Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
To avoid an all too common occurance, let's take your claims one by one, shall we Jerry?(my bold)Your reply did not seem to answer this question; perhaps it was unclear, so let me try again ...
1) What "kind of definition" does "Neried" insist "on seeing in any plausible alternative"?
|
Reread your rather flippant assessment of Russell's work:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Well, to be more accurate, one paper he wrote made some claims about a small subset of galaxies possibly having an intrinsic redshift ... however
a) the sample size is tiny
b) there are almost certainly systematic effects which he didn't consider
c) his results lack any error analyses (for all we know they could all be just noise)
d) etc, etc, etc
|
Then look again at Ari's response - he has taken the time to seriously study the work of Russell, who is doing very careful and meticulous analysis...raising his hand and saying something is different from what we are all being taught...and ignored.
Quote:
|
For someone who says they seriously challenge well-established mainstream results, Jerry, I find statements such as those in the post I quote breath-takingly inconsistent; you seem to apply quite different standards of rigour, depending (solely?) on whether the stated conclusions are in support of mainstream theories or agin them.
|
Again - who is really taking a hard look at the work of cosmic microwave background and supernova methodology? You can't assume the galaxy contamination of the CMB is limited to the 20 degrees either side of the central plane, you can't assume a single stretch parameter corrects the magnetude stretch relationship of supernova - but these researchers do things with data no one doing legitimate research in other fields would dare touch - and no one is calling them on it!
What is really sad, is we have so much good data now, that could tell us so much, if the theories were not so perfectly well defined, and perfectly wrong.
Quote:
2a) I gather from your reply that, in your view, "the current standard model" is astronomy based on Newtonian or GR gravity; is that so?
2b) If so, why is astronomy based on modern quantum theory not mentioned?
|
I don't know how to answer this question, since the two sets of theories are so mutually incompatible, but yes, I consider the Robertson/Walker etc etc the standard model, which now includes some form of inflation, Dark Matter, Dark Energy, a 'big bang' primal event, 9 billion years of gyrating metallicity, galactic evolution, and mysterious red stuff in the outer solar system that looks suspiciously like rust.