Galaxy strings and redshifts

[aramis720]

Though we all know that Halton Arp gets no respect among mainstream cosmologists, despite his background and pedigree working with Hubble, I'd like to know if anyone here can help with debunking or supporting one of Arp's key arguments for a very different kind of cosmology. In his 2003 book, Seeing Red, he describes strings of galaxies and related objects in both Virgo and Fornax with anomalous redshifts, but anomalous in a patterned way that suggested to him that the central galaxy in each string was a parent galaxy that ejected the higher z value galaxies to each side in pairs that then disperse over time and give birth to their own galaxies. I know this sounds very weird and upside down from the standard model perspective, but he shows the z values for these various objects and they do indeed mirror each other in Virgo and Fornax. I'm curious if anyone else has looked into this and can either tell me where Arp went wrong with his data and analysis or whether they find his information compelling? Here's Fig. 9-3 from p. 239 of Seeing Red. He also describes his observations succinctly at p. 162: "The Fornax Cluster represents a hierarchy of redshifts. The largest galaxy is the oldest and has the lowest redshift. Successive generations of galaxies are smaller, increasingly young and active and climb to higher intrinsic redshifts in steps. The younger galaxies emerge in opposite ejection directions and, with some rotation, give, as in Vrgo, an overall 'S' (for spiral) shape to the cluster."

[aramis720]

Anyone? 

[beecee]

Like Freddy Hoyle, Arp was probably an otherwise great astronomer, but in this instant, based on some limited data, (as compared to overwhelming data supporting the accepted definition of redshift) he was apparently wrong. Was he also a supporter of the defunct and invalidated Electric/Plasma universe hypothetical?

[aramis720]

17 hours ago, beecee said:

Like Freddy Hoyle, Arp was probably an otherwise great astronomer, but in this instant, based on some limited data, (as compared to overwhelming data supporting the accepted definition of redshift) he was apparently wrong. Was he also a supporter of the defunct and invalidated Electric/Plasma universe hypothetical?

By what data are you suggesting he was wrong? Have you looked at the redshift data for the objects he identifies or can you link to an analysis by anyone who has? 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, aramis720 said:

By what data are you suggesting he was wrong? Have you looked at the redshift data for the objects he identifies or can you link to an analysis by anyone who has? 

I'm simply saying that what he proposed with his interpretation of observation, only applied to a small sample in the greater scheme of observational data. DM did not invalidate GR, and this anomaly is not enough to invalidate what the overwhelming observations say.

 

 

[aramis720]

29 minutes ago, beecee said:

I'm simply saying that what he proposed with his interpretation of observation, only applied to a small sample in the greater scheme of observational data. DM did not invalidate GR, and this anomaly is not enough to invalidate what the overwhelming observations say.

 

 

I disagree, Beecee, because if just one (let alone dozens or hundreds, as Arp has collected) redshift anomaly is correct, then Hubble's Law is invalidated because it shows that redshift is not caused solely or primarily by expansion. Do you know of any databases for redshift of extragalactic objects? 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, aramis720 said:

I disagree, Beecee, because if just one (let alone dozens or hundreds, as Arp has collected) redshift anomaly is correct, then Hubble's Law is invalidated because it shows that redshift is not caused solely or primarily by expansion. Do you know of any databases for redshift of extragalactic objects? 

Of course the possibility of any scientific theory including the standard cosmological model, based on new and extended observations, may show that it is wrong or needs modification.But also criticizing is easier than building a theory, and the achievements of the standard theory must not be underestimated. 

http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

 

excerpt:

"With the advent of large-scale sky surveys such as the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), it has become possible to statistically test these predictions. Of course, the vast majority of astronomers haven't bothered, because we have extremely good models of quasars as cosmological objects that explain a wide range of observations about them, meaning that there's really no need to pay attention to the crank fringe asserting that there must be something wrong with the mainstream model. However, this (rational) response does feed into the natural tendency of many people to be attracted to conspiracy theories, who then assert that the "dogma" of mainstream science is "ignoring the evidence" for these decidedly non-conventional models of quasars. So, a few people have used the data in the SDSS to look for correlations of quasars and foreground galaxies, or to look for evidence of periodic redshifts in quasars. The result, of course, is that there is no evidence to support these theory, and indeed that the large statistics afforded by these surveys support the cosmological model.

In other words, if you want it summed up in fewer words: Arp is wrong. The evidence does not back up his arguments."

 

much more at http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2011/01/14/one-of-astronomys-pet-crackpot-theories-non-cosmological-quasar-redshifts/

[aramis720]

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Of course the possibility of any scientific theory including the standard cosmological model, based on new and extended observations, may show that it is wrong or needs modification.But also criticizing is easier than building a theory, and the achievements of the standard theory must not be underestimated. 

Yes, of course. But in this case we have a verifiable/checkable very serious challenge to the standard model. In fact, I just found out that Wikipedia has redshift data on these objects in Virgo and Fornax, so I'll double check the Fornax numbers if you want to double check the Virgo numbers? It's just about a dozen objects to check.