Talk:Halton Arp

message: LISA could give further anwers about their locality, or could it not?Slicky 10:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LISA

message: Are we omitting Arp's views that:
*Redshifts are a function of age?
*Gravitational lensing does not explain the association between quasars and lower redshift galaxies
And is redshift quantization a theory or hypothesis? Isn't it just a number of observations for which there is no current, or proposed theory? --Iantresman 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe all of the missing info was (added by me and perhaps a couple others) in the plasma cosmology and nonstandard cosmology pages along with their associated talk pages, around 2003-2004.  Major edit wars erupted and eventually I gave in, not sure how much luck you will have adding back in the relevant information.  Ill try to help if possible. -Ionized 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

text: For instance, look at the comments made just above yours, the guy is talking about removing huge chunks of the article just because he doesn't like it.  He removed entire sections, giving reasons which have been fought back and forth on for years now here in wikipedia on these very pages (plasma cosmology, big bang, nonstandard cosmology, etc..)  It appears unending, no matter how well the article is written someone will come in and remove parts with no solid reasoning. -Ionized 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Theories

message: The Critics section still essentially says "Arp's theory is out-of-date and wrong" .  Survey conclusions are mentioned as if they are a) equivalent to survey data and b) critics.  The cites actually seem to ignore Arp's theory rather than address it, so they hardly qualify as criticisms  (let alone critics).  If this is all that can be found to go here then maybe the section should be removed, and the "non-standard" statement in lead should be addressed a little more fully in the main article. LowKey (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur.  The papers cited are focused on refuting Bell's out-of-date work.  I'm not aware of ANY papers written by standard theorists who take the step of transforming the QSO redshifts against rest frame of their host galaxy as Arp does. 75.82.138.62 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because essentially no current astronomers read Arp's work, since it is so far on the WP:FRINGE. It's going to be quite hard to find reliable sources in that regard, so I'm not sure what the best response is. That said, current survey results, as cited, show absolutely no signs of periodicity in quasar redshifts what-so-ever, which I'd say is certainly a valid criticism of Arp's ideas. I'm not sure what you mean by "...rest frame of their host galaxy", since quasars are hosted in galaxies whose redshifts match that of the hosted quasar. - Parejkoj (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering this wiki page is about HALTON ARP, don't you think the criticisms leveled against him should actually revolve around his theories, and not Bell's theories?  Arp's entire theory is that quasars are ejected from their host galaxies and then grow into full size galaxies with low redshifts over time. Arp agrees that no periodicity presents itself if the quasar fields are not transformed against the rest frame of their host galaxies.  In other words, the criticisms cited aren't addressing his work at all.  As the first poster said, that means the criticism section should be removed. 158.61.0.254 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arp agrees that no periodicity presents itself..." Arp has certainly published papers claiming the existence of periodicity in quasar redshifts (e.g. 1990, 1996 2012), and is quoted in this recent interview as believing in the periodicity of quasar redshifts. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are citing old papers.  In his older work, he believed there was some periodicity present without frame transformation, just as Bell did. He has since revised his theory in light of more recent data.  Further, it's clear that Arp DOES believe there is periodicity in Quasar redshifts. Again, the periodicity doesn't present itself without  a frame transformation.  And again, I reiterate my point that the criticism section is out of date, does not address Arp's theories, and should be removed.  His most recent paper, as of 2010, explains quite clearly how peridoicity presents itself. 158.61.0.254 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Critics section still unsatisfactory

message: This article covers the main points of what I've seen of Arp's writings, but is missing any sort of time. I don't recall the quantization issue being introduced until much later, around 1987 (I was reading it "live" in university). IFAIK, this was not part of his writing until around then. If this is accurate, it would seem the article as it currently stands is guilty of the sin of omission. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing a time flow 

message: There are several problems with the section added by User:Orphadeus.  I have deleted it for the time being.
1. Thunderbolts is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference for astronomical observations (see, e.g. this Electric Universe AFD).
2. The one cited paper (by Galianni et al.) by no means vindicates Arp's views.  In fact, they found stellar absorption features in the quasar spectrum, indicating that the quasar is *behind* the galaxy, as would be expected. They did not include a reddening correction in their fitting of the quasar spectrum, and section 5.1 of the paper is a very poor discussion of what the effects of reddening would be in this case.
3. The observations that more absorbers are found in GRB spectra than quasar spectra has a number of possible explanations within the standard cosmology, and does not require any exotic models like those of Arp et al. This is discussed in the discovery papers.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parejkoj (talk • contribs) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New "vindication" section 

message: "Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[12][13] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[14]"  this needs to be changed to some-thing like "Nonetheless, Arp did not waver from his stand against the Big Bang and still published articles up until shortly before his death [12][13] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[14]" .  I don't know the date of his last publication maintaining this stand, so I have not made the edit. 211.225.34.162 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hertz1888 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update needed 

message: Hi all,
Administrator of www.haltonarp.com here. There will hopefully be a new individual or a group managing a website for late Halton Arp. Meanwhile, I had to resign from my current responsibility as developer and maintainer of www.haltonarp.com since 2004 or so. The domain has been returned to domain pool, and so the website is effectively offline. I wish the new folks all the best, and hope the content will continue to be available to all interested on new or same location, as I personally find it of value, needless to say.
I still posess a copy of the website, and can make it available as compressed archive containing text of Arps abstracts etc, if it is of interest to someone. It's HTML and PDF and there are raster images as well.
This is also related to a need to edit the Wikipedia page on Halton Arp, to edit out or somehow flag as invalid those references to Arps website and so on.
193.157.251.132 (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice of website having been taken down, original administrator here. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Halton Arp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404093144/http://www.aas.org/grants/awards.html to http://www.aas.org/grants/awards.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article by Britannica is a more accurate explanation. 
Basically it was a viable theory through until 70s or 80s. But various observations since then made it no longer sustainable though Arp continued to hold to his theory despite many issues with it.
The Britannica article is here, not that we can copy it of course, but to give an idea of what would be a more appropriate tone of this article
Halton-Christian-Arp (britannica
Robert Walker (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doesn't make it clear it's an out of date theory 

message: Halton Arp refuted the idea that galaxies in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, were examples of interacting and merging galaxies. Rather, he claimed apparent associations were examples of ejections. Right or wrong, that was his view. That is why it is mentioned in the article. (Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshift, Cosmology and Academic Science, Aperion, Montreal (August 1998), pp. 14, 61-62, 72, 104-105). Restoring cited text. Coldcreation (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common definition of "refute" is "to prove wrong"; Arp definitely didn't do that. I've replaced that word with "disputed", which is more correct. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging galaxies vs. ejections 

message: There are many authors who still believe that Arp was entirely wrong concerning the redshift. But the two galaxies NGC 7603 a and b are linked by a luminous bridge which contains two compact objects. All four objects are obviously connected(at least no one denies that) and they all have very different redshifts. So this system disproves that the redshift can be entirely of cosmological origin. According to Arp, Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar, the redshift is entirely intrinsic. This is probably wrong too. In fact there are two contributions to the redshift, one cosmological and one intrinsic.
Now regarding the positions of Arp and opponents about QSO's. They can be reconciled if one supposes that there are two quasar classes: (a) the first one is effectively constituted of large excited galaxies at nearly their cosmological distance (they have low intrinsic redshift) and the second class (b) is constituted of faint and compact objects with large intrinsic redshifts, and they are emitted by galaxies.
Patrick Driessen (patrick.driessen@infinitesolutions.be)
2A02:A03F:6A47:2F00:798A:554E:F36B:5218 (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intinsic Redshift