Quantized Redshifts - Page 3

TomT · #61 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 04:27 AM

Hi Nereid,
In response to my question on how did I get dragged in (invited) into this thread, you replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Indeed, you haven't, and you didn't (get dragged in) ... the flip side of 'you are welcome' is 'you are also under no obligation, express or implied, to argue any ATM case; it's your choice entirely'.

Well, OK, but, in the Arp et al, thread, I thought we agreed to stick to one subject at a time, and discuss it in depth. You were part of orchestrating that decision. So we have had a scholarly discussion there IMHO on the topic of evidence of bridges between discordant redshift objects. This was to my liking because I have said more than once that "if you truly want to disprove Arp, you have to demonstrate that his observations, and his conclusions about connections between discordant redshift objects, are in error". We have had a good discussion of this subject, and again IMHO, Arp's contention that physical connections exist between highly different redshift objects is alive and well. In view of your absence from the discussion and your statement below, I conclude that you either agree, or cannot find fault with the arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Look at this way: other than the Arp et al thread, which 'controversial topics' have legs? [/size]

TomT

dgruss23 · #62 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Several of the posts of the last few days seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what this ATM section of BAUT is intended for.

The Rules for Posting to This Board are pretty straight-forward:Let's see if some recent misunderstandings can be clarified, by reference to these rules.

The problem is not mis-understanding of the rules. The people you are lecturing about the rules spent the last 6 weeks having a very productive, high level, polite discussion about bridges.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Indeed, you haven't, and you didn't (get dragged in) ... the flip side of 'you are welcome' is 'you are also under no obligation, express or implied, to argue any ATM case; it's your choice entirely'. (turbo-1 chose to make his intention to not so argue public ("I'm not prepared to defend them from a gleeful and vigorous attack at this point."); there is no requirement whatsoever about making any such intentions known).

You called Turbo-1 out by name even though he had never posted on this thread Nereid. Same with Tom T and Atkins. That's the point. I call that rude behavior on your part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

BAUT has a very good Q&A section, where you may ask questions about astronomy and space science. So, for example, if you are curious to know what (scientific) flaws the Bell&McDiarmid paper has (if any), you can ask such questions in that section.

Why would someone post a question there on an ATM paper? As soon as anyone defended the possibility that the analysis in the paper might be right - it would need to be moved to the ATM forum anyway. The ATM paper can be posted here in ATM and then in the course of discussing the paper - if someone chooses to defend some aspect of the paper, the thread does not need to be moved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

However, if anyone thinks it is sound, and says so here in this thread, then they may be challenged to defend their thoughts and claims.There is no requirement that we go through any such process.

Of course there is no requirement, but that is exactly what you constantly you do when these discussions pop up. And I'm not sure why since we played that game in the Arp et al thread before the bridges discussion.

Quote:

However, it is totally legitimate to ask a poster if they are presenting and ATM claim

It's legitimate if that poster has already posted on the thread in question. It is rude to bring in the person's name when they have not yet chosen to engage in discussion on the thread - as you did with turbo-1, TomT, and Atkins.

Quote:

(if so, then such claims can be challenged; if not, then there is nothing to discuss), and to ask them to state the claim(s) they are prepared to defend clearly (this is efficiency, if nothing else - what's the point of challenging a claim no one is prepared to defend?)

Or - as was always done in the good old days of BABB - people would just have conversations. When someone defended a position it was pretty obvious and the gleeful attacking began without the need for all this pre-debate cataloging.

Quote:

However, if no one is prepared to present an ATM case that they also prepared to defend, then what is there to challenge?

So there is no educational value in discussing a paper where there is no party prepared to defend it? You see no value in someone linking to an ATM paper, asking what others think about it - and then having the mainstream supporters explain the flaws of the paper even though ATM defense of the paper is lacking?

If we follow your approach then these papers must only be discussed in a debate atmosphere - and some people don't want to do that - which is why this constant demand for someone to step up and defend a paper if it is to be discussed limits discussion.

Quote:

If you think that challenging ideas is 'detrimental to real science', then I suggest that BAUT is not the place for you. Here's what the rules say: "If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science."

Is it challenging ideas -Nereid - when you call out people by name that have not previously participated in a thread? That is what you did - and that is obviously what Turbo-1 was talking about.

Quote:

OTOH, if no one is prepared to present 'some of the controversial topics', with the intent of defending them, what has BAUT lost?

An opportunity for mainstreamers to explain the flaws in ATM papers.

Nereid · #63 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomT

Hi Nereid,
In response to my question on how did I get dragged in (invited) into this thread, you replied:

Well, OK, but, in the Arp et al, thread, I thought we agreed to stick to one subject at a time, and discuss it in depth. You were part of orchestrating that decision. So we have had a scholarly discussion there IMHO on the topic of evidence of bridges between discordant redshift objects. This was to my liking because I have said more than once that "if you truly want to disprove Arp, you have to demonstrate that his observations, and his conclusions about connections between discordant redshift objects, are in error". We have had a good discussion of this subject, and again IMHO, Arp's contention that physical connections exist between highly different redshift objects is alive and well. In view of your absence from the discussion and your statement below, I conclude that you either agree, or cannot find fault with the arguments.

TomT

Of course you are free to conclude anything that you wish, TomT.

It seems that mentioning some BAUT members by name was a mistake on my part; I apologise for any discomfort or disruption it may have caused.

The general point remains: any BAUT member is free to extend, deepen, broaden, etc the defence of an ATM idea presented in an ATM thread; there is no requirement that only the OP may mount a defence (nor any requirement that the OP may not challenge the ATM idea!).

The only (special) requirements are that the posts stay on topic (i.e. the ATM idea being discussed in that thread, so no hijacking for example), and that all direct, pertinent questions concerning an ATM idea (as presented by a poster) be answered in a timely manner.

dgruss23 · #64 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Several of the posts of the last few days seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what this ATM section of BAUT is intended for.

The Rules for Posting to This Board are pretty straight-forward:

I might add that within the ATM rules there is a link which says "Read this thread first." Part of the OP of that thread is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

8. You’re going to be asked tough questions. When someone asks you a question – answer it. If you don’t know the answer – say so.

And here is the second post of that thread.

This goes in line with what I was saying when I said this:

[quote=dgruss23] Well one of my points when this new rule was brought up about ATMers answering direct questions in a timely fashion is that while it is not unreasonable to expect ATM proponents to anwer direct questions, it is also not unreasonable for an ATM proponent to say, "I'm going to need some time to look into that ... Give me X days/weeks and I'll get back to you."

But I think it is understood as part of fair dialogue that this rule about answering question in a timely fashion should equally apply to mainstreamers. This forum is a place of dialogue. If someone defending the mainstream POV chooses to engage in the dialogue taking place on an ATM thread - then IMO the mainstreamer has as much obligation to answer questions asked by an ATMer as the ATMer has to answer questions from the mainstream. [/url]

The obligation to answer direct questions is not just the obligation of ATM proponents. It reasonably applies to mainstream supporters that engage in these debates.

Nereid · #65 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

And that's what this board is supposed to be about - learning and testing what we think we know. People can be mainstream in one topic and ATM in another. And people can be undecided. It is counterproductive to demand that a person defend a certain position or remain quiet when the person might be genuinely undecided about the controversial idea.

That's why IMO the best approach is just to let the discussion unfold. Someone ought to be able to say: "This paper looks interesting. It seems to support alternative X. Any comments." Then someone who sees flaws in the paper can simply say: "The problems with this paper are A,B,and C."

This sums up my thoughts on the forum exactly.

Cheers.

May I suggest that you start a thread, in the About BAUT section, recommending that the rules regarding the ATM section be changed?

I would be happy to present my ideas on any proposals that you wish to make, concerning changing the special rules for this ATM section.

There are some questions directed to Nereid, the BAUT member (not the mod). If feel they are inappropriate in this thread (if anyone wishes to ask such questions, I suggest that a PM is a more suitable method).

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

I'm not sure why Nereid can get away with not answering direct questions; two reasons I can think of and both are not pretty. Do we have double standards here?

The requirement concerning the answering of direct, pertinent questions concerns ATM ideas, and those who have posted them.

AFAIK, Nereid has not started any threads with the presentation of a case for one or more ATM ideas, nor written posts in defence of any such ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dgruss23

Well one of my points when this new rule was brought up about ATMers answering direct questions in a timely fashion is that while it is not unreasonable to expect ATM proponents to anwer direct questions, it is also not unreasonable for an ATM proponent to say, "I'm going to need some time to look into that ... Give me X days/weeks and I'll get back to you."
[...]
But I do not think it is a rules violation to choose to disengage from a discussion. Some may justifiably view such an action as a concession to the opponent of the points of debate. Without an explanation as to why the person disengages, that is a reasonable interpretation. However, I do think that it would be a rules violation (or at least very bad form) to disengage from a discussion after being asked direct "pertinent" questions and then return at some later time and start posting to the thread as if nothing had been left unanswered.

There are many, many examples here in the ATM section of someone presenting an ATM idea, and then 'disengaging from a discussion after being asked direct questions'. Sometimes a mod notices this, or another BAUT member calls attention to it, and the 'disengager' is sent a PM, reminding them of the rules. Sometimes the 'disengager' leaves BAUT completely, sometimes their account gets suspended, sometimes they do return to answer (in one case I can think of, after several months), and so on.

The "I'm going to need some time to look into that ... Give me X days/weeks and I'll get back to you." is a good approach, which mods have suggested, many times (either in thread or in PMs).

(to be continued)

papageno · #66 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

I'm not sure why Nereid can get away with not answering direct questions; two reasons I can think of and both are not pretty. Do we have double standards here?

[...]

I don't think there is anything in the rules for that behaviour (I'll check, but "be nice" would, imo, include answering questions), but let me tell you it is very impolite if not downright dishonest.

From the now-closed EU thread:
post #2076

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

Since you are back, VanderL, it would be appropriate for you to answer my questions in post #2034.

Sure, but I'm not happy with the accusations in your posts, so I will decline answering your questions until you show some politeness.

What were you saying about double standards?

post #2221:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

Also, address the rest of my post.
In particular:

Quote:

Are you prepared to face the fact that EU proponents have not come up with anything resembling a viable alternative to mainstream model?

Ask nicely and I'll consider it.

What were you saying about not answering the questions being rude?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Possibly this is a general reaction of mainstreamers when confronted with evidence against something they believe to be true and more so if they at first assumed the proposal was already proven to be "crackpot". How does one acknowledge not just being mistaken, but having been positively caustic and dismissive without "losing face"? Avoid and ignore is the easy way out.

Just the behaviour I have observed in many ATM proponents, yourself included. It seems that your are projecting on Nereid your own behaviour.

VanderL · #67 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

From the now-closed EU thread:
post #2076

What were you saying about double standards?

post #2221:

What were you saying about not answering the questions being rude?

Just the behaviour I have observed in many ATM proponents, yourself included. It seems that your are projecting on Nereid your own behaviour.

You wish! I gave a specific reason for not answering and was punished. After that I answered the questions up until the point the thread was closed. So don't try to present my posts to say something that isn't true, that would be a violation of the rules.

papageno · #68 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

You wish! I gave a specific reason for not answering and was punished.

You were suspended because you gave an unacceptable reason:

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

I will decline answering your questions until you show some politeness.

It was painfully obvious that it was just an excuse to avoid addressing my questions and facing the fact that you were wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

After that I answered the questions up until the point the thread was closed.

Rehashing the same "arguments" I had debunked earlier.
What did you say?

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Possibly this is a general reaction of mainstreamers when confronted with evidence against something they believe to be true and more so if they at first assumed the proposal was already proven to be "crackpot". How does one acknowledge not just being mistaken, but having been positively caustic and dismissive without "losing face"? Avoid and ignore is the easy way out.

Which is exactly what you have done until the end of that thread: avoid and ignore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

So don't try to present my posts to say something that isn't true, that would be a violation of the rules.

You have consistently tried to avoid my questions: it is plain view to be seen by all members of the board.
You addressed them only when faced with a potential ban for your behaviour.
If you feel you have been unfairly treated, you can appeal to the administrators.

But let me ask you again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

Are you prepared to face the fact that EU proponents have not come up with anything resembling a viable alternative to mainstream model?

Well, are you?

VanderL · #69 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papageno

You were suspended because you gave an unacceptable reason:
It was painfully obvious that it was just an excuse to avoid addressing my questions and facing the fact that you were wrong.

Rehashing the same "arguments" I had debunked earlier.
What did you say?
Which is exactly what you have done until the end of that thread: avoid and ignore.

You have consistently tried to avoid my questions: it is plain view to be seen by all members of the board.
You addressed them only when faced with a potential ban for your behaviour.
If you feel you have been unfairly treated, you can appeal to the administrators.

But let me ask you again:
Well, are you?

Stop hijacking this thread for your own purpose, if you wanted to argue EU stuff, just go to the new threads devoted to the EU. Try the thread where a summary was given.

papageno · #70 (**permalink**) 22-May-2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

Stop hijacking this thread for your own purpose, if you wanted to argue EU stuff, just go to the new threads devoted to the EU. Try the thread where a summary was given.

Fair enough.
But note that you avoided yet again answering my question.

Thanatos · #71 (**permalink**) 30-May-2006, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomT

Hi Nereid,
In response to my question on how did I get dragged in (invited) into this thread, you replied:

Well, OK, but, in the Arp et al, thread, I thought we agreed to stick to one subject at a time, and discuss it in depth. You were part of orchestrating that decision. So we have had a scholarly discussion there IMHO on the topic of evidence of bridges between discordant redshift objects. This was to my liking because I have said more than once that "if you truly want to disprove Arp, you have to demonstrate that his observations, and his conclusions about connections between discordant redshift objects, are in error". We have had a good discussion of this subject, and again IMHO, Arp's contention that physical connections exist between highly different redshift objects is alive and well. In view of your absence from the discussion and your statement below, I conclude that you either agree, or cannot find fault with the arguments.

TomT

Since when is it anyone's responsibility to 'disprove' Arp? The burden of proof is not upon the skeptics [like me], it is upon Arp to convince the unwashed masses he is right. Well, he has failed. After searching the universe far and wide, he has only one very controversial example to cling to. Sounds pretty desperate to me. Why has Arp not applied his considerable statistical prowess to explain why there are so few examples of such extraordinarily unlikely alignments?

Thanatos · #72 (**permalink**) 30-May-2006, 08:47 AM

There is no periodicity. Plot the data for yourself:
Quasars and Active Galactic Nuclei (12th Ed.) Veron-Cetty M.P., Veron P.

This catalogue contains all quasars with measured redshift known prior to January 1st, 2006. It contains 85221 quasars, 1122 BL Lac objects and 21737 active galaxies

TomT · #73 (**permalink**) 31-May-2006, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Since when is it anyone's responsibility to 'disprove' Arp? The burden of proof is not upon the skeptics [like me], it is upon Arp to convince the unwashed masses he is right. Well, he has failed. After searching the universe far and wide, he has only one very controversial example to cling to. Sounds pretty desperate to me. Why has Arp not applied his considerable statistical prowess to explain why there are so few examples of such extraordinarily unlikely alignments?

Hi Thanatos,
It has been correctly pointed out that ATM supporters should know well the Mainstream theory they are challenging. The same holds true for Mainstreamers who wish to show the errors in ATM ideas. For you to say that Arp "has only one very controversial example to cling to" shows you don't know the subject you are criticizing. In effect you are saying, for example, that Arp's book, Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations has only one example, which is ludicrous. And he has published 2 other books with many more examples. Your habit of incoherent arguments must be making some Mainstreamers cringe.
TomT

Thanatos · #74 (**permalink**) 31-May-2006, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomT

Hi Thanatos,
It has been correctly pointed out that ATM supporters should know well the Mainstream theory they are challenging. The same holds true for Mainstreamers who wish to show the errors in ATM ideas. For you to say that Arp "has only one very controversial example to cling to" shows you don't know the subject you are criticizing. In effect you are saying, for example, that Arp's book, Catalogue of Discordant Redshift Associations has only one example, which is ludicrous. And he has published 2 other books with many more examples. Your habit of incoherent arguments must be making some Mainstreamers cringe.
TomT

I'm talking about MK 205. Are there other objects Arp has studied in depth? The balance of your diatribe is an ad hominem fantasy.

Ari Jokimaki · #75 (**permalink**) 31-May-2006, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanatos

I'm talking about MK 205. Are there other objects Arp has studied in depth?

Yes (that of course depends on what you mean by in depth, you can always define it so that only one object fits your definition). Here's just some of them: NGC 450, NGC 1199, NGC 1232, NGC 5296, NGC 7603, 3C 120, 3C 343, ARP 220, M49, MRK 273, NGC 3628, NGC 4151, NGC 5683, NGC 7331 & Stephan's Quintet, 3C 345, Local Group, M87, M101, NGC 520, NGC 4235, NGC 5128, M82, NGC 470, NGC 3384, NGC 3842, 0846+51W1, NGC 6503, NGC 1073, NGC 1097, NGC 2859. References and more objects to the list are available on request.

dgruss23 · #76 (**permalink**) 31-May-2006, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki

Yes (that of course depends on what you mean by in depth, you can always define it so that only one object fits your definition). Here's just some of them: NGC 450, NGC 1199, NGC 1232, NGC 5296, NGC 7603, 3C 120, 3C 343, ARP 220, M49, MRK 273, NGC 3628, NGC 4151, NGC 5683, NGC 7331 & Stephan's Quintet, 3C 345, Local Group, M87, M101, NGC 520, NGC 4235, NGC 5128, M82, NGC 470, NGC 3384, NGC 3842, 0846+51W1, NGC 6503, NGC 1073, NGC 1097, NGC 2859. References and more objects to the list are available on request.

Anybody who has posted on the Arp et al thread should know the answer to that question unless they have not been reading the thread carefully as they participate or I suppose if the person is simply trolling the Arpians.

iantresman · #77 (**permalink**) 08-June-2006, 02:06 PM

It has been suggested that this paper "discredits" redshift quantizations: "Linear Redshift Distortions: A Review" (1997) by A. J. S. Hamilton.

I can't find any mention of "redshift quantizations", although there is much discussion on distortions in general. Any comments?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

Nereid · #78 (**permalink**) 08-June-2006, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iantresman

It has been suggested that this paper "discredits" redshift quantizations: "Linear Redshift Distortions: A Review" (1997) by A. J. S. Hamilton.

I can't find any mention of "redshift quantizations", although there is much discussion on distortions in general. Any comments?

Regards,
Ian Tresman

It's a review paper, and (mostly) about the different techniques used to untangle 'local' effects from universal expansion, in the analyses of large redshift (survey) datasets.

The author comments on the techniques used in several such analyses, in section 8 of the paper, especially comparing and contrasting the methods used.

I'd say, based on just a quick skim, that it doesn't directly discredit redshift quantisations, but that unless anyone who claims to have evidence of such redshift quantisations, in large datasets, has done their analyses with at least the same degree of care as outlined in the Hamilton paper, then any results claiming the existence of redshift quantisation would surely have a very shaky foundation.

Or, turning this on its head, as none of the ~20 separate analyses discussed in section 8 seem to have turned up any evidence of redshift quantisation, then it must either very subtle indeed, or occur at a level below the threshold of these analyses.

In any case, now that we have both 2dF and SDSS datasets (and many analyses), both of which came out after this Hamilton paper was written, we have even more compelling evidence for the non-existence of redshift quantisation.

iantresman · #79 (**permalink**) 08-June-2006, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

It's a review paper...

Thanks for that, I think I agree with everything you say.

Regards,
Ian Tresman

VanderL · #80 (**permalink**) 08-June-2006, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Several of the posts of the last few days seem to reflect a misunderstanding of what this ATM section of BAUT is intended for.

The Rules for Posting to This Board are pretty straight-forward:Let's see if some recent misunderstandings can be clarified, by reference to these rules.Indeed, you haven't, and you didn't (get dragged in) ... the flip side of 'you are welcome' is 'you are also under no obligation, express or implied, to argue any ATM case; it's your choice entirely'. (turbo-1 chose to make his intention to not so argue public ("I'm not prepared to defend them from a gleeful and vigorous attack at this point."); there is no requirement whatsoever about making any such intentions known).ATM threads are (or should be) focussed; discussion in each thread should be limited to the ATM claim being made by the OP (and any other directly relevant ATM claims raised during the course of the discussion)*

It follows that if there is no ATM claim, there is nothing to discuss.

BAUT has a very good Q&A section, where you may ask questions about astronomy and space science. So, for example, if you are curious to know what (scientific) flaws the Bell&McDiarmid paper has (if any), you can ask such questions in that section.

Some things that this ATM section is NOT about:

1) it is NOT about trying to convince those who hold ATM beliefs that their beliefs are inconsistent (internally, with good scientific theories whose domains of applicability overlap, or with good observational results) ... except if you choose to present those beliefs here in an ATM thread, so they may be challenged.

2) it is NOT about educating readers on modern astronomy, mainstream cosmology, etc; BAUT has several other sections devoted to those ends.Anyone may attack the Bell paper, but there is no requirement that they should.

However, if anyone thinks it is sound, and says so here in this thread, then they may be challenged to defend their thoughts and claims.There is no requirement that we go through any such process.

However, it is totally legitimate to ask a poster if they are presenting and ATM claim (if so, then such claims can be challenged; if not, then there is nothing to discuss), and to ask them to state the claim(s) they are prepared to defend clearly (this is efficiency, if nothing else - what's the point of challenging a claim no one is prepared to defend?)

When in doubt, read the rules ("If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. [...]
People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here")Of course not.

However, if no one is prepared to present an ATM case that they also prepared to defend, then what is there to challenge?

If all you wish to do is read some papers and discuss them, why post in this ATM section at all?If someone takes something personally, rather than seeing things in terms of the ideas, then they should think again, or use the Report a Post button.

If you think that challenging ideas is 'detrimental to real science', then I suggest that BAUT is not the place for you. Here's what the rules say: "If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science."I sometimes wonder too, which is why I spend time pointing out the differences between the ATM section of BAUT and the General Science, Astronomy, Q&A, etc sections.

OTOH, if no one is prepared to present 'some of the controversial topics', with the intent of defending them, what has BAUT lost?

Look at this way: other than the Arp et al thread, which 'controversial topics' have legs?Indeed. It's also the intent of the ATM section ... interestingly, the rules for this section are very mild, compared with the intense scrutiny that professionals' ideas are exposed to, every day of their working lives; the ATM rules seek to provide a (gentle) copy of the process of doing astronomy.Because it's an ATM idea - ATM ideas need to be defended.AFAIK, neither Bell nor McDiarmid are BAUT members, and even if they are, they did not present the paper in this ATM thread.Yes it does ... but what has that got to do with this thread?Because no BAUT member is willing to defend the paper (read the rules).The logic of this ATM section is: A BAUT member who wishes to present an ATM idea does so. Claims made by that member can be challenged, by any member.

(to be continued)

*This does not include those ATM threads which are about 'a beef with relativity, heliocentrism, the Big Bang'

I didn't see any follow-up on this post (I agree with almost nothing in the post, the challenge should be on the quality of the papers, observations, data, theories, not on the ability of proponents to defend them), but I do see that "quantized redshift" is deemed non-existent by Nereid (and probably many others). The Bell-McDiarmid paper states the opposite. What should I believe (as a manner of speech), Nereid's judgement or the Bell & McDiarmid paper?

Cheers.

Thanatos · #81 (**permalink**) 09-June-2006, 08:58 AM

Nereid is in good company - for example:

No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Authors: E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield (University of Nottingham)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117

Redshift Data and Statistical Inference
Authors: Newman, William I.; Haynes, Martha P.; Terzian, Yervant
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...pJ...431..147N

VanderL · #82 (**permalink**) 09-June-2006, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thanatos

Nereid is in good company - for example:

No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data
Authors: E. Hawkins, S.J. Maddox, M.R. Merrifield (University of Nottingham)
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0208117

Redshift Data and Statistical Inference
Authors: Newman, William I.; Haynes, Martha P.; Terzian, Yervant
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...pJ...431..147N

Good company doesn't mean being right, though. Bell et al. explain in their paper how selection of the data points is correctly carried out.

Cheers.

Nereid · #83 (**permalink**) 12-June-2006, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VanderL

I didn't see any follow-up on this post (I agree with almost nothing in the post, the challenge should be on the quality of the papers, observations, data, theories, not on the ability of proponents to defend them), but I do see that "quantized redshift" is deemed non-existent by Nereid (and probably many others). The Bell-McDiarmid paper states the opposite. What should I believe (as a manner of speech), Nereid's judgement or the Bell & McDiarmid paper?

Cheers.

From the abstract of the Hamilton paper (in iantresman's post; my bold):

Quote:

Redshift maps of galaxies in the Universe are distorted by the peculiar velocities of galaxies along the line of sight. The amplitude of the distortions on large, linear scales yields a measurement of the linear redshift distortion parameter, which is $\beta \approx \Omega_0^{0.6}/b$ in standard cosmology with cosmological density $\Omega_0$ and light-to-mass bias $b$. All measurements of $\beta$ from linear redshift distortions published up to mid 1997 are reviewed. The average and standard deviation of the reported values is $\beta_{optical} = 0.52 \pm 0.26$ for optically selected galaxies, and $\beta_{IRAS} = 0.77 \pm 0.22$ for IRAS selected galaxies. The implied relative bias is $b_{optical}/b_{IRAS} \approx 1.5$. If optical galaxies are unbiased, then $\Omega_0 = 0.33^{+0.32}_{-0.22}$, while if IRAS galaxies are unbiased, then $\Omega_0 = 0.63^{+0.35}_{-0.27}$.

From the Bell and McDiarmid abstract (my bold):

Quote:

The redshift distribution of all 46,400 quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Catalog III, Third Data Release, is examined. [...] Because the peaks in the SDSS quasar redshift distribution agree well with the preferred redshifts predicted by the intrinsic redshift relation, [...]

Once I get done with the DM thread, I really must find time to start a comparable thread on selections effects, using quasars as 'the perfect examples'.

Svemir · #84 (**permalink**) 14-June-2006, 08:30 AM

The newest investigation on redshift periodicity.

VanderL · #85 (**permalink**) 14-June-2006, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

From the abstract of the Hamilton paper (in iantresman's post; my bold):From the Bell and McDiarmid abstract (my bold):Once I get done with the DM thread, I really must find time to start a comparable thread on selections effects, using quasars as 'the perfect examples'.

So Nereid, could you explain in normal English how this answers my question?

Cheers.

VanderL · #86 (**permalink**) 14-June-2006, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nereid

Once I get done with the DM thread, I really must find time to start a comparable thread on selections effects, using quasars as 'the perfect examples'.

Are you "advertising" your DM thread a little bit? Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see any relevance to this thread (nor any reason you need much time for it).

Cheers.

Extropia DaSilva · #87 (**permalink**) 30-November-2006, 10:09 AM

Hello!

I noticed that the first post pointed out that the 89 counts of quantized redshifts were outweighed by other surveys and that quantized redshifts can therefore be dismissed as co-incidence.

Am I right in assuming that IF quantized redshifts exist, redshift=doppler effect=expansion must be in error, because a Doppler effect would blur the periodicities out?

If that is the case, is not dismissing 89 counts of quantized redshifts a bit like believers of the Ptolemic system pointing out that they could succefully map the majority of planetary orbits, and dismissing the few stubborn 'rougue' orbits as 'a co-incidence'?

Nereid · #88 (**permalink**) 30-November-2006, 12:43 PM

Welcome to BAUT, Extropia DaSilva!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Extropia DaSilva

Hello!

I noticed that the first post pointed out that the 89 counts of quantized redshifts were outweighed by other surveys and that quantized redshifts can therefore be dismissed as co-incidence.

Am I right in assuming that IF quantized redshifts exist, redshift=doppler effect=expansion must be in error, because a Doppler effect would blur the periodicities out?

I think that rather depends on what the term "quantised redshift" means, quantitatively; for an answer to that, we need a proponent of this idea to step forward.

Quote:

If that is the case, is not dismissing 89 counts of quantized redshifts a bit like believers of the Ptolemic system pointing out that they could succefully map the majority of planetary orbits, and dismissing the few stubborn 'rougue' orbits as 'a co-incidence'?

These kinds of analogies can be misleading.

Astronomy, as a science, today, incorporates modern physics, with its hugely successful quantum mechanics and General Relativity. It also continued to be a quintessentially quantitative science. But it is still a science based almost entirely on the detection and analysis of electromagnetic radiation 'from the sky' (other than the branch of astronomy which deals with the solar system, and that with cosmic rays), so as there is just the one universe to observe, confidently identifying coincidences is a great deal more difficult than in the chemistry of inorganic catalysts (say).

Thanatos · #89 (**permalink**) 01-December-2006, 09:52 AM

In the golden ages [e.g. pre-Newton], science was observation and conjecture. Mathematical foundations were almost non existent and, at best, poorly understood. Now, the two are inseparable. The Ptolemic objection is, IMO, an attempt to restore 19th century logic as the standard for doing science.

Extropia DaSilva · #90 (**permalink**) 01-December-2006, 11:36 AM

Well, I came to this discussion after reading a wickipedia entry on 'plasma cosmology'. It also featured an argument between inflationary cosmologists and plasma cosmologists. The former group argued that general relativity has been tremendously succesful (which is a fair point). The other group argued that GR deals with gravity only, that the universe is 99% plasma and, as such, is really shaped by electricity and that is why mainstream science requires so much 'mysterious' dark matter to make its predictions fit observations.

They argued that plasma cosmology can also account for observations but do not require anything beyond verified phenomona to do so. They may be talking crap, but I have spent a long time looking for proof that this is so, and the best I can find is the opposition saying 'our theories (which require 75% of the universe to be unknown matter/energy) are mathematically elegant'.

That is not sufficient for me. Sorry.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode