aramis720

Yes, of course. But in this case we have a verifiable/checkable very serious challenge to the standard model. In fact, I just found out that Wikipedia has redshift data on these objects in Virgo and Fornax, so I'll double check the Fornax numbers if you want to double check the Virgo numbers? It's just about a dozen objects to check.

I disagree, Beecee, because if just one (let alone dozens or hundreds, as Arp has collected) redshift anomaly is correct, then Hubble's Law is invalidated because it shows that redshift is not caused solely or primarily by expansion. Do you know of any databases for redshift of extragalactic objects?

By what data are you suggesting he was wrong? Have you looked at the redshift data for the objects he identifies or can you link to an analysis by anyone who has?

Anyone?

Thanks for these insights. A further major problem arises, however, when we consider that we still have no good evidence of dark matter beyond the original anomalous observations that led to its hypothesis. None of the candidates for DM have panned out. So it seems we should at this point be reconsidering the DM hypothesis IMHO.

Though we all know that Halton Arp gets no respect among mainstream cosmologists, despite his background and pedigree working with Hubble, I'd like to know if anyone here can help with debunking or supporting one of Arp's key arguments for a very different kind of cosmology. In his 2003 book, Seeing Red, he describes strings of galaxies and related objects in both Virgo and Fornax with anomalous redshifts, but anomalous in a patterned way that suggested to him that the central galaxy in each string was a parent galaxy that ejected the higher z value galaxies to each side in pairs that then disperse over time and give birth to their own galaxies. I know this sounds very weird and upside down from the standard model perspective, but he shows the z values for these various objects and they do indeed mirror each other in Virgo and Fornax. I'm curious if anyone else has looked into this and can either tell me where Arp went wrong with his data and analysis or whether they find his information compelling? Here's Fig. 9-3 from p. 239 of Seeing Red. He also describes his observations succinctly at p. 162: "The Fornax Cluster represents a hierarchy of redshifts. The largest galaxy is the oldest and has the lowest redshift. Successive generations of galaxies are smaller, increasingly young and active and climb to higher intrinsic redshifts in steps. The younger galaxies emerge in opposite ejection directions and, with some rotation, give, as in Vrgo, an overall 'S' (for spiral) shape to the cluster."

What is the basis for this comparison of yours? Generally accepted views or your own opinion?

Mordred, the problem of course is that we now know from WMAP and many other sources of data that there is in fact large-scale anisotropy to the universe, in both baryonic matter and CMB. So there is a growing view that the Cosmological Principle has been falsified, but this fact doesn't seem to have been internalized in our theories yet.

The article I linked to also includes statements about the unusual nature of finding such an old spiral galaxy. I'm not suggesting that this is a kind of falsification of the Standard Model, but from my understanding it is a challenge b/c it is generally though that it takes more time for defined spiral galaxies to form.

A new study finds a very calm and defined spiral galaxy 11 billion years old: http://zeenews.india.com/space/scientists-discover-most-ancient-spiral-galaxy-2054481.html. Does this finding present a challenge to the 13.8 billion year age of the universe in terms of the general view that it takes far longer for this kind of spiral galaxy to form through normal gravitational processes?

Ah, so you don't think physics is about explaining reality? For you, it's about useful calculation tools? This is a serious question and I think indicative of a deep split among certain physicists and philosophers. Also, would appreciate more than the phonon example since you suggested that physics is rife with useful fictions.

What other useful fictions do you see in today's physics? At what point does a useful fiction become just fiction?

What do you mean? You think all theories are based on tautologies? Do you agree that tautologies, because they're unfalsifiable, are entirely unscientific?

We'll see. Two key points: if you subscribe to a Kuhnian notion of scientific revolutions, the change, when it does come, will be relatively rapid as the older guard dies off and the new guard recognizes the growing pile of anomalies/epicycles behind GR/SR (in particular, DM, DE and inflation), and then the history books will be re-written in such a way that the new approach will be made to look like it was a smooth path from the old approach. That is, if we believe Kuhn. Second, yes, generally new theories in physics and other fields include and transcend old theories. But not always. In my years of reading in this field, it's growing increasingly apparent to me that some kind of ether theory will be the TOE/QGT, and GR is in fact sometimes framed as a new kind of ether theory with the gravitational field as the new ether (though of course GR is not a TOE). Even Einstein adopted this ether language from about 1916-1924 (see Kostro's Einstein and the Ether for more on this). But I'm also of the view that the new ether approach can't be relativistic in terms of Lorentz invariance, as Einstein suggested his new ether was. Beckmann's is just one of many velocity-dependent approaches to gravity (see also Ghosh's book Origin of Inertia), and all this means is that there is some kind of background/ether/space that exerts dynamical effects akin to moving through air or water, but just far more of an attenuated medium. There are many lines of evidence suggesting that this kind of attenuated drag approach is accurate and far simpler than GR, but we are in my view stuck in the dogma of the allegedly background-independent approach of Einsteinian relativity for now and the foreseeable future. I'm not pushing any theory here. My OP was simply asking about the application of GR vs. SR and then the discussion flowed naturally to related topics. That said, I'm happy to make it plain that I don't find SR/GR very convincing, for a variety of reasons relating to their very nonintuitive postulates and to the series of epicycles that have arisen around GR in particular to make it work within known empirical facts. My broader point about SR was that it's good to realize that it has no strict application in the real world because it's an idealized theory. There are in practice always gravitational fields present, but yes of course we can often ignore them as negligible. But that said we should also realize that SR is built on an unfalsifiable tautology: that we know what an inertial frame is and can identify them. Einstein and Infeld acknowledge in their book The Evolution of Physics (p. 210) that the idea of an inertial frame is a "useful fiction," is "built on sand", and is tautological. Strong criticisms from the creator of SR!

It is sometimes the case that theories become pedestalized to such a degree that anyone who tries to go through the normal channels is effectively shut down. Hence Beckmann's alternative approach. There are also a number of dissident physics journals created to mitigate this problem. Unfortunately, science isn't always entirely rational and funding, careers, groupthink, etc., can often prevent the most reasonable solutions from coming to the fore. Have you read Smolin's book The Trouble With Physics, looking in detail at why string theory is in his view a dead end, and yet consumed many physics careers for some time?