An Electrifying Question

[Acolyte]

I followed a link in thread to Thunderbolts and did some reading. I've brushed up against the Electric Universe idea before but didn't have time to pursue it (nor the math to be honest)

But with stars we seem to be talking about effects from magnetic fields, we see plasma events and I've read a discussion here about magnetic interactions between the planets and the sun.

Now i appreciate that we only have a ideas about what magnetism and electicity actually is, but we're pretty good at using them and I've not heard of one being present without effects either because of or in tandem with the other.

Are solar fans by de facto electric fans? (sorry, I'm into puns a little) What I'm asking is, I guess, if we look at the sun in terms of magnetic fields and plasma, does that lead to confirmation of at least part of the Electric Universe concepts?

Certainly looking at what they have to say about events that can occur within the scope of an EU cosmos, it appears an order of magnitude simpler than expansion-redshift, dark matter/energy and the plethora of weird ideas we are being presented with in the Standard Model.

Serious question, not an EU promotion, OK? I've seen the question asked over in bautforums and bring scathing putdowns as replies.

[npsguy]

Sept 20, 2008 0:06:46 GMT Acolyte said:

Are solar fans by de facto electric fans? (sorry, I'm into puns a little) What I'm asking is, I guess, if we look at the sun in terms of magnetic fields and plasma, does that lead to confirmation of at least part of the Electric Universe concepts?

Answer: No.

I read their website and some of their articles and came to the conclusion the "founders" of this movement are L. Ron Hubbard clones with the physics background of B movie director Ed Wood.

Take for example these bullet points from www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=89xdcmfs

• light travels slowly like the ripples on a pond...
  
• gravity travels swiftly like the speed of sound in water...
  
• the speed of gravity (the electric force) is almost infinite on our scale....
  
• otherwise the universe would be completely incoherent
  
• Einstein's speed limit is repealed!!!

When I read this I think back to that great movie "Plan Nine from Outer Space" where the alien Eros said:

"Then your scientists stumbled upon the atom bomb. Split the atom. Then the hydrogen bomb, where you actually explode the air itself."

[Acolyte]

I think you might be a little unfair in the comparison. Comparing anyone to Hubbard isn't a nice thing to do.

The 1st 2 points you mention are, I think, not valid. They aren't saying light is slow, they are trying an analogy to show how two waves can be at different speeds in the same medium.

As analogy, it is much easier to understand than the one used by braney cosmologists in describing our universe as being wrapped around a higher dimensional brane with light travelling the '2D surface' of our 3D universe while gravity radiates/travels through the greater dimensionality of the brane-space.

I've been unable to come to a conclusion about the speed of gravity. van Flandern and others claim it is, far beyond the SoL. I'm not good enough at math to work out whether it matters if Earth is orbiting an 8-minutes ago vacant place in space - logic tells me it should matter, that the gravity in an environment where G=C would tend to slow the Earth as it would be pulling 'back' along the orbital track rather than directly into the Now centre of mass.

And Relativity doesn't really help much because there's the question of whether, if the Sun suddenly vanished, spacetime would rebound instantly or whether there would be a drag effect - in a spacetime where SoL is an absolute limit, can even SpaceTime react faster than SoL?

They also allow a view that permits Arp's view of things to be considered, and Arp, in spite of the acerbity of comments in astro-forums, seems to have had a long and successful career in Astronomy.

I'm not sure whether it's an EU or whether consideration of the principles involved might help us solve some of the problems in Standard Cosmology, (SC) but when you take an objective look at the SC, there seems a lot of invented strangenesses to make what's observed match up with the favoured theories.

But they make one outstanding prediction I read - they say the LHC ain't gonna show us anything new - if we find Higgs, someone will need to do some fast talking...

[lku]

Much of the EU stuff is rubbish - but a small handfull of the ideas are very thought provoking.

Rather than try to come up with a theory of eveything, they should have stuck to the simple things they proved pretty well :
1) There are major problems with red shift mesurement.
2) It`s plainly obvious from visual images that plasma physics has created many of the structres we see in the universe. This is so obvious, that I can't believe regular physicists continue to live in denial.
3) Since most of the universe is plasma, there must be and acompanying electric component that will have "some" effect. This should not have been ignored by regular physics.

They should have left it at that and let science work from there. Instead they tried to disprove ALL of the standard model, rather than working to improve it. Much of their stuff is semi-religious and makes no sense at all.

[senorchuck]

acolyte,

Once upon a time, another person observed that wherever there was magnetism, there was evidence of an electric field when viewed from a different frame of reference. He developed this idea and incorporated it in a broader concept which we know as the special theory of relativity.

I don't think I will get all concerned over what the rate of propagation of gravity is. The speed of light is, well, the speed of light. There is nothing that says something else can't go faster, or take a dimensional shortcut (transit a wormhole). One thing known today to travel faster than the speed of light is quantum entanglement, now estimated to have a transit velocity of 10,000 C. So, what does that have to do with the Electric Universe?

acolyte and lku,

Sometimes today's mainstream theories need a little patching to continue to hold together, and occasionally one will fall apart or be blasted out of existence. But, usually, it is the pretenders to the throne that are quickly falsified...not that that validates the original mainstream theory.

At point is the Electric Universe. Sure, there is a lot of plasma floating around; sure there are a lot of magnetic fields; the coupling of some of these magnetic fields is often poorly understood: witness the sol/earth system. Sure there are problems with red shift, or our understanding of it. Sure, negative energy and space-itself expanding are troubling. Dark matter is a strangely elusive beastie. But, EU is easily discredited.

Consider some of what we know of our universe vis-a-vis attractive forces. First, we do know something of the rules for calculating magnetic and electric interactions as a function of field strengths and distance. We also know what the "missing" force must do, and the electric field does not do this:

1. At distances of a light-day or less, this force must be really, really close to zero. Otherwise, our solar system would not function as we observe that it does.
2. At distances of 100,000 light years, this force must have 4-5 times the force of gravity, and it must be regularly but non-uniformly distributed. Otherwise, our galaxy would not function as we observe that it does.
3. At distances of 10,000,000,000 light years, this force must have 20-25 times the force of gravity. Otherwise, our visible universe would not function as we observe that it does.

On another thread, several here are excited about the effects of the interaction of magnetospheres. Atmospheric electric fields are an exciting field of study. But, we are not tied to quasars by an electric rope, no matter what the speed of travel.

[Acolyte]

Sept 20, 2008 5:34:01 GMT @senorchuck said:

acolyte,

Once upon a time... ...velocity of 10,000 C. So, what does that have to do with the Electric Universe?

Personally, I'm not sure, they mention it on the Thunderbolts site and npsguy brought up the quote.

Sept 20, 2008 5:34:01 GMT @senorchuck said:

acolyte and lku,

Sometimes today's mainstream theories need a little patching to continue to hold together, and occasionally one will fall apart or be blasted out of existence. But, usually, it is the pretenders to the throne that are quickly falsified...not that that validates the original mainstream theory.

At point is the Electric Universe. Sure, there is a lot of plasma floating around; sure there are a lot of magnetic fields; the coupling of some of these magnetic fields is often poorly understood: witness the sol/earth system. Sure there are problems with red shift, or our understanding of it. Sure, negative energy and space-itself expanding are troubling. Dark matter is a strangely elusive beastie. But, EU is easily discredited.

Well, I thought of a few things about EU myself as I read so I'm not wedded to the idea it is 'One theory fits all' situations.
BUT, (it's a big but... if Redshift is called into question, and Hubble wasn't exactly enamoured of either redshift or Big bang, then SC stands on a precipice.

Cosmologists have painted themselves into a very tight corner with their non-intuitive explanations for where their theories go awry, and if the expanding Universe alters in any fundamental way (or perhaps even in a minor way, but I'm not physicist enough to know that) then the whole edifice comes down.

That's the problem with kludges to accomodate unknowns - shake the base of them and everything falls.

There are threads over in Global warming forum where Hansen and others are derided for doing what the SC cosmologists are doing. It seems that if the Universe out there disagrees with their theory, instead of modifying the theory, they add in an explanation to make it all right.

To my eye, EU offers, as you say, a facet of things that seems not to be getting the attention it deserves. I agree they go too far but some of the circumlocutions indulged in by the SC guys to avoid the concept of electricity seem farcical.

Sept 20, 2008 5:34:01 GMT @senorchuck said:

Consider some of what we know of our universe vis-a-vis attractive forces. First, we do know something of the rules for calculating magnetic and electric interactions as a function of field strengths and distance. We also know what the "missing" force must do, and the electric field does not do this:
1. At distances of a light-day or less, this force must be really, really close to zero. Otherwise, our solar system would not function as we observe that it does.
2. At distances of 100,000 light years, this force must have 4-5 times the force of gravity, and it must be regularly but non-uniformly distributed. Otherwise, our galaxy would not function as we observe that it does.
3. At distances of 10,000,000,000 light years, this force must have 20-25 times the force of gravity. Otherwise, our visible universe would not function as we observe that it does.

OK... you've lost me a little here. To what force are you referring? Dark Energy? I thought on Galactic scales (100,000ly) DE was still minimal - if it was 4 - 5 times gravity, wouldn't the Milky Way fly apart rather abruptly?

Sept 20, 2008 5:34:01 GMT @senorchuck said:

On another thread, several here are excited about the effects of the interaction of magnetospheres. Atmospheric electric fields are an exciting field of study. But, we are not tied to quasars by an electric rope, no matter what the speed of travel.

You had me up till the last sentence - that smacks of dogma... unless you have some evidence that we aren't?

EU is not the only place where my questions come from. Ed Leedskalnin lived in Florida last century. He had a theory that there is no such thing as electricity, that it's all just a variety of magnetism. It's hard to know because he was reclusive, and what was left behind is mystifying.

But he knew something! He made his points in solid stone - huge blocks that couldn't be lifted and stacked by one man, and there was nobody else to help him. He left a few scattered bits of tools that couldn't have lifted them either.

Coral Castle remains today a very strange place. And, near as we can tell, like the EU page, he saw magnetic and electric as one force.

Now theories are one thing, and selecting evidence to match a theory seems more common than it should be, but Ed Leedskalnin proved his theory in solid rock. So when I see something that reminds me of what he was into, I tend to read carefully.

[vukcevic]

Sept 20, 2008 5:34:01 GMT @senorchuck said:

On another thread, several here are excited about the effects of the interaction of magnetospheres.

Any excitement ( + or – ) is of little consequence. What is required is a calm consideration of facts without prejudice.

[ozone]

Excited here is as in:
my CO2 molecule just got bumped up one notch in vibrational energy by a solitary, lonely packet of OLR.

[npsguy]

With all due respect I agree with Dr. Philip Plait when he labeled these people as "pseudoscientists lying and saying this force (Magnetism) is ignored". blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/08/20/the-magnetic-tendrils-of-ngc-1275/

The Thunderbolts group responded by saying Dr. Plait was "something of a self-proclaimed expert on astronomy".

What??? He has a PhD in Astronomy from U.VA and worked for NASA for years. The Thuderbolts guy who wrote responded is a self professed 'technology enthusiast'. www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/mgmirkin08/082808_bad_astronomer.htm

And let's take a look at another "Thunderbolt's" example where they claim impact craters are caused by 'electrical/plasma' phenomena:

From www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=8p6ud5jc :

Meanwhile, no one has found the source of the impactors that are supposed to have sculpted the surfaces of solid bodies in the solar system billions of years ago. No one has witnessed such an impact (Comet Shoemaker Levy 9 didn't hit a solid surface). And no one has come up with convincing experimental tests of the impact theory.


This is all bull! No source of impactors? Hmmm gee I guess they want you to forget about the Carancas meteorite that fell last year leaving a crater. Or about all the impact events on the moon that were observed by amateur astronomers during the Perseids meteor shower: science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02sep_lunarperseids.htm

And I could swear that I have seen a good number of nickel-iron and stony meteorites but no... these Thunder-dudes have told me otherwise.

This is all junk science and the reason they attack Dr. Plait is he specializes in outing pseudoscientists.

[senorchuck]

Acolyte,

I've read a fair amount of Halton Arp's stuff. Typically, his argument for redshift not being distance-related is: "But if we compute once more the probability of the author’s redshifts falling this close to a given galaxy, alignment, similarity of redshifts etc. one gets 3.5 chances in 10 million of being accidental!" And, my problem with that comment is that there are 100 billion or so suns in our galaxy and 100 billion, give or take a trillion, galaxies. So, coincidence of visual proximity does happen. Some of his arguments, like the laws of physics may be changing as a function of time, are thought-provoking, but apparently don't flesh-out well enough to justify avid pursuit. A further twist on this thought:

"Cosmologists have painted themselves into a very tight corner with their non-intuitive explanations for where their theories go awry." Sorry, there may be a few cosmologists who would drink Kook-Aid (first cousin to Kool-Aid) to protect "their" mainstream universe-view, but most of them would give their eye-teeth to prove a piece of it wrong! There is fame and fortune available for proving something wrong. When something is identified that does not fit the standard big picture, there is a near-universal willingness to say: what is wrong with our understanding (model)?

Let's look closely at a piece of one of those, without getting way out into the cosmos where we may not, in fact, know how far away something is, or how bright it is...though we think we do. Let's look only at our solar system and our galaxy.

In our solar system, the law of gravity works perfectly with everything we can see and measure. It is consistent with all patterns of motion (possible exception: at scales of 1 millimeter or less, where our measuring capability still leaves open the possibility of extra-dimensional interactions).

However, the law of gravity does not seem to work to explain why a) the galaxy does not fly apart, or b) the suns out in the spiral arms move as fast as the suns near the core. The law of gravity says the galaxy needs about 4-5 times as much mass as we can see to keep from flying apart. The law of gravity requires that missing mass to be rather unusually distributed to keep the spiral arms from falling apart.

So, we have a choice. We can decide the law of gravity is real and universal, so there is something we do not see that makes it work. We can decide the law of gravity is real, but varies as a function of scale or time; but both of those come to quick logical absurdities. Or we can decide the law of gravity is real and universal and there is another (non-gravity) force that increases as a function of distance.

The Electric Universe offers one of these non-gravity forces. And all I did was to ask you if you can posit a force that has zero effect at distances of less than one light day, 4-5 times the force of gravity at galactic-diameter distances (other galaxies have the same problem), and 20-25 times the force of gravity at humongous distances.

[Now, I grant you could minimize the problem of the mystery force at humongous distances by claiming the humongous distances are not real; then you only need the mystery force to be 8-10 times as great as gravity at apparent-humongous distances.]

Alternatively, you can posit that there is a lot of matter we cannot see. Some of it may be in the form of protons, neutrinos, and black holes. But, you can't put enough mass into those forms to do the job without creating a conflict with other things we know. (Many more cold protons and we would not be able to see far-away things clearly. Many more neutrinos and we would have to see more here or posit why they avoid us. More massive neutrinos and we would have to posit why they can go so fast. More big black holes do not solve the velocity of the spiral arms problem. More little black holes and we have to solve the evaporation and collision issues that would arise.)

So, it may be ridiculous to posit WIMPs (weakly interactive massive particles), but it is more ridiculous (as far as we know at the moment) to posit anything else. Cosmologists are not holding onto dark matter blindly and arrogantly. Almost all will tell you: it is simply less unlikely than anything else they can posit.

Now, you tell me: who would NOT want to make a name for himself if he could disprove everyone else and prove an Electric Universe? The reason it does not have adherents is that cosmologists as a whole have more problems with it than they do with dark matter.

[Acolyte]

Sept 20, 2008 15:32:13 GMT npsguy said:

With all due respect I agree with Dr. Philip Plait when he labeled these people as ...
This is all junk science and the reason they attack Dr. Plait is he specializes in outing pseudoscientists.

;D That sounds like an argument to which I'd rather not add...

The thing I found a bit strange in their explanation for surface sculpting is that nobody has seen their electric arc either. I'd have thought that Io might be a prime candidate for such phenomena but it didn't seem to get a mention. As with the biblical God story, I get very suspicious when people proclaim something used to happen all the time and doesn't now, unless they provide a decent explanation for just why it no longer acts that way.

But electricity has a field effect and acts as a force. Yet it seems to be missing from the astronomical explanations. And I'm not suggesting it's Dark Energy... although I think I'd be open to whether the electrical component, (or magnetic according to Leedskalnin) might be Dark Matter - that seems a possibility.

[Acolyte]

Firstly, thanks for taking the time for such a lengthy reply. As stated above, I am not promoting EU, although I have some attraction to a couple of parts of it. eg. I found the makeup of particles to be interesting - it seems as if it could lead to a description that might make sense of things like electric charge, magnetic attraction and even spin.

Sept 20, 2008 16:01:53 GMT @senorchuck said:

Acolyte,

I've read a fair amount of Halton Arp's stuff. Typically, his argument for redshift not being distance-related is: "But if we compute once more the probability of the author’s redshifts falling this close to a given galaxy, alignment, similarity of redshifts etc. one gets 3.5 chances in 10 million of being accidental!" And, my problem with that comment is that there are 100 billion or so suns in our galaxy and 100 billion, give or take a trillion, galaxies. So, coincidence of visual proximity does happen. Some of his arguments, like the laws of physics may be changing as a function of time, are thought-provoking, but apparently don't flesh-out well enough to justify avid pursuit.

The parts of Arp I found interesting... (Arp-parts? To be filed with Ooparts? were more the objects he found that appear to be related to each other but show differing redshifts. An example is here and another is here

I find these puzzling; I accept what you say about scientists wishing to be able to make their names, but I haven't found yet a reasonable explanation for the apparent connection between these objects of differing redshifts. Nor have I seen anything challenging Arp's redshift values, but I have seen a lot of denigration of someone who has a long career in observational astronomy. His career causes me to discount those who claim he is wrong because he can't tell the difference between a 2D and 3D perspective.

So I question and wonder if maybe he makes a better point than those who insist, without mcuh apart from speculation, that the Universe is not only expanding, but the rate is accelerating, all based on a redshift explanation which appears to have some disturbing holes in it.

Sept 20, 2008 16:01:53 GMT @senorchuck said:

A further twist on this thought:

"Cosmologists have painted themselves into a very tight corner with their non-intuitive explanations for where their theories go awry." Sorry, there may be a few cosmologists who would drink Kook-Aid (first cousin to Kool-Aid) to protect "their" mainstream universe-view, but most of them would give their eye-teeth to prove a piece of it wrong! There is fame and fortune available for proving something wrong. When something is identified that does not fit the standard big picture, there is a near-universal willingness to say: what is wrong with our understanding (model)?

While true from what I know, and interesting in and of itself, it doesn't really address the issue of what happens to SC if redshift, as a doppler-type measure of distance, fails.

If Redshift is as they say it is, Arp should not have been able to find linked objects with varying redshift.

And we've seen in the AGW field how those with a non-consensus view or idea find it difficult to get heard, let alone get funding. And climate research can be done anywhere and sometimes on low budgets; cosmology research requires access to some very expensive hardware that is already booked to maximum. Getting proof of non-consensus ideas may be a little harder than is usual in the more terrestrial science.

Sept 20, 2008 16:01:53 GMT @senorchuck said:

Let's look closely at a piece of one of those, without getting way out into the cosmos where we may not, in fact, know how far away something is, or how bright it is...though we think we do. Let's look only at our solar system and our galaxy.

In our solar system, the law of gravity works perfectly with everything we can see and measure. It is consistent with all patterns of motion (possible exception: at scales of 1 millimeter or less, where our measuring capability still leaves open the possibility of extra-dimensional interactions).

However, the law of gravity does not seem to work to explain why a) the galaxy does not fly apart, or b) the suns out in the spiral arms move as fast as the suns near the core. The law of gravity says the galaxy needs about 4-5 times as much mass as we can see to keep from flying apart. The law of gravity requires that missing mass to be rather unusually distributed to keep the spiral arms from falling apart.

So, we have a choice. We can decide the law of gravity is real and universal, so there is something we do not see that makes it work. We can decide the law of gravity is real, but varies as a function of scale or time; but both of those come to quick logical absurdities. Or we can decide the law of gravity is real and universal and there is another (non-gravity) force that increases as a function of distance.

I wonder about the possibility of scale affecting things. We already have some evidence of a variation in how gravity works at very small distances, so perhaps there's a change at large distacne as well.

Another possibility is gravity behaves differently within entities? I'm not wanting to push this too far, but in Relativity, spacetime is distorted by the presence of mass - I'd like to see gravity tested outside the heliopause to see if it works the same out there as within the well.

The possibility of Holo-universe would seem to open up another avenue when I think about this subject. Holograms are lesser dimensional copies of something, that show an apparency (or reality) of the original when stimulated. It occurs to me that those who talk about the holo-universe don't seem to make that step - of what would our universe be a hologram?

So if Princess Leia or Neo could study their holo-universe, it is quite possible they would find effects within their realm that have no apparent cause because the effects are generated out in the original world.
eg. They might find strange laws of light because of the path-bending occuring around massive objects in the real world, or charged particles tend to move in a specific direction because that's how an external electric field directs them. If the external world decided to increase the power to Neo's alternate reality, the inhabitants might find their universe suddenly expanding with no discernible cause.
They'd have the effects, be able to measure them, but be unable to find a cause.

Sept 20, 2008 16:01:53 GMT @senorchuck said:

The Electric Universe offers one of these non-gravity forces. And all I did was to ask you if you can posit a force that has zero effect at distances of less than one light day, 4-5 times the force of gravity at galactic-diameter distances (other galaxies have the same problem), and 20-25 times the force of gravity at humongous distances.

[Now, I grant you could minimize the problem of the mystery force at humongous distances by claiming the humongous distances are not real; then you only need the mystery force to be 8-10 times as great as gravity at apparent-humongous distances.]

Alternatively, you can posit that there is a lot of matter we cannot see. Some of it may be in the form of protons, neutrinos, and black holes. But, you can't put enough mass into those forms to do the job without creating a conflict with other things we know. (Many more cold protons and we would not be able to see far-away things clearly. Many more neutrinos and we would have to see more here or posit why they avoid us. More massive neutrinos and we would have to posit why they can go so fast. More big black holes do not solve the velocity of the spiral arms problem. More little black holes and we have to solve the evaporation and collision issues that would arise.)

So, it may be ridiculous to posit WIMPs (weakly interactive massive particles), but it is more ridiculous (as far as we know at the moment) to posit anything else. Cosmologists are not holding onto dark matter blindly and arrogantly. Almost all will tell you: it is simply less unlikely than anything else they can posit.

Now, you tell me: who would NOT want to make a name for himself if he could disprove everyone else and prove an Electric Universe? The reason it does not have adherents is that cosmologists as a whole have more problems with it than they do with dark matter.

OK, I accept that, though with some reservation about how 'disagreement-friendly' the current world of science might be, but I still wonder whether there is something at base that might be wrong. It's possible to build an entire structure that works until you push it to the limit.

[kaidaw]

acolyte,
It is possible to be only a questioner, with no cause to defend or refute.
To what end? Please take a stand, so your hypothesis can be falsified...or not falsified.
PS. The fact that he is challenged is a really, really lousy reason to defend the speculations of a man.
With regard to the (real) science community, ask one of the real scientists what he would give to turn the scientific world on its ear versus finding support for an established theory. (Dr. Leif has given his answer to that; perhaps you were not here yet.)
While not a believer in consensus science, I would like to assure you that if anyone saw a possible profit (monetary or professional) in an alternative hypothesis, 90% would jump...except in climate "science", which is totally contaminated with "funding" and publicity of an adoring press.

[Acolyte]

Sept 21, 2008 1:59:45 GMT @kaidaw said:

acolyte,
It is possible to be only a questioner, with no cause to defend or refute.
To what end? Please take a stand, so your hypothesis can be falsified...or not falsified.
PS. The fact that he is challenged is a really, really lousy reason to defend the speculations of a man.
With regard to the (real) science community, ask one of the real scientists what he would give to turn the scientific world on its ear versus finding support for an established theory. (Dr. Leif has given his answer to that; perhaps you were not here yet.)
While not a believer in consensus science, I would like to assure you that if anyone saw a possible profit (monetary or professional) in an alternative hypothesis, 90% would jump...except in climate "science", which is totally contaminated with "funding" and publicity of an adoring press.

I don't know enough to make a stand. I see questions that aren't being answered properly or that are being addressed by appeal to authority and I wonder why.

Your PS: demonstrates part of the problem - maybe they're locked away in pay-per-view sites, but I haven't found any challenges to Arp that either address his data or offer an alternative to his hypotheses. Instead the ones I have seen try to attack his credentials, vis-a-vis '(real) science' above.

Near as I can tell, he's doing real science - looking at data, finding strange thigns and questioning the status quo. Were he a crackpot I doubt he'd have remained employed as a professional astronomer for so long.

(wife's agitating to head out in the sunshine so must cut this short - back later)

[kaidaw]

"Your PS: demonstrates part of the problem - maybe they're locked away in pay-per-view sites, but I haven't found any challenges to Arp that either address his data or offer an alternative to his hypotheses. Instead the ones I have seen try to attack his credentials, vis-a-vis '(real) science' above."

I thought the challenges very straight-forward: Hey, fella, unlikely as you think it is, it is possible that quasars of long ago and far away are visually close to (but very far behind) other objects; further, since you can offer no mechanism for a nearby galaxy at z=.7 to shoot out two quasars at z=4.7 and z=4.9, maybe it didn't.

A walk in the park with the spice does sound nice, though.