I see three levels to Halton Arp's work on anomalous red-shifts:What about the Arp's theories? I've seen the photos of the Stephan's quintet. What about them? Seems that the quasars are near other objects that look to be nearer to us than the quasars.
Sorry, but this is not the way to have a valid discussion.Wich are these evidence against his ideas gathered in the last few years?
Well, to my opinion, a sound debunking of Arp is in order. He is something of a celebrity among the big bang deniers mostly for his victimized role where he is systematically prevented from publishing anything, or so they claim.Sorry, but this is not the way to have a valid discussion.
Firstly, you should look at the PF rules which state that non peer-reviewed work, or fringe theories, are not to be discussed here.
But, secondly, you should mention what the theories actually are that you are wishing to discuss. You should provide peer-reivewed, published articles to support them. Only then, can the discussion continue.
There is only so much debunking the "mainstreamers" should have to do with regards to ideas from people like Arp. After this initial debunking, the onus is on the "meager nano-Engineering scientist" to go get thee to the library (or an online archive). It is not the job of mainstream science to hold the hand of the less well inormed, otherwise we'd never get any work done!Well, to my opinion, a sound debunking of Arp is in order. He is something of a celebrity among the big bang deniers mostly for his victimized role where he is systematically prevented from publishing anything, or so they claim.
To some point I actually agree with them:To an outsider it would sometimes seem that peer review is a tool to weed out anything that does not comply with the "religion of mainstream science" instead of just weeding out nonsense like it is supposed to. It doesn't get better when we meager nano-Engineering scientists, with incomplete knowledge of cosmology can't quite put our finger on the point where the argument fails :)
Perhaps this was something for the debunking forum?
I do not completely disagree with you - I myself often refer people to the library when asked the really basic stuff. But I think I'll better clarify my positionThere is only so much debunking the "mainstreamers" should have to do with regards to ideas from people like Arp. After this initial debunking, the onus is on the "meager nano-Engineering scientist" to go get thee to the library (or an online archive). It is not the job of mainstream science to hold the hand of the less well inormed, otherwise we'd never get any work done!
Well said.Remember, Arp lost his time on the big telescopes because he was making observations that challenged theories. Astronomy is an observational science - it is the only avenue that we have. When a researcher loses status and position because his observations cannot easily be accommodated in current theory, something is VERY wrong.
It is not the job of us on an internet forum to be debunking work, or even to be arguing over what is or isn't correct: this is the job of the peer review system. That is where work get judged by professionals who have a detailed understanding of the technicalities of the work and not just as an interested lay-person. We are not here to judge what is or isn't crackpottery, and what does or doesn't have any value as a theory; again, this is what the peer-review system is for. Thus, the only way we can ensure that we are discussing science is to ensure that all discussions are limited to published, peer-reviewed articles, as stated in the physics forums global guidelines. Here is a quote:There are whispers in the corners; a growing number of the less informed seem to have lost faith in the objectivity and integrity of science - just take a tour on youtube and you'll see what I mean - epescially when confronted with "that's not peer reviewed and as such we won't touch it with a fire poker"-standard reply. It does leave people with the impression that questions are forbidden and obedience demanded. This is a PR-problem which we cannot continue to ignore.
Therefore, it is strange to me why a site like physics forums take this approach, when the doubters come to seek knowledge - hence my reply to cristo. Now, of course PF must not and shall not be a portal for any manner of crackpotism, but when people ask questions as a result of conflicting opinions out there, I do not think it a very wise move to simply reject the question with the "not peer rewieved"-arguement
As for the case in hand, since no-one has made any effort to cite a published, peer-reviewed article on which to base a discussion, it's time to lock this thread.Overly Speculative Posts:
One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.