Cosmology Quest 2 - Plasma Cosmology - Part 1 of 5

Prometheus: The work of Halton Arp conclusively proves redshift to be an unreliable indicator of distance and is certainly not "1 conspiracy site". Arp was one of the most respected astronomers of his day & his catalogue of perculiar galaxies is still considered the definitive work on the subject. Are you actually familiar with his work? If not then it's time you were. Otherwise you are clearly in denial. Might I suggest you read his book 'Seeing Red - Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science'.

No it doesn't conclusively prove it. If you knew what he actually has to propose to whisk away redshift you would know.

He claims that redshifted objects emit a spectrum that is intrinsically redshifted. This means that particle physics in those objects behave totally different. There is no evidence for that. And he can't propose of a modified model of particle physics that could allow for such a thing.

So it violates Occam's Razor. It lacks evidence and it lacks a theory.

And even if you can ignore all that, the fact remains that Arb can convince no one with his work. So the fact is on the one side we have a consistent complete theory supported by the mainstream.

On the other hand we have a hypothesis for which there is no need, no evidence, no theory and no consensus.

And I am in denial? I guess I am more familiar with Arp then you are...

The fact that Arp can't convince the mainstream means absolutely nothing. Galileo too could not convince the 'learned' ptolemeic astronomers of his day either. The number of adherents to a belief system is not a measure of its correctness. Anyone with unblinkered vision can see there is a definite connection between many supposedly widely seperated redshifted objects. To call BBT a "consistent complete theory" is utterly laughable - it is you who is denying the facts.

Galileo did convince a lot of people. Even during his lifetime.

Also, it's not even a fair comparison.

I guess 99.9% of our most brilliant cosmologists have 'blinkered vision'.

For you to change your mind you need to accept you are delusional. For me that is not the case.

Also note that you don't even try to argue my points. You seem to have absolutely zero understanding of cosmology.

Also, I never said that BBT is complete. I said the way we explain redshift is consistent and complete, which it is.

Compare it to what Arb has. He proposes a process for which there is no need both theoretically or empirically. And he also hasn't even got a hypothesis for the mechanism behind the process.

Steady state universes look different from BB universes. Scientists like SS universes. But all evidence points to a BB one.

To support the BB theory rather than the SS theory scientists already have to abandon their 'belief'-system. Look at Sovjet cosmology.

If you support BB theory that proves you would abandon your 'belief system' if observations demand you. So what you say is just wrong.

People like Arb and Hoyle are the people that stayed with the belief system. One that is more than 2000 years old. BBT is brand new and made specifically to fit telescope observations.

If you seriously believe the BBT is without some very serious contractions than you are most certainly delusional.

Even Hubble himself came to doubt the interpretation of his redshift observations.

The May 22nd 2004 edition of NewScientist published "An Open Letter to the Scientific Community" calling into question serious doubts as to the validity of the BBT, signed by over 150 international scientists. I guess these people are all delusional too?

You are saying there are no delusional people?

Hubble died a long time ago. Of course he has doubts. Every scientist doubts everything all the time.

But you are a layperson and you just have to take their word for it or remain ignorant, regardless of if they got it right or not.

BB is the only game in town. All other ideas were refuted very convincingly.

who is this dick? It's closed minded people like you who also wanted to crucify copernicus... You have a point about missinformation being harmful to an extent but you keep banging on about it.
Think about it censoring everything to fit your quite obviously entrenched data believe it or not is not the way to go, it's been proven since time and memorial... mega failed ranter gg