..maybe morre of a window that was fed by other deminsions and so forth not really a big bang but a pooring of stuff into a still pond that forces all to be moved away at an ever increasingly rate .. where there is no gravity its like being pushed and always increasing speed by force of energy that is pushing you with no gravity too slow you down..soo we know there is energy pooring into our universe that would speed up any solar systems away or too each other by the force of their own gravity or the absents of it...for a bigbang something new was put into this deminsion universe and the window is open or we would of slowed down by now insted of still speeding up or atleast stay at a nuetral speed unless its more of a downhill effect and once we start moving we speed up...any crazy theory could be correct ..

.easier say god spoke and here we are

wat.

Now that' I've posted a refutation of that study the posters have mysteriously vanished.

If you didn't talk down to people and extensively use jargon, you would open several doors to rational discourse.

Imo you've dodged novocane since page 2

He dodged you on the global cooling issue on page 5

No one really learned anything here except that scientists like to hand pick evidence and studies in order to support theories they like.

One major failure of the Tang and Zhang study that supposedly refuted Arp was that they used the Hubble distances to the galaxies instead of the Arpian distance. So they didn't really refute Arp at all.

The post that this post references was a direct refutation of novocane.

This post was edited by AEtheric on May 31 2012 03:35pm

How are both distances derived and why does this derivation make such a huge difference in the final assumption?

I read through and what I got so far from it is that the signals we assume to be red shifts are actually something else?

Also, did third any parties ever replicate his work? Novocane raised the point that the anomalies don't matter if they don't happen in high enough proportion to the majority of contradictory data.

Also red shifts can mean a few things: that the light travels through a strong gravity field, the source of the light is moving away from us (not necessarily distance), or a number of other things

it happened

Well, the distances of objects in mainstream cosmology are determined by redshift. Redshift times the speed of light equals speed. Arpian cosmology determines distance through Standard Candles, the TFR (Tully-Fisher Relation), Proper Motions (not accurate but good for determining if an object is local or not), and more that I don't know of.

There have been plenty of studies and people et al with Halton Arp that demonstrate his against the mainstream validity. I can give you links here of his many peer reviewed studies:

http://en.scientificcommons.org/harp

http://cdsads.u-strasbg.fr/cgi-bin/nph-absconnect?origserver=http://adsabs.harvard.edu&origbitmap=http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu&dbkey=AST&dbkey=PRE&qform=AST&arxivsel=astro-ph&arxivsel=cond-mat&arxivsel=cs&arxivsel=gr-qc&arxivsel=hep-ex&arxivsel=hep-lat&arxivsel=hep-ph&arxivsel=hep-th&arxivsel=math&arxivsel=math-ph&arxivsel=nlin&arxivsel=nucl-ex&arxivsel=nucl-th&arxivsel=physics&arxivsel=quant-ph&arxivsel=q-bio&simquery=YES&nedquery=YES&adsobjquery=YES&autlogic=OR&objlogic=OR&author=Arp+H.&object=&startmon=&startyear=&endmon=&endyear=&ttllogic=OR&title=&txtlogic=OR&text=&nrtoreturn=200&startnr=1&joupick=ALL&refstems=&dataand=ALL&groupand=ALL&startentryday=&startentrymon=&startentryyear=&endentryday=&endentrymon=&endentryyear=&minscore=&sort=SCORE&datatype=SHORT&autsyn=YES&ttlsyn=YES&txtsyn=YES&autwt=1.0&objwt=1.0&ttlwt=0.3&txtwt=3.0&autwgt=YES&objwgt=YES&ttlwgt=YES&txtwgt=YES&ttlsco=YES&txtsco=YES&version=1

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Scientists&tab1=Scientists&tab2=Display&id=63

Yes, redshit can mean a few things, but it's most likely that redshift has an intrinsic component and a velocity component. If you look at Arp's work on connecting bridges of matter of galaxies with quasars then you would see. Additionally, proper motions studies have been done on these quasars that show that they cannot be as far as the mainstream redshift interpretation implies, as proper motion studies angular displacement, and, therrefore, the further away a star, galaxy, etc. is, the less it will have proper motions.

Here's a study that's an example of that:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0309826


I could post study upon study of why Arp is right, but I don't really feel like looking through so many studies.

I hope all of this makes sense.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 3 2012 08:41pm

It's sad that this thread has been devoted to ad hominem attacks against Arp's credibility rather than actually discussing the science. Oh, and just in case anyone posts that fucking stupid wikipedia quote again, I have posted a refutation of the study of Zhang and Tang.