I saved some of them. Now I'm putting them online. Here's first one. Downside is that I only have saved those discussions that I participated to.

By the way, I visited haltonarp.com and there seems to be a new article online. :)

I immediately went to Arp's site and read the paper you referenced.  In this one paper he has boldly restated just about every position he has taken over the years.  He has furthermore backed them up with more current observations, calculations, and references.  It was an enjoyable read!  However, in my humble opinion, I see this as Halton's swan song.  It looks like he tried to make this one paper summarize his entire career.  It is a bold and exciting paper, but it also makes me a little sad, realizing that Halton's life work may well be nearing its end.

So where does that leave us?  First, I would pose a couple of questions.  What was the reason(s) Halton's paper was rejected?  Where will this paper actually end up being published?  What will Narlikar do next, as I haven't seen any noise about quasars, etc. lately?

Looking forward to all your thoughts.

Regards,
Mike Petersen

Ari said:

I saved some of them. Now I'm putting them online.

That's an excellent use of your blog, Ari! I got so incredibly miffed when the old forums with all their contents were pulled interminably so that the webmaster could stamp "web standards!" over a tiny web site.

Ari said:

Downside is that I only have saved those discussions that I participated to.

That still makes me happy in that I think most of the discussions that I participated in were ones that you did as well ;)

Mike said:

It was an enjoyable read!

It was an enjoyable read, but I could see how it might grate reviewers. Some of it seemed to be phrased as though Arp's previous research could be taken as a total given.

Mike said:

However, in my humble opinion, I see this as Halton's swan song.

Mind you, he's done a few papers like that, if I recall rightly. I almost wish he'd do something a little bit different from his usual quasar affinity/Karlsson peak stuff every now and again. There are so many targets.

(Maybe he does and I just don't look? :)

We really need some more powerful telescopes out there and soon. I'm thinking that the lack of early universe characteristics or SMBHs would reinvigorate someone like Arp.

Second one is available here.

Ritchie said:

That still makes me happy in that I think most of the discussions that I participated in were ones that you did as well ;)

However, I don't have all of them saved. For example the "newest" discussions I don't have.

Third:
http://arijmaki.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/lost-haltonarp-com-discussions-hubbles-the-problem-of-the-expanding-universe-transcribed/

It's one of our threads of everything.

Oh, and by the way, Ritchie, damn you and your use of italics. When I was editing that discussion I noticed that you had italicized a word, so I thought that I should check out the whole discussion in case there's others. And there were whole bunch of them...

So exactly why is my historical use of italics so vexing you? :)

Did it make you manually italicize all the <i>...</i> instead of letting you just do search and replace or some sort of macro?

That third thread there was definitely one of the fun ones. I must say, too, that I miss Ted Rusk and Nick White. Has anyone managed to track them down in the interim?

At least we have Mike from the old article-posting brigade :)

Just also had to note:

Very old Ari said:

Well, I think there has to be some kind of matter destruction scheme ongoing. It might be just due to decay of matter if not anything else. If quasars are created out of new matter in nuclei of galaxies, then perhaps that new matter is created out of old matter that has fallen in to the nucleus.

I think that "old matter that has fallen in to the nucleus" is not far off what QSSC is all about, save that it requires a C-field.

Now I know why we have less to say these days - we really got a lot off our chests back in the day :)

Ritchie said:

Did it make you manually italicize all the <i>...</i> instead of letting you just do search and replace or some sort of macro?

No, I did it manually. I just copy pasted the text, not the HTML-codes because I knew I had to edit them a bit anyway and I didn't expect there to be that much editing until I saw your italics.

Ritchie said:

I must say, too, that I miss Ted Rusk and Nick White. Has anyone managed to track them down in the interim?

Well, as you might remember, the haltonarp.com discussion board had e-mail addresses linked the threads for all the commenters so I might be able to track some of them down.

Ritchie said:

Now I know why we have less to say these days - we really got a lot off our chests back in the day :)

Yep. We have been there, done that. Mind you, there has been rather quiet in alternative cosmology/redshift controversy front for quite some time now.

*laugh* Well, I'm not going back in time for your copy/paste convenience ;)

Ari said:

Well, as you might remember, the haltonarp.com discussion board had e-mail addresses linked the threads for all the commenters so I might be able to track some of them down.

Yeah, that was a bit worrisome on the side of potential spamming, but I think the webmaster least did the nice thing of semi-obfuscating them.

Speaking of old discussions, I found out that the Wayback Machine actually has a pretty decent archive of the old forums: here.

It takes quite a while to get some of the pages up, but things seem reasonably intact, if you want a Herculean task :)

Ari said:

Yep. We have been there, done that. Mind you, there has been rather quiet in alternative cosmology/redshift controversy front for quite some time now.

That seems to reflect a relative lull in the mainstream, too. It just hasn't been first or even second page news for quite a while, it seems.

Can we have a new telescope yet? :) (Or at least some time on the old telescopes for the 'controversial objects' that never make the list?)

Ritchie said:

Speaking of old discussions, I found out that the Wayback Machine actually has a pretty decent archive of the old forums: here.

Excellent! It's all there. Thanks! I have a bit of reading to do...