>>His data?<<
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I will summarize multiple books, some of which I have read:
Arp photographed many, many galaxy-quasar pairings where the red shift of the quasars make them appear to be in a vastly different place than the galaxies with which they are clearly associated.
This can only mean that the red shift DOES NOT translate to distance and velocity, but perhaps to some other properties of matter, space and light.
The traditional red-shift interpretation would indicate the quasars are MUCH FURTHER away than they really are, making it seem they must be much larger and more energetic.
This is the basis of the absurd claim in the title of this thread.
Incidentally, this faulty theory is the basis of all academic cosmology. It is going to be almost impossible for the academics to give up on it.
Where can I get one of those little diode flashlights that bright?
I would ask, as red and blue shift measurements are consistent at closer distances where other measurements can be made along with them to test their agreement, at what distance, do these “other” effects appear? And wouldn’t a variance suggest first an inconsistency with the new model, rather than a rejection of the earlier, well established physical standards?
And that being relatively alone in the physics community - not that that’s always the sole criterion as to the validity of an idea by any means - though it usually means that one’s work has been “weighed, and found wanting”.