A short list of vindications for Arp:

It's all a conspiracehhh to hide the troof!

No, it's called saving the theory. You already know the game. You're playing it.

This comment has been removed by a moderator.