THE SELECTION EFFECT

Even though most of the 'naked' quasars observed in the recent Hubble Space Telescope quasar host galaxy survey had no nebulosity, the first pictures to appear were of the carefully selected 'rare' cases in which some faint optical nebulosity was found.

Prominently advertising these exceptional situations has had the desired side-effect that many people now believe that these are typical quasars and that the cosmological quasar theory is not in trouble. Instead of saying at first 'Quasar Host Galaxy Missing!' they made an effort to make it appear to the contrary in the title of the first public press release accompanying the quasar pictures: 'Quasar Host Galaxy Found'.

This type of misleading propagada churned out by the cosmological community is typical of the reaction to data which contradicts standard theories.

The first defence of a crippled theory is the selection effect:

Their selection criterion is based on the assumption that it may be possible to resolve the 'host-galaxy' in nearby quasars based solely on the assumption that the red-shift is a valid distance indicator.

First of all the claim of random selection is misleading, according to the plasma laser star theory, redshift is meaningless, and quasars are stars within our galaxy therefore the quasar included in the survey are seriously contaminated by the selection effect. A truly random selection should have included wide variety of quasars irrespective of redshift. To be truly representative, the survey should have included emission line objects currently accepted as galactic objects. Since the redshift is a number without physical significance we predict that some of the bright high redshift quasars will also have some associated nebulosity. It is a shame that the recent Hubble survey did not include high redshift quasars.

They select object in which they assume are extragalactic and therefore eliminate the competition by claiming that it is ludicrous to compare their data with data on other objects confirmed within the galaxy. This is the first form of the selection effect.
Secondly they prominently publish and advertize the favorable data, while downplaying or neglecting to mention the contradictory data such as the 'naked' quasars. This is the second form of the selection effect.
Thirdly, when all else fails and they finally admit defeat and fess up, they are still defiant and claim that alternate theories are non-existant. This is cleverly accomplished by black listing certain astronomical journals such as Astrophysics and Space Science. These self-imposed 'blinders' are the third form of the selection effect.

It is amusing to see how in the face of such massive contradictions many astronomers wax philosophical and predict that theoreticians will be hard pressed to come up with new theoretical 'patches' to their cherished theories in order to fit these bothersome facts. All the while ignoring perfectly acceptable interpretations such as the laser star theory.

They are so sure their cosmological beliefs are correct that they are willing to search high and low for any compelling evidence. The selection effect, as any good observational astronomers knows, is entirely the wrong way to approach science. Theories should not be used to select observations; on the contrary, it is observations which should be used to select the theories.

Here is a quote from 'Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies' (Halton Arp) :

'Picture yourself during the early 1920's inside the dome of the 60-inch telescope on Mount Wilson. One of the men who had driven the mules that carried the pieces of that same 60-inch telescope up the old Mount Wilson trail was Milton Humason. Humason stayed on at the observatory to become janitor and then night assistant on the telescope. (Eventually he became secretary of the Observatory and a delightful and famous astronomer.) Humason was by then an observing assistant, and we can picture him talking to the well known Carnegie Institution astronomer, Harlow Shapley, in that dome. Humason is showing Shapley stars he had found in the Andromeda Nebula that appeared and disappeared on photographs of that object. The famous astronomer very patiently explains that these objects could not be stars because the Nebula was a nearby gaseous cloud within our own Milky Way system. Shapley takes his handkerchief from his pocket and wipes the identifying marks off the back of the photographic plate.'

This example clearly demonstrates that certain astronomers, rather than use observational data as a selector of the correct theory, use their 'preferred' theory as a 'selector' of the correct data. Any data that does not fit their cherished theory goes to the waste bin. By presenting only the favorable evidence astronomical popularizers have been unwittingly involved in this vast game of deception. Belief is stronger than reason !

Although the redshift is merely an empty number without physical significance, much good observational material is tainted by this erroneous assumption. Astronomers are often violently opposed to any suggestions of abandoning the redshift: The sad example of the recent 'excommunication' of Halton Arp from Palomar telescope observing schedules for having the nerve to speak out against the redshift.

Of course, if one ignores contradictory observations, one can claim to have an 'elegant' or 'robust' theory. But it isn't science.
- Halton Arp, 1991, from Science News, Jul 27.

REFERENCES

Bahcall,J.N., Kirhakos,S., Schneider,D.P.: 1994, Ap.J.Lett. 435, L11.
Arp, Halton: 1987, Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Berkeley: Interstellar Media. (also Arp's Catalog of Peculiar 'Galaxies')

Return to the What's New Page.