> So you say quasars are very far away and thus
> their redshift indicates distance and they have no
> intrinsic redshift?
> How do you reconcile this with the fact that
> intrinsic redshift is observed in the laboratory
> and that quasars are connected to parent galaxies
> by direct observation, thus can not be at those
> great distances.
Not paying attention, are you? Quasars are not connected to galaxies. They are just active nuclei (i.e. black holes) within galaxies. Try to comprehend this. The whole kit and kaboodle, galaxy plus active nucleus, has a high redshift. We know they have no connection to the galaxies that Arp rather stupidly claimed they were ejected from. If they were ejected from galaxies, why are they still within galaxies? This really is very simple to understand. Quasars are not what we thought they used to be. They are not stand alone objects. They are simply black holes, at the centre of galaxies, with very powerful jets due to accretion onto the black hole. It is thought, for good reason, that all galaxies have a SMBH at their centre. Some are more powerful than others. At great distances, where many of the 'quasars' were first seen, the brightness of the central portion totally wipes out any view of the much dimmer surrounding galaxy. Now, we have the instruments to see the surrounding galaxy.
This would all be so much easier if you'd ever bothered to formally study astronomy and/ or astrophysics, before spouting off about it.
Another thing that comes to mind, is why are all these quasars redshifted, if Arp's woo were true? Are they all being ejected away from us? Not a single blue shifted one ejected towards us? Sorry, it is just a really dumb idea, and is not taken at all seriously, except by cranks.