>And in the case of Arp, it is an assumption that the galaxies are
>'physically connected.' If they are simply overlain on top of each
>other
>along the same line of sight, one far away one relatively near, then
>one
>has no anomalies.
I can't say any more clearly than I have said that Arp has made
meticulous observations over a period of 30 years and has conclusively
demonstrated by observation that quasars are physically connected to
galaxies. If you had studied his photographs and could explain in detail
from his photographs why his conclusions are incorrect, that would be one
thing. But for you to broad brush Arp with the statement: "And in the
case of Arp, it is an assumption that the galaxies are 'physically
connected' is uncharacteristic. You are the one known for doing the
research necessary to refute an argument with data, not paint brushes.
Maybe you would like to read Arp's more recent book, _Seeing Red_?
>If vastly different redshifts were the rule, why don't
>we see it in our own local galaxy cluster where the angular size is
>large?
I'm not sure I understand your question. As I understand Arp, his
"discordant" redshifts are primarily between quasars and galaxies, not
between galaxies in a cluster. And he does present an organizing
hypothesis: the quasars are newly-created matter ejected from the core
of galaxies. The younger the matter (quasar) the higher the redshift; as
the matter ages, the redshift decreases.
Bill