As to the connected objects with different shifts, how do we know they are really connected? For example, Aldebaran appears connected to the star cluster Hyades. But this is just because the star is in between us and the star cluster.
We can plausiby accept it in some cases because an actual bridge of material can be seen connecting the two objects with different shifts - as in the case of Galaxy NGC 4319 and an apparently connected quasar. The pictures you'll find sometimes de-emphasise the bridge (on purpose?). The
obituary of Halton Arp in the Telegraph remarks:
From the 1960s, however, astronomers began to discover strange objects that became known as quasars — intense radio sources whose spectra are shifted dramatically towards longer, redder wavelengths of light, implying they are moving away from our galaxy at enormous velocities and are therefore at extreme distances away from us. Arp began looking at quasars and noticed that many appeared to be lying quite close in the sky to galaxies, sometimes in alignment with them. In 1971 he claimed to have found a “bridge” of gas joining a galaxy named NGC 4319 and a quasar that sits next to it in the sky. As the quasar had a far higher red shift than the galaxy, under conventional Big Bang theory it should be millions or even billions of light years further away. Its apparent proximity needed some explaining.
Most cosmologists concluded that Arp’s observations were wrong, explaining that the galaxy and quasar simply appeared to be close because they were in the same line of sight. Arp’s response was to produce more and more images of objects which seemed to be associated with each other, yet had remarkably different redshifts. One showed a neat row of stellar objects consisting of a deformed spiral galaxy flanked at equal distances by two quasars which appeared to be related to it even though the quasars had enormous red shifts, much bigger than the central galaxy. Another quasar-like object had a redshift which placed it about a billion light years from us, but appeared to be in front of a galaxy only 70 million light years away.
Arp went on to suggest that quasars are created in and ejected by galaxies, and have an “intrinsic” high redshift that has nothing to do with distance or velocity. He went on to join forces with a small band of astronomers supporting a rival theory to Big Bang, known as Steady State, which had first been proposed by Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold in the Forties, and was further developed and popularised by Fred Hoyle. Steady State holds that the universe has always looked much the same and, if it is expanding, new matter must be created to maintain its general appearance
While Big Bang is almost universally accepted as the most plausible account of the origin of the universe, it is still only a theory, not proven fact, and in principle should be open to any scientists to test it against alternative cosmological possibilities. Yet Arp found himself being treated as a pariah. Warned in the early 1980s that his research programme was going nowhere, he refused to change course. “The committee that allocates time on the telescopes finally told me that I could no longer make those kinds of investigations,” he recalled, (though he admitted that he had refused to submit a research proposal at all on the grounds that everyone knew what he was up to). In 1985 Arp, who described his experiences in Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies (1989), took scientific refuge at the Max Planck Institute in Munich.
The following year Emil Wolf, a distinguished physicist at the University of Rochester, New York, predicted a mechanism that could produce redshift not through movement. The idea (now known as the Wolf effect) was subsequently confirmed experimentally, and provided at least some support for Arp in arguing that quasar red shifts might be a special case.
It's a familiar story in all sorts of areas of science: consensus being used as a sledge hammer to try to prevent honest research that stands to gainsay it. Even if Harp were wrong, it's a disgrace that the authorities should have done everything they could to prevent him exploring the issue. And shame on you, because it's plain you are the puppet of consensus issues both here and in respect of Darwinism. Consensus scientists are the high priests, and you're one of their altar boys.