Gribbin,  John.  "Halton Arp out on a limb" 
                 [Review of]  
  Quasars,  Redshifts and  Controversies,  
  New Scientist, 29 October l987, p. 65.

[John Gribbin is a staff writer for New Scientist.]

For 20 years or so,  Halton Arp has been a thorn in 
the  side  of  establishment astronomy.   He  is  a 
superb  observational  astronomer,   who  chose  to 
devote his skills to obtaining photographic records 
of  "peculiar"  galaxies and  associations  between 
galaxies and quasars.   Almost from the day quasars 
were first identified,  in the late 1960s,  Arp has 
been  accumulating evidence that very many  quasars 
are  physically  associated  with  galaxies.   That 
wouldn't   be  so  bad,   but   the   galaxy-quasar 
associations   Arp  has  found  almost   invariably 
involve objects with different redshifts.

That  strikes  at the foundation stone of  received 
cosmological wisdom.  Redshift--the displacement of 
spectral  lines  in  the light  from  galaxies  and 
quasars,  compared with spectra in the laboratory--
is  interpreted  as a measure of  distance  in  the 
expanding  Universe.   If a galaxy and a quasar are 
physically connected, but have different redshifts, 
something definitely is wrong.

Over  the  years that Arp has  been  gathering  his 
evidence that,  indeed,  something <is> wrong,  the 
standard   big-bang  cosmology,   built  upon   the 
standard  redshift-distance  relation and  ignoring 
Arp  entirely,  has  been refined into a  thing  of 
beauty,  which purports to explain everything since 
the moment of creation, 15 billion years ago.

Like many astronomers, I love the standard big-bang 
theory,  and  regard it as a triumph of  scientific 
acheivement.   But I also worry, occasionally, that 
we  may  be in the position  of  late  19th-century 
scientists,  convinced that nothing remained but to 
dot a few <i>s and cross a few <t>s, unprepared for 
the  revolutionary developments in quantum  physics 
and  relativity.   Could  we all be barking up  the 
wrong tree?

Arp  says we are,  and has enough evidence that  he 
ought  to  be  worrying  a  lot  more  people  than 
actually   acknowledge  the  significance  of   his 
findings.   Indeed,  over  the years he has  roused 
open  hostility to his claims,  culminating in  the 
scandalous  decision to deny him further access  to 
the  large  telescopes  in  California  and   South 
America.   He is now on the staff of the Max Planck 
Institute  for Physics and Astrophysics in  Munich.  
With  bridges  burned behind him,  he has felt  the 
time  is  ripe  to present  all  his  evidence  for 
discrepant redshifts in book form,  and,  along the 
way, to detail some of the ways in which scientists 
maintain closed minds to anything that does not fit 
their preferred, preconceived picture of the world.

The  result is a book which is of major importance, 
whether  or not Arp's ideas eventually turn out  to 
be  well-founded.   Science should be  open-minded, 
analytical  and self critical.   Many case  studies 
now enshrined in history show that it is not.

Arp's observations do not fit established theories, 
and  models tailored to fit the observations  bring 
in concepts with which many scientists are  uneasy, 
including  white holes,  quantisation of redshifts, 
and  variations  on  the  steady  state   cosmology 
developed  by Fred Hoyle and Jayant Narlikar in the 
1960s.  The thought that both Hoyle <and> Arp might 
one  day  be  proved  right  seems  to  cause  real 
physical pain to some of their peers.

When observation and theory conflict,  which are we 
to  give the greater credence?   Some of those  who 
oppose Arp so vehemently might do well to  remember 
the  words of Aristotle:  "Credit must be given  to 
observation  rather than theories,  and to theories 
only insofar as they are confirmed by the  observed 
facts."  I hope--I wish--that the standard big-bang 
model  is  correct.  I fear that it is at the  very 
least incomplete.   This book will tell you why, in 
clear,  intelligible language; and it will make you 
think twice about the objective image of scientists 
portrayed in the official histories.


        ***************************************

              This file originates from:

         Origins Talk RBBS  *  (314) 821-1078

        Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.
              405 North Sappington Road
              Glendale, MO  63122-4729
                   (314) 821-1234

 Also call: Students for Origins Research CREVO BBS
                   (719) 528-1363

../