*Snicker*

Okay, this is the paradox current cosmology seems to have gotten itself into. Dark matter "affects" galaxies, but not planets or solar systems? Come on. Dark Matter is the biggest JOKE in science. We can't detect it, it barely interacts with anything except insofar as trying to save a dead theory from exitinction. It affects galaxies "somehow" but, what, not the constituent parts of the galaxies? Ridiculous. Either it interacts and plays a part or it doesn't. It can't pick and choose. Or should I say, astronomers/physicists can't pick and choose: it affects this, but not that, even though that's made up as the same stuff as this... 'Cause we say so. Come on... When will they admit they just flat out got the assumptions wrong and move on to a better theory?

Arp has all but conclusively showed that astronomers took the WRONG fork when they assumed that ALL 100% (not 99.9% not 90% not 10%) of redshift in the universe is cosmological "doppeler" redshift, and then assumed that redshift = recessional velocity. Then assumed that higher recessional velocity = further distance. Then assumed that they had to adjust apparent luminosity to match "distance" making close faint objects "seem" far away and massive, thus utterly throwing off calculations by many, many orders of magnitudes. *Sigh* When will we learn?

Then came the space age, and observations HAVE NOT mat with predictions. Dark matter and such bizarre things are only there to prop up long since failed theories. Arp has shown repeatedly that there are "some" if not "MANY" examples of intrinsic non-cosmological non-doppeler redshift. Anyone who hasn't read Seeing Red needs to. Period. Then read the current research by Arp and/or affiliates which almost unequivocally correlates QSO (I think? Quasars, basically. With high redshift in tow...) distribution in non-random association with the minor axes of Seyfert galaxies over a large, statistically significant sampling. The link between quasars and ejection from neighboring "normal" galaxies gets harder and harder to ignore by the day. How many one offs does it take before a discernable pattern emerges? The pattern is ther, and Arp has used it to make perfectly valid predictions about any number of objects based on prior observations and the ejection model.

Sad that almost nobody will publish the work, despite technical validity and statistical significance.

I'd look up the links, but it's late and I'm feeling tired and lazy after way too many good discussions today and a rather large dinner put on my the roommate's boss. But, I'm certain the info's out there.

Ahh hell, I know you guys will bitch if I don't cite sources. Fine. Here's a few. Pretty sure one of them is what I was referring to, with data correlating quasar position to minor axes of seyferts, a la ejection.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0112045
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/journal/issues/ApJ/v567n2/54273/54273.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0111123

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997yCat..33190033A

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0609/0609514.pdf
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache:OWCKvOBgi_AJ:arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0609514+arp+seyfert+minor+axis+2006&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=5

Pretty sure one or more of the above covers it. Though I didn't read them exhaustively, will leave that up to you nice folks. Tired. Going to bed. Zzzz...