# Talk:Halton Arp

## LISA

LISA could give further anwers about their locality, or could it not?Slicky 10:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

## General Non-Acceptance of QSO Theory

Previous renditions of this entry gave the misleading impression that Arp's QSO theory still has some acceptance in the science community. I have tried to rewrite the entry to be as nice to Arp as possible and even present his position in a good lightwhile stating that current scientific evidence overwhelmingly disfavors his position. (He does deserve a lot of credit for his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, which will be his legacy to science.) I also deleted the Variable Mass Hypothesis discussion, since it seemed superfluous if his theory on QSO's has been disproven anyway. While I accept that this entry may be edited in the future, I would not like to see the counter-arguments to Arp's QSO theories deleted. Please at lease provide a reason here if such a change is made. (Maybe a "This article is controversial" warning is warranted.)GeorgeJBendo 20:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

George, who here can claim to personally represent "the science community" ? Such wholesale deletions as you've been allowed to make are in fact inconsiderate of any scientific process; further they bespeak no respect for history or process. Cannot the science community countenance a significant contoversy while peering across the infinite universe from our limited vantage? Perhaps no - Obviously this stage of Wiki cannot handle this level of controversy. Can you tell me, when was Variable Mass Hypothesis "disproven"? Can you say when was it ever even fully heard in any of your "science" communities? Please answer or return the materials you have without discussion and unilaterally deleted against the wishes of some of the very "science community" now represented here. This might go on the Wiki FAQ as for editing without regardHilarleo 03:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I think it is wrong to give the impression Dr. Arp's theories about redshift ever had much acceptance within the scientific community which has been hostile all the way, also it seems misleading to not give Dr. Arp's own answer to the charge that recent scientific evidence disfavors his positions especially with Galaxy NGC4319. The article should be dispassionate and show both sides, especially about a living person. Until Dr. Arp agrees or no longer has a competing position his answers must be given to charges against his research or the article is biased against him. JSH 16:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Such a warning could only be of benefit. But likewise the wholesale elimination of such phrases (found at the end of the preceding "Quasars and redshifts" section) must be justified:
"Arp was the subject of one of the most clear cut and successful attempts in modern times to block research which it was felt, correctly, would be revolutionary in its impact if it were to be accepted."
Until such a time as robust arguments of Arp's revolutionary observations can be permitted in the pertinent professional journals, I am returning this deleted line. Hilarleo 02:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Counter-arguments? I didn't see any counter-arguments in the article. What I see is Dr Arp's 1960's theories followed by a glaring "however" and then a list of more modern intepretations/conclusions portrayed as the facts, adding up to "and here's how we know he is wrong". There is even a statement about observations being corrected for redshift. The redshift and its interpretation is the heart of the controversy. The popular interpretation of redshift places objects too far away to interact, so apparent interactions must be explained by something other. Dr Arp's interpretation is that the interactions are real, so the differences in redshift must be explained by something other than differences in distance. If you take redshift out of the observations, then the simplest way to interpret apparent interaction is actual interaction. My first of second return on a google search for NGC4319 was entitle "The Arp Controversy" and was not a historical article. There are also many articles arguing against Dr Arp's theory. This would not seem necessary to me if there is o controversy. The controversy is far from settled. A "controversial" tag of some sort would certainly be in order. LowKey 00:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hear! Could we Please now have explained what _is_ the point of continuing this alleged "evidence" related to a particular interpretation of redshift - in an article where the very interpretation, and the very import of said redshift "evidence" is at contest?! Until the totality of Arp's argument and its' implications can be appreciated, please refrain from all references to such tainted "evidence" and especially all notions of any interpretive "error"!:-) This _is_ a wholesale scientific controversy after all... or it once was, until Fred Hubble died and his latter-day spokesmen took over. As Dr. Arp has been quite content to let his observations speak for themselves, the only appropriate, allowable references to redshift "evidence" should be naked observational data or it's clearly labeled and contra-posited interpretations. In this age of endemic coruption wiki doesn't require handlers and spin meisters to point to what is "correct" in reference works. The references to supposed error where deep controversies reign contributes to the politicization of science - producing not any greater range of science, but merely pragmatic machinations that benefit certain classes-in this field of big astronomy often represented by military contractors- under the guise of humanity's most noble impulse.
While it's perhaps obvious in our politicized science just where this "general consensus" lies, the "Critics" section as it is today is neither a consistently cogent argument nor has it been clearly posited. I would gladly help with the style but I do not follow its' sometimes stream of conscious jumps. Until Arp's argument is actually superceded and controversy stilled, inferences to any access to superior data (the "secret sources" argument beloved of administrations), or allegations of inferior scientific abilities of the internationally recognized Dr. Arp cannot stand. Hilarleo 00:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I am wondering what's the general concensus with respect to the highly redshifted quasar that appears to be in the nearby NGC 7319 galaxy? The discovery was announced relatively recently in 2005. Have there been any studies which show one way or the other that the quasar really is in NGC 7319? I think this quasar may be worth mentioning.
Spectral shift reveals puzzling quasar
"General concensus"? Is that the heart of the matter? Certainly this quasar would be be worth mentioning: - if you thought "astronomy were still a science". Quasars in general, and this quasar in particular, can tend to demonstrate Arp's theory - and with the NGC 7319 it's being done 'using the latest instruments' and 'recent discoveries' - th same opportunities which the "Crirics" section has incorrectly taken as it's exclusive provenence. Perhaps some contributor thought Dr. Arp safely dead since 1960? He is still at the task. Meanwhile I have not yet seen any evidence presented here intrinsically damaging to Dr. Arp's theory. Such an abscence is itself an argument.
The "general consensus" regarding such anamolous objects -including this one- is consistent. When these data are countenanced- as is recently becoming increasingly necessary- they are labeled as indicative of an ad hoc and spurious theoretical confluence of various gravitational and secondary radiation conditions -
always local conditions having no bearing on the conventional redshift theory, but so not inherently contradictory to "intrinsic redshift"! Any obvious patterning in the data can be explained as coincidence or better overlooked.
Happily Dr. Arp's work with this same "discovery" is also consistent; as well it is historical, consisting of a life's work reviewing many related such objects. And the resulting theory features also one other virtue attendant to the best of human discoveries: its' implications and applications offer the virtue of an astonishing elegance.
But please, will someone let us know if NASA offers any interpretation of the NGC 7319 anomoly that makes consistent sense outside of their single field of palatable science? Hilarleo 00:25, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This paper does not necessarily belong in the Halton Arp article (especially since the scientific paper's lead author was Pasquale Galianni), but it may be worth placing elsewhere within Wikipedia. Perhaps the alternative cosmology page? GeorgeJBendo 17:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned NGC 7319 because a quasar was found seemingly inside and interacting with NGC 7319. If the quasar is shown to be inside the galaxy which is estimated to be 300 million light years away, the contradiction with the quasars red shift which puts it billions of light years away and that of NGC 7319 strongly support Arp's theories. The wiki article however strongly implies that Arp's theories have been throughly discredited. I find it rather interesting that observation takes a back seat to theory. In no other field of science are observations that contradict theory ignored, yet the quasar in NGC 7319 is one example of many that cleary condradict the prevailing theory. Unless shown to be invalid, the observations that support Arp's theories must be mentioned inside the wiki, otherwise a false impression that implies Arp is somehow "seeing things that are not there" is being made.
Upon further reflection, I would recommend mentioning the article on NGC 7319 on the NGC 7319 page. GeorgeJBendo 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

General (Non)-Acceptance of QSO Theory is but one sentence of the article, it doesn't stop us from describing it. As for adding a sentence on the "approval" rating of QSO, this must be attributable as no one individual speaks for the entire scientific community. --Iantresman 09:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

## Theories

Are we omitting Arp's views that:

• Redshifts are a function of age?
• Gravitational lensing does not explain the association between quasars and lower redshift galaxies

And is redshift quantization a theory or hypothesis? Isn't it just a number of observations for which there is no current, or proposed theory? --Iantresman 22:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe all of the missing info was (added by me and perhaps a couple others) in the plasma cosmology and nonstandard cosmology pages along with their associated talk pages, around 2003-2004. Major edit wars erupted and eventually I gave in, not sure how much luck you will have adding back in the relevant information. Ill try to help if possible. -Ionized 02:24, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
For instance, look at the comments made just above yours, the guy is talking about removing huge chunks of the article just because he doesn't like it. He removed entire sections, giving reasons which have been fought back and forth on for years now here in wikipedia on these very pages (plasma cosmology, big bang, nonstandard cosmology, etc..) It appears unending, no matter how well the article is written someone will come in and remove parts with no solid reasoning. -Ionized 02:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

## How Arp explains gravitation?

Does anyone know how Arp explains gravitation? According to my understanding of gravitaton it can't be explained within a flat space. The curved space is necessary to produce gravitational force not to mention conservation of gravitational energy. According to Arp's POV the space is flat. So it is a little bit puzzling how it might work with gravitation as we know it (I don't think that Arp is trying to reintroduce the Newtonian gravitation since then he might have bigger problems than just with quasars and black holes, on which he is probably right, at least according to my POV). Jim 09:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Luckily the article doesn't say anything about flat space but about flat spacetime. The whole issue is just a misuderstanding because some civilian, while describing Arp's work in "Seeing Red: Intrinsic redshifts, stable universe", wrote "a correct theory must have flat space and uniform time " and I took it for Arp's POV while it was only this civilian's POV. Of course Narlikar's space isn't flat and the flat spacetime is even in "Einstein's universe" (forced on it by the nature's inability to make energy out of nothing, something not appreciated enough for obvious reasons by BB folks). So Arp POV is just that the principle of conservation of energy works. Nothing to worry about. Jim 14:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
• While certain theories may require flat spacetime, other theories don't. To suggest that curved spacetime is a requirement is to pre-suppose that the theories on which it is bases is correct; it may be the most accepted, but that's not the same thing. It's also worth speculating one whether curved spacetime is a requirement, or a consequence of a particular theory. Note that these comments are conjecture. --Iantresman 14:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
As it turns out the spacetime has to be flat for the total energy of any particle to be invariant. Such a unique spacetime is necessarily stationary but because of the time dilation it looks as expanding with Hubble constant ${\displaystyle H_{0}=c/R}$, and acceleration ${\displaystyle dH/dt=H_{0}^{2}/2}$, where c is speed of light and R is the radius of curvature of space. Since it is confirmed by observations we don't really need any other particular theory and Einstein's physics and flat spacetime suffices. Jim 18:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
• Measurements of the level of the ground all over the Earth tend to suggest it is flat (on average). But I'm happy to describe the more popular and accepted theory, that the Earth is round.
• It's not really about whether we need another theory. It's about whether there are other theories, and on what they are based. --Iantresman 22:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting read Jim. I honestly don't remember Arp's views on gravity at this point. Have you looked into the whole Machian physics things? -Ionized 02:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

## Cosmology Wars at Wiki

In the last year a Plasma Cosmology page appeared under 'Wikipedia talk: Requests for mediation' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Plasma_cosmology. By the accounts of at least one viewpoint, that mediation process failed. Halton Arp is a gray beard in such 'Alternative Cosmology wars'. As such, his Bio page is recieving collateral damage from this subsidiary battle within Wiki. Certain editors, perhaps comparable to fundamentalists in various Jesus articles, feel it is their duty and right to remove all 'controversial' information. I can propose that we can perhaps create a page that succesfully frames a controversy and represents opposing interests accurately, or that non-consensual wholesale deletions of text are not legitimate edits. However it is always in the status quo's interest to deny controversies exist. The Plasma Cosmology Mediation experience has shown that Wiki is not able to sustain this level of scientific dialog. Of course suh is itself part of the tradition in the occidental Scientific Process. Even some of Newton's colleagues cut off contact with him over the obvious fraud contained in his "Calculus". Time is the ultimate editor in such cases.

Perhaps appealing for moderation of this Start Level page will eventualy be in order. At present I do feel that a Requests for Comment on the article page should be opened immediately, since this article is directly connected to a controversial article with a difficult past. It appears as if the Halton Arp article is being shaped by important editor[s] who do not participate in this Talk page, editors who do not provide their rationales nor their email address, who appear to take advantage of the opportuities for prominence of Wiki but not the perhaps level of precision and tolerance demanded by its' consensual process.

For the time being I address this following note to one such colleague who cannot be otherwise contacted, according to suggestions in the 'Dispute Resolution' pages:

Dear Dr Art Carlson Sir: Unfortunately you have disabled email to your person from Wikipedia making less public contact impossible. Apparantly however, you are not so "user:busy" that you are unable to participate fully in the robust and continuing cosmology wars on Wiki. However the explosion of science in our lives concerns all of us, not just those who already sense they are correct in regards to possible controversy. Some of us still struggle and seek a rationale in such a belief. Perhaps instead of simply deleting that which your learned person finds objectionable, you might allow me the pleasure of your full participation in the process represented on the Talk discussion around these articles which I also would enjoy creating - along with you.
What you are attempting today appears to be your personal and unilateral control of whatever reputation of your notorious Max Planck Institute colleague Dr. Arp has available via his Wiki biography. I understand the nature of your possible feelings regarding your past associations with the field of plasma physics; but surely there are better ways to address such inevitable rivalries than methods directly involving the public sphere? Thank you for your good wishes in difficult times.

Thanks to all readers for your continued tolerance! Hilarleo 06:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

First, please don't address nearly identical comments to me here and on my User page. I am easily confused. Second please don't edit my User page at all. Use my User-Talk page. Third, I don't understand why you had trouble sending me an email. The box "Enable e-mail from other users" on my "My preferences" page is checked. Fourth, please don't include commentary ("Likewise the elimination of this phrase at the end of the preceding "Quasars and redshifts" section should be justified:") on an article page. (You removed the commentary while I was writing this. Thank you.) Fifth, and a very good morning to you, sir!
As to questions of substance, I am not interested in fighting any "cosmology wars". I am personally and professionally very interested in cosmology, but our business here is only to write a good encyclopedia article based on reliable sources from a neutral point of view.
As I pointed out in my edit summary, this edit of yours:
In the emerging political environments of high-stake 'big science' research, criticism and competing therories from within academia are increasingly undesirable - most particularly where the already downsized NASA might be concerned. Arp was the subject of one of the most clear cut and successful attempts in modern times to block research which it was felt, correctly, would be revolutionary in its impact if it were to be accepted.
is unsourced, POV, crystal ball. If you still wish to support this passage, start by telling us who says that "criticism [is] increasingly undesireable" and that Arp was blocked because of the potential impact of his work (as opposed to being heard and found wanting).
You might also want to prepare to defend the quote from Hoyle et al. ("In other words, ..."). At least without further context, it doesn't fit in here.
--Art Carlson 08:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will read the editors above there is a significant number who remark the article is one sided. Phrases do contribute to the edit wars surrounding Arp.

## Critics section still unsatisfactory

The Critics section still essentially says "Arp's theory is out-of-date and wrong" . Survey conclusions are mentioned as if they are a) equivalent to survey data and b) critics. The cites actually seem to ignore Arp's theory rather than address it, so they hardly qualify as criticisms (let alone critics). If this is all that can be found to go here then maybe the section should be removed, and the "non-standard" statement in lead should be addressed a little more fully in the main article. LowKey (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur. The papers cited are focused on refuting Bell's out-of-date work. I'm not aware of ANY papers written by standard theorists who take the step of transforming the QSO redshifts against rest frame of their host galaxy as Arp does. 75.82.138.62 (talk) 20:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
That's because essentially no current astronomers read Arp's work, since it is so far on the WP:FRINGE. It's going to be quite hard to find reliable sources in that regard, so I'm not sure what the best response is. That said, current survey results, as cited, show absolutely no signs of periodicity in quasar redshifts what-so-ever, which I'd say is certainly a valid criticism of Arp's ideas. I'm not sure what you mean by "...rest frame of their host galaxy", since quasars are hosted in galaxies whose redshifts match that of the hosted quasar. - Parejkoj (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Considering this wiki page is about HALTON ARP, don't you think the criticisms leveled against him should actually revolve around his theories, and not Bell's theories? Arp's entire theory is that quasars are ejected from their host galaxies and then grow into full size galaxies with low redshifts over time. Arp agrees that no periodicity presents itself if the quasar fields are not transformed against the rest frame of their host galaxies. In other words, the criticisms cited aren't addressing his work at all. As the first poster said, that means the criticism section should be removed. 158.61.0.254 (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
"Arp agrees that no periodicity presents itself..."[citation needed] Arp has certainly published papers claiming the existence of periodicity in quasar redshifts (e.g. 1990, 1996 2012), and is quoted in this recent interview as believing in the periodicity of quasar redshifts. - Parejkoj (talk) 18:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
You are citing old papers. In his older work, he believed there was some periodicity present without frame transformation, just as Bell did. He has since revised his theory in light of more recent data. Further, it's clear that Arp DOES believe there is periodicity in Quasar redshifts. Again, the periodicity doesn't present itself without a frame transformation. And again, I reiterate my point that the criticism section is out of date, does not address Arp's theories, and should be removed. His most recent paper, as of 2010, explains quite clearly how peridoicity presents itself. 158.61.0.254 (talk) 19:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

─────────────────────────A few points:

1. Re: "old papers", I cited one paper from 2012, and a quote from a 2012 review article, both of which contain statements from Arp about the existence of quasar redshift periodicity, without any "frame transformation". That's pretty recent.
2. Where is the 2010 "paper" you linked published, other than Arp's personal website?
3. In fact, Tang & Zhang (2005) directly refutes Arp's claims (from Arp et al. 2005) about quasars and galaxies (e.g. the end of section 2.1), so it is quite relevant for the criticism section.
4. We're also missing a relevant citation: Scranton et al. 2005, which measured the correlation function of quasars vs. galaxies, and found results consistent with weak gravitational lensing in the standard cosmology, and inconsistent with Arp's ejection hypothesis. - Parejkoj (talk) 21:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

## Missing a time flow

This article covers the main points of what I've seen of Arp's writings, but is missing any sort of time. I don't recall the quantization issue being introduced until much later, around 1987 (I was reading it "live" in university). IFAIK, this was not part of his writing until around then. If this is accurate, it would seem the article as it currently stands is guilty of the sin of omission. Maury Markowitz (talk) 23:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

## New "vindication" section

There are several problems with the section added by User:Orphadeus. I have deleted it for the time being.

1. Thunderbolts is not a reliable source, and should not be used as a reference for astronomical observations (see, e.g. this Electric Universe AFD).

2. The one cited paper (by Galianni et al.) by no means vindicates Arp's views. In fact, they found stellar absorption features in the quasar spectrum, indicating that the quasar is *behind* the galaxy, as would be expected. They did not include a reddening correction in their fitting of the quasar spectrum, and section 5.1 of the paper is a very poor discussion of what the effects of reddening would be in this case.

3. The observations that more absorbers are found in GRB spectra than quasar spectra has a number of possible explanations within the standard cosmology, and does not require any exotic models like those of Arp et al. This is discussed in the discovery papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Parejkoj (talkcontribs) 22:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

## Denial of Telescope-time

The fact that Arp was deliberately victimized by being denied telescope time in the USA - should surely be mentioned? ... > Even if the only available citation for that comes from one of his books. --DLMcN (talk) 10:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Such a claim would definitely require a reliable, third-party source. - Parejkoj (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Although you could say that he himself claimed that he was denied telescope time in the USA and use his book to back up the statement? That's an allowed use of a primary source. From WP:PRIMARY: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[4] ... A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." But if there is no other discussion of this I'm not sure how noteworthy it is? Aarghdvaark (talk) 06:21, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Was Arp's move to Germany in 1983 prompted by lack of opportunities in the USA? (I no longer have a copy of his book readily available). --DLMcN (talk) 16:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Actually there's a secondary source too in the book "Astronomy on Trial" by Martin.[1] This ref would not normally be considered a good one as Martin's book cites Beichmann's article citing Burbidge's article citing Halton Arp, however here it would actually be good as it is really three refs in one! Aarghdvaark (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure that is either a reliable, or noteworthy source; most of the references to it in a quick online search are creationism websites. Though it is probably true that Burbidge said that (possibly just repeating what Arp said to him), it still just falls into the "Arp claims that he was denied telescope time" bin. Which might be ok to include. However, is "Astronomer on the fringe denied telescope time for his fringe study." really noteworthy? - Parejkoj (talk) 05:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
OK - so I have voiced my support for mentioning the (questionable!) treatment Arp received in the USA - but if a majority of Wiki-editors doubt whether that is worth including, then obviously I will be happy to leave it.
Earlier in this Talk-File, under "Cosmology Wars at Wiki" (in 2007) we read: Arp was the subject of one of the most clear cut and successful attempts in modern times to block research which it was felt, correctly, would be revolutionary in its impact if it were to be accepted. I agree - that^ wording was indeed rather "strong", but it does nevertheless indicate that there are others who believe that Arp was victimized unnecessarily.
Thus, there might be a case for expressing it differently: e.g., are we justified in saying: "Arp was [at least] drawing attention to several unanswered questions"? --DLMcN (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Whether he did receive questionable treatment by the US astronomical community has not been established, only that he claimed he had. I wasn't doing astronomy in the late-80s/early-90s, so I don't know the answer. It is possible he experienced some ridicule before his ideas were fully discredited, but we'd need reliable third party sources that say so. I'd bet that what you think might be "unanswered questions" raised by Arp already had satisfactory answers in the mainstream by 1990. Perhaps you should list said questions here? - Parejkoj (talk) 17:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
<<<<

.... For example, Arp wondered whether there might be a bridge connecting NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.

You are correct that present-day thinking discounts the possibility of Redshift Quantization, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization indicates that during the 1980s and 1990s it was probably a question which did at least merit consideration and investigation.

Anyway - you undoubtedly have more cosmological resources at your disposal than I do - so if you are satisfied that we can now dismiss the points raised by Arp in: http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/rebuttals http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/quasars_and_gamma_ray_bursters http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/research_with_Fred > López-Corredoira, M. and Gutiérrez, C. 2002, A&A, 390, L15

... then I am quite happy to leave it at that. --DLMcN (talk) 11:22, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

## References

1. ^ Martin, Roy C. (1999). Astronomy on Trial. University Press of America. p. 220.

## Update needed

"Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles[12][13] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[14]" this needs to be changed to some-thing like "Nonetheless, Arp did not waver from his stand against the Big Bang and still published articles up until shortly before his death [12][13] stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge (until his death in 2010) and Margaret Burbidge.[14]" . I don't know the date of his last publication maintaining this stand, so I have not made the edit. 211.225.34.162 (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Done Hertz1888 (talk) 08:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

## Notice of website having been taken down, original administrator here.

Hi all,

Administrator of www.haltonarp.com here. There will hopefully be a new individual or a group managing a website for late Halton Arp. Meanwhile, I had to resign from my current responsibility as developer and maintainer of www.haltonarp.com since 2004 or so. The domain has been returned to domain pool, and so the website is effectively offline. I wish the new folks all the best, and hope the content will continue to be available to all interested on new or same location, as I personally find it of value, needless to say.

I still posess a copy of the website, and can make it available as compressed archive containing text of Arps abstracts etc, if it is of interest to someone. It's HTML and PDF and there are raster images as well.

This is also related to a need to edit the Wikipedia page on Halton Arp, to edit out or somehow flag as invalid those references to Arps website and so on.

193.157.251.132 (talk) 11:37, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Halton Arp. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template `{{sourcecheck}}` (last update: 15 July 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot 13:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

## Doesn't make it clear it's an out of date theory

The article by Britannica is a more accurate explanation.

Basically it was a viable theory through until 70s or 80s. But various observations since then made it no longer sustainable though Arp continued to hold to his theory despite many issues with it.

The Britannica article is here, not that we can copy it of course, but to give an idea of what would be a more appropriate tone of this article

Robert Walker (talk) 04:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

## Merging galaxies vs. ejections

Halton Arp refuted the idea that galaxies in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies, were examples of interacting and merging galaxies. Rather, he claimed apparent associations were examples of ejections. Right or wrong, that was his view. That is why it is mentioned in the article. (Halton Arp, Seeing Red: Redshift, Cosmology and Academic Science, Aperion, Montreal (August 1998), pp. 14, 61-62, 72, 104-105). Restoring cited text. Coldcreation (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The most common definition of "refute" is "to prove wrong"; Arp definitely didn't do that. I've replaced that word with "disputed", which is more correct. - Parejkoj (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2018 (UTC)