http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/09/is-time-slowly-disappearin.html

Time is not slowing down and the Universe is not expanding.

But we can't believe Halton Arp, because that would destroy our religion.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/faint_quasars_give_conclusive_evidence_for_non_velocity_redshifts

Just as if I would care !
Remember, I am an engineer.
I care for facts and logic, not for stories.

As if anyone else cares if you care. It was not posted only for your edification, Cement Head. Do you think you are the moderator of this forum? Do you pay for the bandwidth here. You are just lucky that you don't get deleted.

The Simple Electric Universe

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=wxse6f8q

Some people in each successive generation believe that theirs is the one that has at last seen everything clearly, that their insights point to the truth, the final answer. Yet scientific discovery marches on and todays truth will become tomorrows anecdotes. Gerrit L. Verschuur, Interstellar Matters

Indeed you are trying to build a myth.

Indeed, it is a far superior myth than the "gravity causes hydrogen gas to contract into galaxies" myth.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090917ring.htm

"Since its serendipitous discovery in 1983, the Leo Ring has presented a number of problems for the conventional model of galaxy formation. . ."

I see you are a kind of expert.
You have strong opininions based on weak papers and headlines.
And you can even copy/paste the headlines, final dot included.

Lets hear your superior explanation to the number of problems the conventional model of galaxy formation cannot explain, Cement Head.

Let's hear your superior explanation to the number of problems the conventional model of galaxy formation cannot explain, Cement Head.

While you are at it, Cement Head, do the same for the correlation of sun spots to variation in cosmic rays.


http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2009/arch09/090918cycle.htm

Riding the Solar Cycle

All you can do is spue the conventional pap, and whine about some non problem in the electric hypothesis that destroys your faith in your Big Bang religion.

Always avoiding the burden of the proof, as I can see.

In addition, you don't seem to realize that I would really like to learn something new.
After all, the role of electric fields in cosmology IS an interresting subject.
If you had just anything to say about a possible "electric alternative" for the problem of galactic rotation, just write it down.

I have seen here so many people here pasting links and pretending all needed proofs are there.
Just boring.
Sometimes I have a quick look, but I mostly read only if I see a bit of substance.
I would preffer to ear -at least- kind of executive summary of your best personal analysis.

I am not and expert about what you call conventional theories of galaxies.
Is there even one, maybe this is going-on research?
However, I easily see when people claim more than they can argue.
With the "electric universe" it is clearly the case.
In this case it is even easier for me to detect the fallacy as I am very well informed on plasma physcis. Therefore I smell very easily when people are making a mountain of their elementary knowledge in plasma physics and pretending a plasma theory of everything when they actually don't have an explanation for anything.

If you already understand The Electric Hypothesis, why do you keep pretending to be upset. As I have already pointed out, my posts are not intended exclusively for you. You are so pretentiously arrogant, you think this forum must be cleansed from everything that contradicts your silly religion. Sorry pal, it ain't your forum. Why don't you spend your time policing the silliness on Wiki?

Big Bang Distortions

Halton Arp's intrinsic redshift observations contradict the big bang's assumption that redshift is a measure of distance (and thus of age; the higher the redshift, the farther away from us and the closer to the beginning of the universe). Can this contradiction be tested? Three clues should be obvious: if redshift is distorting distance, then size, energy and distribution will all be systematically out of proportion as well.

We covered one instance of energy distortion in the Aug 20, 2004 TPOD, "How Big is a Gamma Ray Burst?" Arp showed that high and low redshift objects are clustered together in family groupings, so the errors introduced to the distance calculations should be proportionally larger as the redshift becomes higher. So the distortions should be greatest at the highest redshifts. In other words, when reading mainstream astronomy, you would expect to come across comments like: "gamma ray bursts in the early universe were much stronger than more recent gamma ray bursts."

One observation of a nearby faint gamma ray burst doesn't guarantee a distortion. It might actually BE a fainter burst. But there is more. The distribution of galaxies is also distorted by mistaking redshift for distance. This results in an odd-looking universe where streams of galaxies appear to point at the Earth from every direction. We covered this type of distortion in the Oct 18th TPOD "Fingers of God".

The third type of distortion that should appear by believing that galaxies and galaxy groups are farther away than they actually are is a distortion of size. The above image juxtaposes two galaxies at the sizes they would be if they are at their conventional redshift distances. The low-redshift M81 (inset) is one of the largest nearby spiral galaxies. The higher-redshift NGC 309 (large image), an otherwise normal-appearing spiral, has been distorted so much by assuming that it's at its redshift distance that it appears to swallow M81 in one of its arms.

Like Ptolemy's epicycles, these distortions disappear when we refocus our vision to accept the way these galaxies are distributed as the more accurate measure of distance, and reject the "first guess" hypothesis that redshift equals distance that has dominated astronomy for 80 years.

Fromhttp://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050214bigbang.htm