Quote:
Originally Posted by antikristuseke
(Post 1208760)
,Arp was not ignored back in 1960, he was given two awards for his work,,the Helen B. Warner Prize for Astronomy by the American Astronomical Society and Newcomb Cleveland Prize.
|
My point was that Arp was a heavy hitter recognized by the establishment until he was marginalized for his conclusions based on his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, published in 1966, well after his awards. You seek, by ignoring the chronology of events, to imply that he was not banished, but endorsed by big science. Nothing could be further from the truth, and your portrayal is really cute, but easily refuted. My point is that accepted scientists can be banished for heretical activity. Fred Hubble himself was censored when a speech traditionally published by the Astronomical Journal was omitted where he dared to agree with Arp. That's political oppression, not dispassionate peer review. Idealized portrayals of the process are just plain silly and untrue.
Quote:
Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely employed. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been utilized to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby. Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.
Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.
|
I'll leave out your references. You just smog the air with irrelevancies, all of which are true but do not bear on the case at all. HST could discover little green men but that would not reflect on the evidence that Arp presented. Arp's website specifically brings up discoveries that have modified his original theories and discoveries that reinforce his theories as well. Harlton Arp is no flat earther--he's a scientist, operating as such. First rule of science is that all ideas must be falsifiable.
Science is a very nasty game. These people are brilliant, they are absolutely convinced that they are right, and they have no scruples about destroying each other (literally sometimes) to get ahead. Many of them do not play well with others. Underneath the thin veneer of proper behavior is a monster that eats its own.
Also, I did not produce one example of peer review used as a weapon against non-conformers, I produced three among dozens and dozens. I agree that peer review, like all authority, is a necessary thing to separate science from pseudoscience. However, like all forms of authority, it is subject to abuse and the very power of the process attracts those who would abuse that power, just as the honorable profession of school teacher attracts pedophiles. Peer review is not the arbiter of truth. It is just one aspect of the search for that truth. Questioning the authority of the peer review process serves two purposes: to keep or make the peer review process honest and without regard to the personal stakes of the reviewers, and to give proper regard for the heretics who alone will take any field to its next level of orthodoxy. Heretics alone are responsible for all progress, no matter now irritating they may be.
Make no mistake, abuse of authority is not confined to science. Read
Truth, Lies and O-Rings. The corporate world and the world of government bureaucracy is full of abusive characters too. Banks, which are supposed to take the term "fiduciary responsibility" seriously now have computer programs to purposely damage you, their customer, by exploiting an overdraft by paying out checks not in the order they are received, but in an order calculated to bounce the greatest possible number of checks!
Another large megabank entered into a partnership with criminals to find accounts in all bank chains, not just their own, of customers who had died and the account was abandoned. They then stole billions of dollars from those accounts. Caught by the federal government, they entered into a consent agreement which did not obligate them to find and refund that money to relatives. Only if a relative inquired, already knowing the customer's account number, social security number and balance were they required to refund. They were not required to provide any of the necessary information if asked. Source: clarkhoward.com, which names the bank involved.
All this is nothing new. I'm personally convinced that the situation was no better and most likely worse a hundred years ago, simply because it could all be better hidden then. We assume that what we don't know doesn't exist.
