Slashdot Mirror

Theory is fine, but if your pet theory can't handle the observations, go back to the theory--the observations are rarely "wrong".

Electrical currrents don't do a damned thing to effect morphology.

Observation is that there are whole lines of flat-bottomed, overlapping craters on Mars, consistent in human experience only with Electric Discharge Machining. Theory says that nothing much electromagnetic can ever have happened on Mars because the planet's intrinsic magnetic field is weak. Which wins?

Observation is that the explosion when comet Tempel was hit by a projectile was much, much larger than any of the principal experimenters predicted. Observation is that there was a flash (producing X-rays) long enough before any ejecta emerged for the projectile to have traveled a mile. Observation is that the ejecta contained essentially zero volatiles (also counter to every principal experimenter's predictions). Theory offers that the projectile burrowed a mile (or just a half?) through the (stony) comet before properly exploding, with no explanation for x-rays. Which wins?

Of course this doesn't prove these events were electromagnetic. All that has been proved is that the people making the announcements have disregarded better explanations for their observations, not from aversion to speculation, but because it would be personally inconvenient to learn enough to follow them up. All this would be benign if they didn't also sit on review committees reflexively rejecting papers and grant proposals that even mention the topic.

Theory is fine, but if your pet theory can't handle the observations, go back to the theory--the observations are rarely "wrong".

Electrical currrents don't do a damned thing to effect morphology.

Observation is that there are whole lines of flat-bottomed, overlapping craters on Mars, consistent in human experience only with Electric Discharge Machining. Theory says that nothing much electromagnetic can ever have happened on Mars because the planet's intrinsic magnetic field is weak. Which wins?

Observation is that the explosion when comet Tempel was hit by a projectile was much, much larger than any of the principal experimenters predicted. Observation is that there was a flash (producing X-rays) long enough before any ejecta emerged for the projectile to have traveled a mile. Observation is that the ejecta contained essentially zero volatiles (also counter to every principal experimenter's predictions). Theory offers that the projectile burrowed a mile (or just a half?) through the (stony) comet before properly exploding, with no explanation for x-rays. Which wins?

Of course this doesn't prove these events were electromagnetic. All that has been proved is that the people making the announcements have disregarded better explanations for their observations, not from aversion to speculation, but because it would be personally inconvenient to learn enough to follow them up. All this would be benign if they didn't also sit on review committees reflexively rejecting papers and grant proposals that even mention the topic.

Theory is fine, but if your pet theory can't handle the observations, go back to the theory--the observations are rarely "wrong".

Electrical currrents don't do a damned thing to effect morphology.

Observation is that there are whole lines of flat-bottomed, overlapping craters on Mars, consistent in human experience only with Electric Discharge Machining. Theory says that nothing much electromagnetic can ever have happened on Mars because the planet's intrinsic magnetic field is weak. Which wins?

Observation is that the explosion when comet Tempel was hit by a projectile was much, much larger than any of the principal experimenters predicted. Observation is that there was a flash (producing X-rays) long enough before any ejecta emerged for the projectile to have traveled a mile. Observation is that the ejecta contained essentially zero volatiles (also counter to every principal experimenter's predictions). Theory offers that the projectile burrowed a mile (or just a half?) through the (stony) comet before properly exploding, with no explanation for x-rays. Which wins?

Of course this doesn't prove these events were electromagnetic. All that has been proved is that the people making the announcements have disregarded better explanations for their observations, not from aversion to speculation, but because it would be personally inconvenient to learn enough to follow them up. All this would be benign if they didn't also sit on review committees reflexively rejecting papers and grant proposals that even mention the topic.

It's called electricity. And the reason that we can't detect it is that most of the current scientific community is far too attatched to the theory that gravity is the major force in the galaxy, and they refuse to acknowledge any other possibility.

check this link for more info: http://www.electric-cosmos.org/

and this one for even more: http://www.thunderbolts.info/

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

Edwin Hubble. "Humason assembled spectra of the nebulae and I attempted to estimate distances." So wrote Hubble of his colleague Milton Humason in 1935 by which time spectra had been obtained for over 150 nebulae. Hubble was a stern warner of using the Doppler effect for galaxies and argued against the recessional velocity interpretation of redshift, convincing Robert Millikan, 1923 recipient of the Nobel Prize for Physics and director of physics at the California Insitute of Technology, that the redshift interpretation as an expanison of the universe was probably wrong, the year before both of their deaths in 1953.

Hubble ended his book Observational Approach to Cosmology with the statement:..."if the recession factor is dropped, if redshifts are not primarily velocity-shifts, the picure is simple and plausible. There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of time-scale, no trace of spatial curvature, and no limitation of spatial dimensions. Moreover, there is no problem of internebular material. The observable region is thoroughly homogeneous; it is too small a sample to indicate the nature of the universe at large. The univers[e] might even be an expanding model, provide[d] the rate of expansion, which pure theory does not specify, i[s] inappreciable. For that matter, the universe might even be contracting."

Taken from:

http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/people/contribut ors.html

Thuderbolts.info

Thunderbolts' Picture of the Day

Picture of the Day Archive

A few very interesting selections from the archive:

The Picture that Won't Go Away

Quasars in Infrared are Still Nearby

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

Electric Stars

Of Pith Balls and Plasma

Space Shuttle Struck by Megalightning?

The website of Halton Arp

The Observational Impet

I would suggest reading this site for an alternate theory to the universe, there is a lot of material but after reading through the majority I'd place more trust in this theory than the current gravity-based one.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

New scientific evidence show that redshift do not relate to speed of galaxies, which implies they are not moving.

Also, darkmatter are only "epicycles" of the current wrong gravity driven view of the universe.

The universe is electric, and follows the laws of plasma on bigger scales. read more here:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/pl asma_univ.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 10arptest.htm

New scientific evidence show that redshift do not relate to speed of galaxies, which implies they are not moving.

Also, darkmatter are only "epicycles" of the current wrong gravity driven view of the universe.

The universe is electric, and follows the laws of plasma on bigger scales. read more here:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/universe/pl asma_univ.html

http://www.thunderbolts.info/

http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/0506 10arptest.htm

Have your read the predictions?

http://thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/00curren t.htm

A bright flash is entirely consistent with electrical discharge. It is brighter than expected by mission scientists, who would base their expectation on the conventional model.

I doubt a conventional impact could create a flash like that.

If we take "a far bigger explosion" to mean "more energy liberated", then where did the extra energy come from? One explanation is electrical discharge.

Seems the electrical universe people haven't had time to update their website about their prediction about the results. IIRC, they were saying that the results would be much less spectacular than predicted, and yet a few hours ago I heard some of the NASA people expressing surprise because the impact released a lot more material than most of them expected. The electric universe proponents also seemed to think that the impactor electrical systems would fail before it reached the comet (because of "megalightning" and all that), while they seem to have have lasted right up until the impact.

So....will they do the right thing and modify their theory to fit the observations, or will we be treated to a lot of hand-wringing about how the theory actually predicted this result (but us non-electrodynamical people just don't understand the theory and its implications)?

And will /. post a follow-up article about the electric universe proponents' reaction to the results, or is that not news for nerds?

Yep.

Another good one is where the Electric Universe explains that dinosaurs died out because the force of gravity abruptly multiplied. Better yet it ALSO says that the lower gravity may have helped in the building of ancient giant monuments like Stonehenge. Another good one is the Electric Universe explaining that "stellar electric discharges manufacture all of the heavy elements seen in their spectra" and that "nuclear energy is not the source of their radiance". It goes on to explain that the best place to look for extraterrestrial life is *inside* Red Dwarf stars, where "life-giving molecules, including water, will mist down through an atmosphere drawn from their parent star".

If anyone wants to dig up and post more such whoppers I suggest browsing through this Electric Universe links page. I only read the SETI link but I'd sure the rest of them house a vertiable a treasure trove of comedy.

-

From a different page on that site: "But as astronauts now prepare to ride another shuttle into space, few Americans are aware of the most critical issue raised by the Columbia disaster. Did a super-bolt of lightning--called "megalightning"--strike Columbia, causing the breakup of the craft?"

Sounds somewhat plausable until you get to "But NASA officials seized both the camera and the photograph itself, prohibiting the San Francisco Chronicle from publishing it after the newspaper had received the picture."

That's one step away from saying that we never went into space and that Columbia was done with ILM SFX and fireworks.

Of course, I wonder if the probe is capable of picking up some of the effects decribed below, given the the design is aligned towards conventional theory, such as it is ... The whole thunderbolts.info websight makes of interesting reading. At least they are making predictions that can be proven/disproven based on data.

Predictions on "Deep Impact"

With the imminent arrival of the "Deep Impact" spacecraft at the comet Tempel 1, it is time to test competing theories on the nature of comets. The predictions and lines of reasoning offered here will set the stage for future analysis of the "electric comet" model.

We are posting this document at 1:45 a.m. Sunday, July 3, with "Deep Impact" less than 24 hours away. [...]

At 10:52 p.m. PDT July 3, the Deep Impact spacecraft will fire an 800-pound copper projectile at the nucleus of Comet Tempel 1. If all goes as planned the projectile will impact on the nucleus 24 hours later. The impact is expected to eject into space large volumes of subsurface material.

Cameras on the projectile will record its approach toward the nucleus, and instruments on the spacecraft will record the event across a broad spectrum. Dozens of telescopes will be trained on the comet. According to NASA scientists, the released material will provide a sample of the primordial water, gas and dust from which the Sun, planets, moons, and other bodies in the solar system formed.

Though Deep Impact team members see this as a milestone event, advocates of the Electric Universe expect a "shock to the system" with revolutionary implications. They say that a comet is not a primordial object left over from the formation of the solar system. Fundamentally, it is distinguishable from a rocky asteroid only by its more elliptical orbit.

In the Electric Universe a comet is a negatively charged object moving through the extensive and constant radial electric field of the positively charged Sun. A comet becomes negatively charged during its long sojourn in the outer solar system. As it speeds into the inner solar system, the increasing voltage and charge density of the plasma (solar "wind") cause the nucleus to discharge electrically, producing the bright coma and tail.

If the electrical theorists are correct, the implications of the event will not be limited to comet theory alone. At issue is the assumption of an electrically neutral universe, upon which every conventional astronomical theory rests. An electric comet would forever change the picture of the solar system and force astronomers to consider the overwhelming evidence that electricity lights not only our Sun but also all the stars in the heavens. Moreover, the cosmic electricians insist that this would only be the beginning of a more sweeping revolution touching all of the theoretical sciences and in the end recasting our understanding of earth history and the human past.

The most appropriate test of a new theory is its predictive power (see predictions from October 2001 in Wallace Thornhill's "Comet Borrelly Rocks Core Scientific Beliefs"). Therefore, we wish to make as clear as possible, in advance of the projectile's impact, the distinctions between the electric model and the standard model. Where the issues grow complex, the primary reason is that the standard model, which failed to anticipate any of the major discoveries about comets over the past three decades or more, has fragmented into competing versions, forced upon the theorists by unsettling facts. Nevertheless a shared ideology continues to guide orthodox comet investigation while limiting scientific perception. For this reason advocates of the electric universe do not believe that a reconciliation of the current theoretical fragments is possible.

The article looked like crackpot stuff to me, but what clinched it was this from the linked article on megalightning:

One might have expected this photograph to catch the attention of media around the world. But NASA officials seized both the camera and the photograph itself, prohibiting the San Francisco Chronicle from publishing it after the newspaper had received the picture.

Proponents of the Electric Universe theory have gone out on a limb ahead of Deep Impact. They're predicting it will show comets are just rocks and not dirty snowballs.
Controversially they assert comets are highly negatively-charged asteroids on eccentric orbits. As they travel further into the Sun's radial positive electric field, they discharge into space, expelling material at supersonic speed.

I'm sure they're subject-shopping, but it's interesting that there are so many weird things going on out there.

It does feel like there are a few things about to tease themselves apart in cosmology...

Gravity seems to be behaving oddly, with things like the Pioneer acceleration and the anomalous in-track acceleration of the LAGEOS satellites.

The limited age of the universe is being stretched to strange proportions of late with observations of the early universe looking more developed than expected. Observations by the Spitzer may throw even more confusion on the fire.

Add to the pile interesting oddities like Quantized Redshift, originally proposed by Tifft and still observed, that would see to put us at the center of the universe (we shouldn't see the equivalent of even "shells" from our point of view). The Fingers of God is an interesting graphic interpretation.

Association of high-redshift quasars with low-redshift galaxies rounds off the plate.

Actually, a number of these controversies have been around since the mid-80's, but the power and spectrum spread of our telescopes has been getting better. It's been hard to get time to observe the controversial objects - the allocation committees tend to turn such proposals down - but there are plenty of controversies left in the skies, even when we don't go looking for them :)

Personally, I'm excited by the possibilities. It feels like there's something just around the corner, if only we can get some research time in on it.

The effects will be great, no doubt. Too bad the science behind most of what they'll say is bunk.