Apollo Moon-Landing Hoax

Scientists detect Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) about 800 times a year and speculate they are related to Magnetars ie what is thought to be an extreme kind of neutron star, a city-sized remnant left behind when when a massive star dies in a supernova. Such stars last around 10,000 years, yet the Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) has detected FRBs (a radio burst producing as much energy in a few thousandths of a second what the sun does in a month). in a variety of galaxies young and old according to standard theory. Some galaxies where FRBs are supposedly 10 billion years old, too old for magnetars to exist in.*

* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/mysterious-fast-radio-bursts-are-finally-coming-into-focus/

It goes to show just how speculative astrophysics really is. All they can go by is the light of stars. Redshifts are similarly problematic, as they tend to occur at different measurements of light waves even from two stars linked in the same galaxies or ones that are part of binary systems ie rotating each other. Half the sky contains one set of redshifts due to foreground fallacies, and another half give off different redshifts that apparently don’t have foreground galaxies. Redshifts also seem to be “quantized.” William G. Tifft has observed that the red shifts associated with galaxies tend not to be just any numbers but rather multiples of a certain basic unit of about 72 kilometers per second. In general, his studies show that red shifts of galaxies are grouped at 72 kps, 144 kps, 216 kps, 288 kps, and so on. Not likely if they are all equally expanding away from Earth. This suggests redshifts aren’t measuring velocity at all but rather some unknown property of galaxies and stars. It may be that the Steady State Model was correct all along.

Humble’s Constant, another key feature of distance/velocity measuring is also imperfect and constantly changing (it is better referred to as Hubble’s Variable). This brings us to the work of Jean Pierre Vigier, a French astrophysicist at the Institute Henri Poincare (VG1-5). Vigier points out that even today, different observers obtain different values for Hubble’s constant. Tammann and Sandage give 55 plus or minus 5. Abell and Eastmond arrive at 47, plus or minus 5. Then there is van den Bergh, who calculates a value between 93 and 111. Heidmann got 100 for his figure. De Vaucouleurs came up with 100 plus or minus 10.
If the universe is expanding according to some uniform law of proportionality, how is it that so many observers obtain so many greatly different values for the rate of expansion?
Vigier notes that when astronomers take measurements in different directions, they find different rates of expansion. He then points out something even stranger: The sky can be divided into two sets of directions. The first is the set of directions in which many galaxies lie in front of more distant galaxies. The second is the set of directions in which there are distant galaxies without foreground galaxies. Call the first set “area A,” and the second set “area B.”
Vigier found that if you restrict yourself to the distant galaxies in area A and calculate Hubble’s constant, you get one value, and in area B you get a significantly different one. This suggests that the rate of expansion varies depending on whether we measure galaxies with or without foreground galaxies. If the universe is expanding, what could these foreground galaxies possibly have to do with the rate of expansion? Vigier suggests that in fact the measured red shifts of the distant galaxies are not caused by the expansion of the universe at all. Rather, they are caused by something quite different—something called a tired-light mechanism. According to Vigier, as light moves through space it becomes red shifted simply from traveling a certain distance. This happens in accordance with physical laws, just like any other phenomenon. There is a law requiring that as light travels, it shifts toward the red. The effect is so small that it cannot be readily measured in laboratories on earth, but as light moves the vast distances between galaxies, the effect becomes apparent.
This is called the tired-light hypothesis because the light loses energy as it moves through space. And the more tired it becomes, the redder it becomes. Red shift is therefore proportional to distance, not to the velocity of the object. Vigier pictures the universe as not expanding. All the galaxies are more or less stationary. The red shift is not a Doppler effect; it has nothing to do with the velocity of the light’s source. The red shift is caused by an inherent property of the light itself, namely that it becomes tired after traveling long distances.
Most astronomers reject the idea of tired light. In the words of Joseph Silk, of the University of California at Berkeley, “Tired light cosmologies are unsatisfactory because they invoke a new law of physics” (SK).
But Vigier presents his tired-light theory in a way that does not require radically new physics. He proposes that there is a kind of particle in intergalactic space that interacts with light in such a way as to steal energy from it. In the vicinity of massive objects, there are more of these particles than elsewhere. Using this idea, Vigier explains the different red shifts for the A and B regions in the following way: The light passing through foreground galaxies encounters more of these particles and therefore loses more energy than light not passing through regions with foreground galaxies. Thus there is a greater red shift for the light going through regions with foreground galaxies, and this accounts for the different values found for the Hubble constant.
Vigier also cites additional evidence for nonvelocity red shifts. For example, if the light from stars is measured when passing near the sun, it displays a higher red shift than when measured in a different area of the sky. Such measurements can be made only during total eclipses of the sun, when stars near the solar disc become visible in the darkness.
In short, Vigier explains the red shift in terms of a nonexpanding universe in which light behaves somewhat differently than it is normally supposed to behave. Vigier claims that his model fits the astronomical data better than the standard expanding-universe model, which cannot explain the widely different values obtained for the Hubble constant. According to Vigier, nonvelocity red shifts may be a general feature of the universe. The universe could very well be static, and thus there would be no reason for the big bang theory.*

Modern cosmology is more or less mental speculation and gymnastics with usually no observational data to support it, just concocted math equations, and equations can be written to prove just about anything. Hubble’s contemporary scientist, Nikola Tesla, also understood that mathematical equations may have no relation to the real world. He explained it like this:
"Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality (Nikola Tesla, Modern Mechanics and Inventions, July, 1934).

If observational data cannot be demonstrated there should be no claim of a new theory; simply an uncorroborated hypothesis with mathematical predictions. That was the thesis of celebrated astronomer Edwin Hubble’s seminal book, The Observational Approach to Cosmology.

*Richard L Thompson summarizes the Redshift & Hubble Constant problems:

According to the standard expanding-universe theory, an object with a small red shift should be relatively close to us, and an object with a large red shift should be far away. Thus, two objects that are relatively close to each other should have similar red shifts.
But Arp gives the following example: The spiral galaxy NGC 7603 is connected to a companion galaxy by a luminous bridge, yet the companion galaxy has a red shift 8,000 kilometers per second higher than that of the spiral galaxy. Judging by the disparity in their red shifts, the galaxies should be at vastly different distances—to be precise, the companion should be about 478 million light-years further away— yet strangely, the two galaxies seem close enough to be physically connected. For comparison’s sake, our own galaxy, the Milky Way, is said to be just 2 million light years from its nearest neighbor, the galaxy Andromeda.
Of course, there are some defenders of the standard view who strongly disagree with Arp’s interpretation. John N. Bahcall, of Princeton’s Institute of Advanced Studies, maintains there is no reason to suppose that the two galaxies are connected (RC). The objects are actually distant from each other and just appear to be closely associated. The so-called luminous bridge is there, but the more distant galaxy just happens to be lined up behind it from our point of view.
To illustrate his criticism, Bahcall gives this specific rebuttal: He shows a photograph of a star within our own Milky Way galaxy apparently connected to a distant galaxy by what appears to be a luminous bridge. Are they connected? Bahcall points out that this is clearly impossible because the star is a bright foreground star in our own galaxy, while the distant galaxy is 44 million light- years away.
However, Arp responds by saying that Bahcall is just being frivolous. The galaxy he shows is not in any way unusual. The luminous bridge to the star is simply one of its normal spiral arms. But in the example Arp himself has chosen, the bridge is an unusual structure, not normally found in such galaxies. The likelihood that two galaxies of this type could be found in such a relationship is far less than the likelihood that a star in the Milky Way will be lined up with an ordinary galaxy.

Arp has found many other examples that seem to violate the traditional understanding of the red shift. Here is one of the most controversial of these discoveries: Near the spiral galaxy NGC 4319 is a quasar, Makarian 205, apparently connected to the galaxy by a luminous bridge. The galaxy has a red shift of 1,800 km per sec, giving it a distance of about 107 million light-years. The quasar has a red shift of 21,000 km per sec, which should mean that it is located 1.24 billion light-years distant. But Arp suggests that they are definitely connected and that this shows that the standard interpretation of the red shift is wrong in this case. (We may note, by the way, that the very fact that astronomers express red shifts in terms of kilometers per second shows their commitment to the idea that the red shifts are Doppler effects.)
Critics took their own photographs of NGC 4319 and claimed not to have found the connecting bridge shown in Arp’s picture. Others said the bridge was a “spurious photographic effect.” But recently, Jack M. Sulentic, of the University of Alabama, did extensive photometric studies of the two objects and concluded that the connecting bridge is real (SU).
Another example of discordant red shifts noted by Arp is found in the highly unusual chain of galaxies called Vorontsov-Velyaminov 172, after its Russian discoverers. In this chain, the smaller, more compact member has a red shift twice as great as the others.
In addition to pairs of galaxies with discordant red shifts, Arp points out something even stranger—it appears that quasars and galaxies can eject other quasars and galaxies. Here are some examples: The exploding galaxy NGC 520 has a fairly low red shift. Located along a straight line running to the southwest from the galaxy are 4 quasars of the faint type. Arp says that these faint quasars are the only ones in this region. Could it simply be an accident that they are arranged almost exactly on a straight line from the galaxy? Arp says the chances of this are extremely remote and suggests that the quasars were ejected from the exploding galaxy.
Interestingly enough, the quasars have much larger red shifts than the galaxy that seems to be their parent. This is remarkable, since according to the standard theory of the red shift, the quasars should be much further away than the galaxy. Arp interprets this and other, similar examples by proposing that freshly ejected quasars are born with high red shifts, which gradually decrease as time passes. Some scientists question whether it is really possible for galaxies to eject other massive objects such as galaxies or quasars. In response, Arp points to a striking photograph of the giant galaxy M87 ejecting a jet of material. When we look at the galaxies of the elliptical type in the region around galaxy M87 (which is also elliptical), we find that they all fall on a line drawn in the direction of the jet of ejected material. This suggests to Arp that these galaxies have been ejected by M87. How is it that a galaxy can emit another galaxy? If a galaxy is an “island universe” consisting of a vast aggregate of stars and gas, how can it emit another galaxy, which is a similar aggregate of stars and gas?
It has been argued that radioastronomy may provide a clue. In recent times, radioastronomers have agreed that vast radio-emission areas can be ejected from galaxies. These emission areas exist in pairs on either side of some galaxies. To explain this, astronomers have postulated gigantic spinning black holes in the centers of the galaxies that gobble up nearby stars and spit out material in both

Of course, these changes over the decades can be explained by arguing that that scientists have improved their methods and refined their calculations. But even so, something appears to be amiss.
This brings us to the work of Jean Pierre Vigier, a French astrophysicist at the Institute Henri Poincare (VG1-5). Vigier points out that even today, different observers obtain different values for Hubble’s constant. Tammann and Sandage give 55 plus or minus 5. Abell and Eastmond arrive at 47, plus or minus 5. Then there is van den Bergh, who calculates a value between 93 and 111. Heidmann got 100 for his figure. De Vaucouleurs came up with 100 plus or minus 10.
If the universe is expanding according to some uniform law of proportionality, how is it that so many observers obtain so many greatly different values for the rate of expansion?
Vigier notes that when astronomers take measurements in different directions, they find different rates of expansion. He then points out something even stranger: The sky can be divided into two sets of directions. The first is the set of directions in which many galaxies lie in front of more distant galaxies. The second is the set of directions in which there are distant galaxies without foreground galaxies. Call the first set “area A,” and the second set “area B.”
Vigier found that if you restrict yourself to the distant galaxies in area A and calculate Hubble’s constant, you get one value, and in area B you get a significantly different one. This suggests that the rate of expansion varies depending on whether we measure galaxies with or without foreground galaxies. If the universe is expanding, what could these foreground galaxies possibly have to do with the rate of expansion? Vigier suggests that in fact the measured red shifts of the distant galaxies are not caused by the expansion of the universe at all. Rather, they are caused by something quite different—something called a tired-light mechanism. According to Vigier, as light moves through space it becomes red shifted simply from traveling a certain distance. This happens in accordance with physical laws, just like any other phenomenon. There is a law requiring that as light travels, it shifts toward the red. The effect is so small that it cannot be readily measured in laboratories on earth, but as light moves the vast distances between galaxies, the effect becomes apparent.
This is called the tired-light hypothesis because the light loses energy as it moves through space. And the more tired it becomes, the redder it becomes. Red shift is therefore proportional to distance, not to the velocity of the object. Vigier pictures the universe as not expanding. All the galaxies are more or less stationary. The red shift is not a Doppler effect; it has nothing to do with the velocity of the light’s source. The red shift is caused by an inherent property of the light itself, namely that it becomes tired after traveling long distances.
Most astronomers reject the idea of tired light. In the words of Joseph Silk, of the University of California at Berkeley, “Tired light cosmologies are unsatisfactory because they invoke a new law of physics” (SK).
But Vigier presents his tired-light theory in a way that does not require radically new physics. He proposes that there is a kind of particle in intergalactic space that interacts with light in such a way as to steal energy from it. In the vicinity of massive objects, there are more of these particles than elsewhere. Using this idea, Vigier explains the different red shifts for the A and B regions in the following way: The light passing through foreground galaxies encounters more of these particles

and therefore loses more energy than light not passing through regions with foreground galaxies. Thus there is a greater red shift for the light going through regions with foreground galaxies, and this accounts for the different values found for the Hubble constant.
Vigier also cites additional evidence for nonvelocity red shifts. For example, if the light from stars is measured when passing near the sun, it displays a higher red shift than when measured in a different area of the sky. Such measurements can be made only during total eclipses of the sun, when stars near the solar disc become visible in the darkness.
In short, Vigier explains the red shift in terms of a nonexpanding universe in which light behaves somewhat differently than it is normally supposed to behave. Vigier claims that his model fits the astronomical data better than the standard expanding-universe model, which cannot explain the widely different values obtained for the Hubble constant. According to Vigier, nonvelocity red shifts may be a general feature of the universe. The universe could very well be static, and thus there would be no reason for the big bang theory.
7.D. Quasars
Doubt has also been cast on the expanding universe theory by the study of quasars, or quasi-stellar radio sources. Quasars look like stars but have very big red shifts, and thus they are considered the most distant objects in the universe, more distant than the most distant galaxies. We have already seen that Halton Arp believes some quasars are cosmologically close to us, even though they have high red shifts. Arp has also noted that many quasars tend to be located in the same vicinity of the sky as a large group of galaxies relatively close to our own. This suggests to him that the quasars may be associated in some fashion with these local galaxies and thus be at the same distance.
This raises a question: If some quasars are actually close, and thus have large nonvelocity red shifts, why couldn’t that be true of quasars in general? In fact it has long been observed that there are severe difficulties with the idea that quasars are at their cosmological distances, that is, that they are at the distance obtained by applying the Hubble constant to their extremely large red shifts.
The big problem is that quasars are very bright. If they are in fact extremely far away, that means that many quasars are putting out hundreds of times more energy than the brightest galaxies, which are composed of hundreds of billions of stars. If quasars were as big as galaxies, that might not be implausible. But it turns out that quasars can vary in their light intensity over periods as short as days. This observation suggests to astronomers that they are very small compared to galaxies. No one can understand how such a small object can generate so much energy, at least by presently known physical laws.
One interesting approach to the interpretation of quasars has been proposed by Y. P. Varshni, a physicist at the University of Ottawa in Canada (VR1-3). He supports Arp’s contention that quasars have nonvelocity red shifts, citing as evidence certain patterns in the way these red shifts are distributed.
Normally one would expect celestial objects like quasars to have a wide variety of red shifts with no discernible pattern. But Varshni finds that these red shifts tend to fall into well-defined groups. Each red-shift group is represented by quasars distributed widely across the sky, and very few quasars have red shifts that would place them outside the major groupings. A similar phenomenon was also noted by

the astronomer Geoffrey Burbidge, who observed that an unexpectedly large percentage of quasars have red shifts grouped closely around 1.95 (BR1). (The red shift of 1.95 is expressed in terms of shift in wavelength; it comes to about 238,160 km per sec, or 79 percent of the speed of light.)
This clustering of red shifts is a very difficult phenomenon to explain. Let us apply the standard cosmological interpretation to the distance of the quasars. All of the quasars with the same red shift should be at the same distance. Thus the quasars with a red shift of 1.95 should all lie close to a spherical shell with a radius corresponding to this red shift. The same should hold true of the other red shift groupings, each of which includes quasars in a wide variety of directions. This means that the quasars lie on a series of spherical shells centered on the earth.
This conclusion is unacceptable to modern cosmological thinking because it places the earth in a special central position in the universe. There is only one center in an array of concentric shells. In effect, the earth must be at the center of the universe.
The odds that this arrangement of shells could happen by chance are next to nothing, and Varshni argues that the conclusion that the earth really is at the center of concentric shells of quasars is not acceptable. Therefore the red shifts of the quasars must be due to something other than the Doppler effect, as described in the expanding-universe model. If they are not due to the Doppler effect, they do not represent distance, and if they do not represent distance, it is no longer necessary to suppose the quasars are arranged in shells.
Varshni believes that quasars generate light in an unexpected way, a way that gives the appearance of Doppler-shifted light. According to Varshni, laser effects in the quasars give light inherently different characteristics that have nothing to do with velocity. Varshni believes scientists have mistaken the spectral lines in this type of light for Doppler-shifted spectral lines in ordinary ionized gas. So according to Varshni, the quasars are close by, and the idea that they are far away results from misinterpreting their laser-generated light as Doppler-shifted ordinary light. Varshni’s theory may or may not be true, but his observation that the spectral lines of quasars fall into definite groupings does call into question the standard theory of cosmic distances—at least for quasars. If the spectral lines are taken to be displaced by Doppler shifts and one applies the standard theory, one gets the unacceptable result that the earth is the center of the universe. If this were accepted, scientists would have to return to an idea they have consistently rejected since the time of Galileo and Copernicus.
7.E. Quantized Red Shifts
Yet Varshni’s observations represent only one of a number of strange patterns that emerge when modern astronomical data are closely examined. Another interesting pattern has been discerned by William G. Tifft, an astronomer at Steward Observatory, at the University of Arizona at Tucson (TF1-7). His conclusions have perhaps the most disturbing implications of all for the expanding-universe model. Tifft has observed that the red shifts associated with galaxies tend to be quantized. What this means is that red shifts tend not to be just any numbers but rather multiples of a certain basic unit of about 72 kilometers per second. In general, his studies show that red shifts of galaxies are grouped at 72 kps, 144 kps, 216 kps, 288 kps, and so on.

Let us consider a pair of galaxies close to each other in space. According to Newtonian gravitational theory, these galaxies should be attracting each other gravitationally. Thus they should be orbiting around each other, falling together, or flying apart, and this relative motion should be revealed by a measurable red shift.
Tifft examined the relative red shift of many pairs of galaxies. This value, according to standard theory, would represent not the speed at which the pair is receding from the earth but rather the speed at which one galaxy is moving in orbit around the other, measured along the line of sight from the earth. Simply put, the speed is calculated as follows: The observer measures the red shift of each galaxy in a pair of galaxies. For example, one galaxy may have a red shift of 7,500 kps, and the other may have one of 7,000 kps. This means that one galaxy is at that time moving relative to the other at a speed of 500 kps along the line of sight. But because this speed is due to orbital motion, it will vary according to the positions of the galaxies at different points in time. For example, when the galaxies are moving perpendicular to the line of sight, the relative motion will be zero, and they will have exactly the same red shift at that point.
So if the two galaxies are in fact moving in orbit, the relative red shift will vary smoothly within a definite range of values. Of course, it is not possible to measure this variation for a single pair of galaxies. They would not display any visible motion or change of red shift within the lifetime of the observer. Therefore it is necessary to observe hundreds of pairs of galaxies and calculate their relative red shifts. If we did this, we would expect to find a nearly continuous spread of values, because we would be catching the galaxies at a variety of orbital positions relative to our line of sight.
But Tifft has found this not to be the case. The red shifts are grouped in near multiples of a basic unit—72 kilometers per second. This indicates to Tifft that the measured red shift is a nonvelocity red shift and that the galaxies in each pair are actually not orbiting each other. One might argue that perhaps the red shifts are caused by something other than the Doppler effect, but surely the galaxies must still be orbiting one another. But Tifft points out that even if something other than relative velocity is causing red shifts, orbital motion should still produce a smooth distribution of Doppler-effect red shifts in addition to this. But this is not what he finds.
Tifft’s findings apply not only to galaxies moving in pairs, but to whole groups of galaxies. This poses two questions that modern physics cannot answer. The first is, How is it possible for galaxies to have a nonvelocity red shift? Tifft proposes that it is caused by the nature of the galaxies themselves. They produce light that is red shifted because of internal properties having to do with some as-yet unknown law of nature. The second question is, If the red shift is not due to motion, then what is the motion of the galaxies? If they are orbiting, then there should be a continuous range of Doppler shifts, whatever the internal properties of the galaxies might be. Could it be that they are not orbiting? Then, according to Newton’s or Einstein’s laws of gravity, they should be falling together or perhaps flying apart. They should still be moving relative to one another, but the indication is that they are not. Therefore, according to Tifft, new principles of gravitation are necessary.
There is already evidence that might be interpreted as indicating that Newton’s laws may have to be revised, especially in relation to galaxies. For many years,

scientists have found great difficulty in accounting for the dynamics of galactic motion in terms of the law of gravity. For example, it may be seen that certain galaxies appear to be orbiting in a cluster, but the dynamics of mass and gravity suggest they should not be arranged in that way. Given their supposed velocities, they would have to be much more massive in order to orbit. But rather than sacrifice the laws of gravity, astronomers have posited the existence of great quantities of invisible dark matter to account for the missing mass. Some say 90% of the mass of the universe is missing.
But another way to deal with this issue is to say that the laws of gravity need revision, and Tifft is suggesting this, based on his research. With new laws of gravity, the need to posit missing mass disappears. Is Tifft right or wrong? As of now, it isn’t possible to say. But his ideas do show how scientists, operating with the very limited data they have been able to acquire, are running into all kinds of contradictions in their attempt to comprehend the universe.
Thus far we have discussed pairs and groups of galaxies. We have seen how their red shifts, representing movement relative to one another along an observer’s line of sight, should vary smoothly through a wide range of values. But Tifft has found that the red-shift values are quantized in multiples of a constant unit, and thus he concludes that they are not moving at all relative to one another.
But what about the galaxies’ absolute movement along our line of sight? Is it possible that the galaxies are also standing still in relation to us—that they are not moving away, as the expanding-universe model tells us they should be?
Tifft argues that they are not moving. If they are moving due to expansion of the universe, their red shifts should span a wide range, covering all possible intermediate values. But Tifft proposes that these red shifts are also quantized. Normal measurements do not show this, but Tifft points out that when the effect of solar motion is subtracted, the quantization of the red shifts becomes unmistakably clear. The red shifts do not vary smoothly but instead come in multiples of a constant number.
Let’s take a closer look at this problem. If the red shifts are quantized, as Tifft says they are, then the sun, because of its motion, adds a Doppler effect to those quantized red shifts. What is added will depend on the angle of the distant galaxy’s motion relative to the sun’s motion. If the galaxy is moving perpendicular to the sun’s path, the sun’s movement will not add anything. At 0 degrees there would be a negative red shift (i.e., a blue shift), which would be subtracted. At 180 degrees one would add a positive red shift. At points in between, one gets other values. And by adding these values, one breaks up the quantized nature of the red shifts. To detect the quantization, one has to subtract the red shift due to the sun’s motion from the observed red-shift values. Tifft says he has done just that, and has found that galaxies have red shifts arranged in multiples of 72 kilometers per second. Thus he concludes that these are nonvelocity red shifts, and he posits a static universe.
Summarizing his work, Tifft makes the following remarks in the Astrophysical Journal:
The entire set of concepts [developed in these papers] is internally self-consistent and permits predictions which the conventional view does not even suggest. The predictions made have been verified in virtually all cases and offer alternatives to some very puzzling astrophysical problems: the mass discrepancy problem for

galaxies, and stellar rotational peculiarities, to name two major ones. Although not discussed specifically in these papers, the origin and evolution of galaxies by collapse are also untenable, as are most of the cosmological concepts based on the “expanding” universe. In view of all the implications which inevitably follow from the discrete red shift hypothesis, it is not surprising that the idea has met extreme resistance. Nevertheless, a set of intimately related significant correlations involving a massive amount of data exists. Showing that the discrete red shift concept is inconsistent with the “expanding universe” or even general relativity or quantum electrodynamics will not eliminate or explain the correlations! [TF5, p. 390]
As we can see from this statement, Tifft’s conclusions have not met with a favorable reception in the community of astronomers and astrophysicists. Indeed, they have been greeted largely with a barrier of icy silence. However, Halton Arp independently confirms some of Tifft’s findings, and this in turn lends greater weight to Arp’s own anomalous observations.
One of Arp’s observations is that in groups of galaxies, one member is generally brighter and bigger. This galaxy tends to have a lower red shift than its smaller companion galaxies. Arp suggests the galaxies are all in the same region, at the same general distance from us; therefore the red shifts are not giving velocity effects and distances but indicate something else.
Let us carefully consider the reasoning that leads Arp to this conclusion. One possibility is that the large, bright galaxy is nearby and just happens to be projected against a background of galaxies that are smaller and dimmer because of distance. These galaxies would have larger red shifts as a result of the expansion of the universe.
However, Arp argues that this explanation overlooks the fact that the clusters of galaxies are well defined and that such well-defined clusters cover a small percentage of the sky. It is therefore unlikely that many such clusters should just happen to have a bright foreground galaxy projected in front of them.
As we have already pointed out, Arp believes that galaxies can be ejected from a parent galaxy. What if the relative red shifts of the smaller galaxies are due to their being ejected from the larger parent galaxy in a direction pointing away from us? The problem here is that in this case we would expect some of the smaller galaxies to be ejected in our direction. These would exhibit relative blue shifts, contrary to Arp’s observations.
But here is Arp’s clinching argument: Not only do these smaller galaxies have positive red shifts relative to their parent galaxies, but these red shifts are quantized, just the way Tifft indicates they should be in his studies. Arp finds peaks at 70, 140, and 210 kps; this agrees well with Tifft’s findings of quantization in multiples of 72 kps. As we have seen, this means that they are nonvelocity red shifts. And the fact that the quantization is in relation to the dominant galaxy in the group indicates there is some physical association. Why would the quantization be there if the association is simply coincidental? The fact that it is there indicates that the association is real.
So here we have an example in which we see dim galaxies with high red shifts close to bright galaxies with lesser red shifts, although standard cosmological theory says they should be vastly further away. This raises questions not only

about the interpretation of red shifts, but also about the whole procedure of calculating distance according to brightness.
One of Arp’s peaks for red-shift differences among groups of galaxies is in the range of 138–144 kilometers per second. This extremely narrow range is highly significant. If these groups are involved in orbital motion, we would expect to find them at different points in their orbits—some galaxies should be coming toward us, while others should be moving away from us. Thus we would expect a much greater spread in velocities than the 6 kps range found in this peak.
As Arp puts it, “The really startling and difficult aspect of the quantization into very narrow peaks is the small latitude it allows for the true orbital or peculiar velocity” (AR2, p. 110). This suggests that the orbital velocities, if present, are very small, too small for the galaxies to be actually orbiting each other according to present physical laws and estimates for the masses of the galaxies. Tifft’s ideas about the need for new laws of gravity seem to be confirmed.
Geoffrey Burbidge has summed up the evidence for anomalous red shifts by saying, I believe that however much many astronomers wish to disregard the evidence by insisting that the statistical arguments are not very good, or by taking the approach that absence of understanding is an argument against the existence of the effect, it is there and many basic ideas have to be revised.
A revolution is upon us whether or not we like it [BR2, p. 103].
What we see from this evidence is that an established model of the universe, built up from years of painstaking scientific work, can be practically demolished by closer scrutiny of the observational data on which it is based. In the end we come back to the observation made by Shukadeva Goswami in the beginning of his description of the universe:
My dear King, there is no limit to the expansion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead’s material energy. This material world is a transformation of the material qualities,... yet no one could possibly explain it perfectly, even in a lifetime as long as that of Brahmä. No one in the material world is perfect, and an imperfect person could not describe this material universe accurately, even after continued speculation [SB 5.16.4].

AR 1: Arp, H., “Observational Paradoxes in Extragalactic Astronomy,” Science, vol. 174 (1971), pp. 1189–1200.
AR2: Arp, H., and J. W. Sulentic, “Analysis of Groups of Galaxies with Accurate Redshifts,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 291 (1971), pp. 88–111.
AR3: Arp, H., “Distribution of Quasistellar Radio Sources on the Sky,” The Astronomical Journal, vol. 75 (1970), no. 1, pp. 1–12.
AR4: Arp, H., “NGC-1199,” Astronomy, vol. 6 (1978), p.15.

Thompson, Vedic Cosmography and Astronomy (Bhaktivedanta Book Trust, 1989).

SK: Silk, J., The Big Bang (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1980).

TF1: Tifft, W. G., “Periodicity in the Redshift Intervals for Double Galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 236 (1980), pp. 70–74.
TF2: Tifft, W. G., “Discrete States of Redshift and Galaxy Dynamics II...,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 211 (1977), pp. 31-46.
TF3: Tifft, W. G., and W. J. Cocke, “Global Redshift Quantization,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 287 (1984), pp. 492–502.
TF4: Tifft, W. G., “Absolute Solar Motion and the Discrete Redshift,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 221 (1978), pp. 756–75.
TF5: Tifft, W. G., “Discrete States of Redshift and Galaxy Dynamics III...,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 211 (1977), pp. 377–91.
TF6: Tifft, W. G., “Quantum Effects in the Redshift Intervals for Double Galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 257 (1982), pp. 442–49.
TF7: Cocke, W. J., and W. G. Tifft, “Redshift Quantization in Compact Groups of Galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal, vol. 268 (1983), pp. 56–59.

RC: Field, G. B., H. Arp, J. N. Bahcall, The Redshift Controversy (Reading, Mass.: W. A. Benjamin, Inc., 1973).

Mysterious Fast Radio Bursts Are Finally Coming into Focus Twenty years after their initial detection, enigmatic blasts from the sky are starting to deliver tentative answers, as well as plenty of science