[fishtank]

Halton Arp (1927–2013)

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

[NonValueAdded]

well now he knows

[buffaloguy]

Chip Arp will be missed. He was well liked by everyone ion the astronomical community.

Rest in Peace

[Squawk 8888]

Ping.

[Moonman62]

In case anyone wants to know more about quasars.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasar

[JoeFromSidney]

Arp's book is worth reading. It is accessible to the non-scientist. Even if he's wrong, he presents some strong arguments that must be answered by the proponents of a big bang.

[The Cajun]

Was not aware that Halton Arp had passed.

RIP Mr. Arp.

I enjoy scientific anomalies and he found them, with proof.

[exodus]

I never believed the Big Bang theory, it just didn't feel right to me.

A black hole is a region of spacetime from which gravity prevents anything, including light, from escaping. The existence of black holes allows the compression of all matter into one huge singularity, which allows the Big Bang theory to be a possible truth.

However, the black hole model has been called into doubt by none other than Stephen Hawking, who now says that matter can escape from ‘black’ holes. If Black Holes aren't truly excape-proof, how is the formation of the exploding massive singularity possible?

[JoeFromSidney]

I was already aware of Arp's passing. I only recently, however, became aware of him and his theories. Here are some iconoclastic books that I think are worth reading.

Lerner, Eric J., The Big Bang Never Happened,Vintage Books, 1991. I'm a bit dubious about his argument, since he appears to propose that the universe is infinite in both time and space. I think he dismisses Olbers Paradox too quickly (the night sky is dark; if the universe were infinite in time and space we would expect the night sky to be as bright as day).

Weintraub, David A., How Old is the Universe, Princeton U. Press, 2011.

Arp, Holton, Seeing Red, Apeiron, 1998. Arp argues that the "red shift" has nothing to do with velocity and the Doppler effect, but instead is a function of the age of the source.

Ratcliffe, Hilton, The Static Universe, Apeiron, 2011. The author argues that the universe is not expanding at all, but the red shift is due to light losing energy as it travels great distances, thus increasing in wavelength.

Obviously these books are at variance with the "standard model" of cosmology, but each points to discrepancies that the "standard model" doesn't explain.

I'm not a cosmologist. The arguments in each of these books sound plausible, and some seem to be supported by evidence. However, it's outside my field, and I can only say it sounds interesting and worth reading about.