Cosmology In Trouble?
Halton Arp's Seeing Red
Ever since I read Eric J. Lerner's book The Big Bang Never Happened, promoting and developing Swedish Nobel laureate Hans Alfvén's theory of an electrically dominated epoch before gravitation became a significant factor in shaping the universe, I've had reservations that the accepted teachings on Cosmology might be on as questionable grounds as some of the other things I've touched upon here.
Now the astronomer Halton Arp provides what looks like devastating evidence that the conventional velocity/distance interpretation of the redshift is wrong. Dozens of examples are shown of high redshift ("distant") quasars closely associated with low redshift ("nearby") galaxies and connected by clearly visible filaments and jets of matter. His further analysis goes on to hypothesize quasars as young objects ejected from highly active galaxy nuclei, which then go on to evolve through further ejections into normal galaxies-the reverse of the currently taught accretion-from-a-rarified-state model. Of course, the orthodoxy responds with ad hominem attacks, ridicule, and suppression of Arp's work. One astronomy graduate with whom I raised the topic in a conversation was scornful, then admitted that he hadn't actually read any of the papers but had read the critics. Another insisted that the matter filaments clearly visible on photograph after photograph to anyone willing to see them were random background noise. Typical reactions of an intolerant church defending its dogma and putting down heresy.
Seeing Red by Halton Arp, Apeiron Press, 1998, 4405 rue St. Dominique, Montreal, Quebec, H2W 2B2, Canada, redshift.vif.com ISBN 0-9683689-0-5
From Tom Van Flandern's review at Meta Research , reprinted from the December 15, 1998 issue of the Meta Research Bulletin, Vol. 7, #4
DON'T READ THIS BOOK. For if you should decide after reading this review to disregard this advice, you will need to prepare to have your universe turned upside-down. Should you then make your way through this small print, 306-page tour de force, you will very likely come away doubting what you thought you knew of the large-scale structure of the universe. The cosmological interpretation of redshift for quasars and active galaxy nuclei has been challenged often before, although never so successfully. But one seldom sees serious suggestions that even the redshift-distance relation for ordinary galaxies may be wrong, as you will see here. And as if the implied revolution in cosmology were not enough, your view of the professionalism of scientists and academics in general, and of astronomers in particular, will be another casualty of your reading.
And from a review at Michael Miller's quackGRASS ROOTS
Halton Arp's Seeing Red will completely change your cosmological views, even if you don't think you have cosmological views! Working entirely from observation, Arp sketches a picture of an eternal, infinite, stable universe which continually "unfolds from many points within itself."
Arp is an observational astronomer. He won his spurs as a graduate student in the 1950s measuring thousands of images of the stars in globular clusters, work which helped lead to derivations of the ages of those stars and thus of our Milky Way galaxy. He went on to compile "Arp's Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies," which became a classic. His familiarity with extragalactic objects, those beyond our Milky Way, is probably unmatched. For about 30 years Arp's most important observations have been under academic ban; they contradict cosmological orthodoxy. That orthodoxy has denied observing time on the big telescopes to Arp and others who make discordant observations. It has excluded their most important discoveries from major journals. As far as the popular press is concerned, this small heroic band of observers just don't exist; their observations go unreported. If you thought that the hard sciences are immune to philosophical irrationalism, you thought wrong. Today's academic science is as wedded to obsolete dogma as the church of Galileo's time, and is equally willing to ignore observation.