Try doing a few google searches on “Halton Arp”. This stuff has all been debunked, that is, blackholes, the “big bang”, and the entire idea of interpreting redshift as distance and velocity which is the only basis there ever was for believing in an expanding universe. Quasars in particular turn out to be not remotely as distant as a redshift=distance cosmology demands.
Halton Arp theories hardly “debunk” anything. They’re just different theories.
When his theories become accepted by the greater astrophysics community, other theories can be considered debunked. Even then they’ll still just accepted theories.
A few anomalies does not equate to debunked. Most quasars fit the model such as the one in this article.
Hmmm! The following statement appears to be problematic:
“Try doing a few google searches on “Halton Arp”. This stuff has all been debunked, that is, blackholes, the “big bang”, and the entire idea of interpreting redshift as distance and velocity which is the only basis there ever was for believing in an expanding universe. Quasars in particular turn out to be not remotely as distant as a redshift=distance cosmology demands.”
Well here’s an interesting comment about that in the Wikipedia listing about Halton Arp at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_Arp
“As more recent experiments have expanded the amount of collected data by orders of magnitude, it has become increasingly simple to test Arp’s postulates directly. A recent study stated that:
“... the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO redshift survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic noncosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, [...] and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency.”[10]
Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[11] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature”