Quote (novocane @ Mar 20 2012 09:27pm)

First of all, great job plagarizing

secondly, great source. www.haltonart.com

and thirdly, uh oh...

"The biggest problem with Arp's analysis is that today there are tens of thousands of quasars with known redshifts discovered by various sky surveys. The vast majority of these quasars are not correlated in any way with nearby AGN. Indeed, with improved observing techniques, a number of host galaxies have been observed around quasars which indicates that those quasars at least really are at cosmological distances and are not the kind of objects Arp proposes.[5] Arp's analysis, according to most scientists, suffers from being based on small number statistics and hunting for peculiar coincidences and odd associations. In a vast universe such as our own, peculiarities and oddities are bound to appear if one looks in enough places. Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist"

Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 20 2012 10:29pm)

That didn't prove him wrong.

Quote (novocane @ Mar 20 2012 09:42pm)

actually, it does, if you read the next two lines

if youre wondering why no one takes big bang conspiracies that seriously its because of shit like that. as soon as you start to look into it shit starts to unravel

Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 20 2012 10:48pm)

If you look at the picture it's obvious that the two are connected. One high redshift and the other low redshift.

Quote (novocane @ Mar 20 2012 09:50pm)

problem is you cant base a theory off of a few anomalies and just ignore the rest of the data, thats not how science works.  Again:

"Unbiased samples of sources, taken from numerous galaxy surveys of the sky show none of the proposed 'irregularities' nor any statistically significant correlations exist"

Quote (AEtheric @ 20 Mar 2012 18:32)

And to prove that Redshift != Distance.
Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by.  Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies.  These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow.  Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location".  But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion.  It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong!  The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

Quote (AEtheric @ 21 Mar 2012 13:50)

I really don't care if physicists and cosmologists have rejected it. They reject everything that is against the big bang. Duh.

Quote (TIMMY213 @ Mar 21 2012 03:27am)

Either there is a conspiracy of physicists and cosmologists, all around the world, to ignore real science and push their 'big bang' agenda for no reason other than it's the status quo,

or the physicists and the cosmologists who have analysed findings 'disproving' the big bang have found them lacking because of all the evidence they have gathered that contradicts or explains these findings.

AKA
Either the majority of scientists are not being scientists
or the majority of scientists are being scientists.

Occam's razor is not on your side, sorry.

Quote (general_patton @ Mar 21 2012 01:20am)

My only issue with that is that quasars and galaxies are two separate animals. Galaxies have relatively low energy density and quasars have insane energy density. Quasars might kick out the correct energy needed to constructively or destructively interfere with a redshift value.

I don't think these guys have made a good point, since quasars having different redshift values than their "parent galaxies" proves jack shit. They might as well have said that the Earth was the center of the big bang, and stuff moves away from it in varying degrees of acceleration, since that would provide the needed conditions for galaxies and quasars to be seemingly related but separated greatly on one plane.

Quote (AEtheric @ Mar 21 2012 08:56am)

There are many pictures taken by Halton Arp that prove that two redshifted objects with wildly different redshift are actually connected by a bridge of matter. This disproves that redshift!=distance.