>I have read Arp's Quasar's Redshifts and Controversies, (Berkeley:
>Interstellar Medium, 1987). He presented the same claims that you are
>citing from his newer book. You cite the quantization of redshifts.
[snip] This is not a
>true
>quantization as occurs in electronics. Also the chart shows a peak
>+200
>km/s and - 108 km/s which is not a multiple of 72. So the data he
>presents
>for quantization doesn't match his theory. Be a bit critical Bill.
>Don't
>just accept anything someone says that contradicts the prevalent
>theory.
>Christians are too prone to that disease--grabbing anything that is
>contrary.
I borrowed from a library _Quasar's Redshifts and Controversies_, so
unfortunately I don't have that book to refer to. And I loaned my copy
of _Seeing Red_ to a friend for him to read, so I don't have that one
either. but perhaps I can make a few comments from memory.
I agree, and Arp would also I think, that the red-shift quantization is
not as clean and sharp as in electronics. But he did plot redshifts and
there are distinct peaks in the frequency of occurrence. From what
little I understand, this could be due to quantum jumps in the red shift
(as Arp contends), or due to an uneven distribution of matter (if we
assume red shift is due to recessional velocity). The latter
interpretation results in maps showing vast areas of empty space and
"walls" of galaxies. If Arp is correct, then there may be no "walls" of
galaxies. Do you agree, Glenn, or do I have this wrong?
>
>Take the supposed connection between NGC 4319 (z=1700 km/s)and
>Markarian
>205 (z=21,000 km/s) which is shown in figure 3-2 of QRC p. 34. This
>shows a
>narrow bridge of light between the two objects. Such a situation can
>be due
>to several things. The most likely is light reflected from dust around
>the
>nearer NGC4319.
One reason Arp published his second book was to get additional data into
print. In _Seeing Red_ he has photos of objects surrounded with a
luminous disk which is apparently distorted as a result of being
penetrated by a high redshift object. It might be worth your while to at
least peruse some of the photos in the second book.
>Now, Bill, please look at things a bit more critically. Not everyone
>who
>challenges conventional wisdom is correct and to be listened to.
Just trying to keep an open mind. The caustic comments Arp received from
some of his reviewers are similar to those I've received because of my
own views on coal, which I know are firmly grounded in the data - data
for which a couple of geologists here in Alabama recently admitted to me
they have no explanation. I guess my own experience makes me a little
more sympathetic towards Arp.
Bill