Replies

Classically, whole galaxy clusters obey a Hubble diagram relation between redshift and brightness with a dispersion of just a few tenths of a magnitude. But 14 clusters north of Cen A have a much larger dispersion with a maximum range of 4 magnitudes. Such clusters have no relationship of the type claimed for ordinary galaxies, and call into question that the classical Hubble relationship can have the meaning usually attributed to it — that redshift indicates distance — for anything. We may simply have been fooled by both luminosity and redshift being functions of mass, which would lead to an apparent Hubble relationship despite no true distance dependence.

What a fascinating article at the link in your last, SunkenCiv!

I appreciated Arp's remarks later in the piece, which appear to shed light on the bold conclusion in the above italics:

• "When presented with two possibilities, scientists tend to choose the wrong one."
• The stronger the evidence, the more attitudes harden.
• "The game here is to lump all the previous observations into one 'hypothesis' and then claim there is no second, confirming observation."
• "No matter how many times something has been observed, it cannot be believed until it has been observed again."
• "If you take a highly intelligent person and give them the best possible, elite education, then you will most likely wind up with an academic who is completely impervious to reality.
• "When looking at this picture no amount of advanced academic education can substitute for good judgment; in fact it would undoubtedly be an impediment."
• Local organizing committees give in to imperialistic pressures to keep rival research off programs
• "It is the primary responsibility of a scientist to face, and resolve, discrepant observations."
• Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it.

In short, scientists must remain skeptical to some degree even about their most valuable presuppositions and tools — such as Hubble diagrams — especially in light of the accumulation of discrepant evidence.

In short, "the observer problem" is alive and well.... Implicit in the Hubble diagram is the presupposition [based on "accepted" science] that redshift is a reliable indicator of distance. If this is incorrect, then conclusions drawn from it would of course be incorrect, too.

But if this is to be admitted, then it seems to me we need to start looking at the universe in a different way.... In this article, Halton Arp definitely helps us to do that!

Thank you so much, SunkenCiv, for this fascinating article — I'll be "meditating it" further!

Arp wound up getting denied telescope time in the US and moved to Europe. Somewhere around here I’ve got a book I picked up used about new ideas in astronomy (new at that time) which has a long favorable discussion of Arp’s ideas. Basically, the red shifting of visible results from interstellar hydrogen which, though not very dense, alters the light on its long trip to Earthbound observers, whereas the xray spectra show good separation and aren’t red-shifted. Arp’s is the only explanation based on the facts (and it’s the simplest).

Science is failing to self-correct. We must understand why in order to fix it.

It certainly seems that way these days. The establishment defends some theories as if they were religious dogma.

Confidence in a theory should increase by entertaining every reasonable attempt to falsify it (e.g. Popper.)

Thank you for sharing your insights, dearest sister in Christ!