Maybe this quasar isn't really that far away and bright; maybe it has an intrinsic red shift.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2868149.stm

Shhhhhh.....

Then again, maybe this quasar is really that far away and bright; maybe the red shift logically indicates distance. Hmmmm?

__________________
The real news, including science news corporations may not allow on stations they own. http://www.democracynow.org/

Here's the research article on this quasar.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p...03/0303062.pdf

Four "maybe's" in this thread so far...

That's a refreshing and accurate reflection on the real state of our knowledge [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Atko on 2003-03-20 19:22 ]</font>

Care to propose an intrinsic mechanism, Atko?

Didn't think so.

The fact of the matter is, science is prefaced by one big maybe. Putting them in every sentence I've found only serves to make the crackpots think more highly of themselves.

And after decades of searching the dark matter would be composed of ….. well they still really don't know. Sounds like a phenomenon without an explanation to me.

Mechanism and phenomenon are not the same thing. You can develop evidence for a phenomenon without knowing why it happens.

To use a different example: Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift, had solid evidence that it had happened, but had no mechanism. So he was largely ignored. Fine … but he turned out to be right.

This has not been explained in standard views. Really quite an oddball.

http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203466


And how does labeling people "crackpots" help promote honest, useful discussion anyway? Do you want to have a dialogue with these people or just continue to take shots at them? Frankly, I'm a bit fed up with the demeaning comments you slip into a great many of your posts. It doesn't do the good science you are presenting any service.

Copyrighted text deleted by The Bad Astronomer

READ THE FAQ! Copying copyrighted text is against the rules here. Do it again and you will be banned.

The link is in the next post below.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: The Bad Astronomer on 2003-03-22 01:22 ]</font>

N.B. The previous post appears to be a verbatim copy of this web page.

I have some issues with CSICOP, but most of your argument appears to be based on a single, unverifiable quote by one of its members. I find CSICOP irritatingly smug at times, quick to criticize "argument from authority" in general but just as quick to accept what organizations like NASA say as gospel. But your extended complaints about Kurtz defining what is considered science is unsupported at best.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

dgruss --

The fact that there are crackpots in the world is really not up for debate in my mind. I don't claim that every "against the mainstream" idealist is a crackpot. I only claim that there is a fallacious argument out there that because science is built on induction that "anything goes". "I can believe in whatever I desire becuase science cannot do anybetter than provide 'maybes'."

This completely disregards lessons from statistical science and paradigmatic development. If someone wants to challenge the mainstream, they have to realize what they're up against. Your example, dgruss, of dark matter is very apt in this case. The mechanism there was simply an added mass term that wasn't seen in the most generous mass-to-light ratios. A very straightforward and clear proposal. Vera Rubin was almost laughed off-stage, and well she should have been because the proposal was so contrary to what was paradigmatic. However, in the end, truthful investigations win out in science always. Rubin was vindicated and stands as an icon in astronomy.

No one said that science was going to be a painless process of people who just say, "maybe, maybe, maybe". Science, if anything, is robust. In the back of the mind of all scientists is the assurance that some observation could be made that would cause a total reworking of the paradigm. However, the scientific endeavor would never progress if people simply gnawed on their fingernails all day worrying about such contingencies. That's why there is a peer-review process and an academic aspect to astronomy: it's to insure that we don't start from scratch for everything that we do.

Of course, every person born on this Earth starts from scratch, and so there has to be people along the way who help them out. It's simply a shame that so many of them are so militantly ignorant of science. And when I say militantly ignorant, know that I mean that one can be ignorant of science and still be a fine guide into the world of scientific investigation. There are plenty of school teachers I have met over the years who didn't know much about science but understood the scientific method and had the yearning for learning in them that led them to be great teachers. I'm sure there are even people who are militantly ignorant in one area of science but could certainly teach well in another area.

I am appalled by much of what comes out of the media passing as "science". Creationism, in my mind, is a horrendous joke. That the majority of Americans "doubt" the observational fact of evolution never ceases to amaze me and I can only assume it's because there is a consistent disinformation campaign going on by means of the militantly ignorant. Now, there are those who are militantly informed. Perhaps I fall into that category. Perhaps you think I take "potshots" at those who disagree with me. I don't think that's true.

JS - Stop being so confrontational - it was just a light hearted observation (hence the smiley). One of the reasons I've avoided this board recently is the amount of vitriol and sarcasm that pepper the posts - for the record, I'm open-minded on the subject; theories are fine, and a lot of people far brighter than you or I have put a great deal of time, effort and research into developing them. But the incessant "them and us" coupled with the unshakable belief that one is always correct, and the other completely wrong, on both sides of the fence, is very disheartening.

I think CSICOP would be the first to agree with these two ideas, and everybody on this board too... Although the last one seems a bit narrow-minded.

The reason CSICOP is 'smug' is because they have to deal with these ridiculous ideas over and over and over and over ad naseum.

Kind of like how we treat a HB poster here about no stars in the Apollo pictures, or a creationist saying the dust on the moon isn't deep enough.

We don't mean to do it, but it does get tiresome.

I also don't see what CSICOP has to do with this thread.

_________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2003-03-21 14:21 ]</font>

Atko--

As someone who addresses the physical interpretation of spectral shifts in my work on a daily basis, I wonder what the intent is when you post "Shhhh" and "That's a refreshing and accurate reflection on the real state of our knowledge". This seems to indicate to me that you possess some "accurate reflection" on the "real state" of our knowledge that hasn't been forthcoming on this board. How am I supposed to take such a statement?

So I point out that the MOST CONSISTENT theory is the mainstream's and go on to describe why it's problematic to talk in wishy-washy 'maybes'. That's the sum total of my comments.

I, frankly, am tired of defending a consistent measurement in astronomy as being dependent on velocity. There's a point where this "Arp-like" discussion over extreme objects is missing the forest for the trees. We have literally millions of redshifts that are taken and independent corroboration of a redshift distance relation by simple sclaing arguments if nothing else. Spectral shifts are proportional in the way we expect due to doppler velocities, and I have yet to see alternative proposal that is supported by this observational evidence. We've gone over other proposals in the past and found them lacking, and I just don't think that this argument that we "don't understand the redshift-distance relationship" has any teeth to it at all. There are errors on H₀, true. There is at least one other mechanism that causes local redshifts independent of velocities, and there are distant-independent peculiar velocities. Other than that, what is left?

That is the accurate reflection of the real state of knowledge that I can see. The rest is just grandstanding, idle speculation, or philosophical argumentation.

Good grief - it was a simple, light-hearted observation of fact; all theoretical science is simply that - theoretical, hence the maybe. The maybe applied to all theoretical models - BB, steady state or rubber band - It would be wonderful if I did have some "accurate reflection" on the "real state" of our knowledge, but I don't. I'm not a crank, conspiracy theorist or visitor from the planet Zog, just some poor sod who's obviously inadvertently said the wrong thing - I abase myself before you, beg forgiveness, and promise not to do it again.
[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
(that smiley, btw, means I'm joking)

Very likely here’s your answer:

Does this not give you pause? Is this what this board is supposed to be about? Should people be afraid to post here because of the way some people insist on making rude posts? I too often stop and decide if its worth getting involved in some of these discussions for the exact reason that Atko is indicating.

This is an “Against the Mainstream” forum – not an “I worship the mainstream with every fiber of my being” forum. People should be allowed to post here without the responses to the science (good or bad) being combined with qualitative insinuations about the people that are posting the alternative views and the assigning of rude labels such as “crank” or “bizarre” or whatever.


If the against the mainstream views presented here are so stressful and tiresome to you that you cannot be polite but must insist on throwing in rude comments such as your earlier “Didn’t think so.” on this thread, then maybe you need to take a vacation from it.

I would hold up the exchange that Tim Thompson and I have recently had on the “Expanding Universe” thread as a model for how these discussions can be politely pursued.


There are people out there with a genuine interest in Halton Arp’s work. They should be able to discuss those ideas on this board without dismissive harassment and intellectual clubbings. Are you prepared to go on record as saying that not a single one of Arp’s redshift anomalies will turn out to be a real anomaly - period?

Despite your protests, it IS still possible that Arp is right. That is why people continue to take an interest. For example, on the other thread, we disagree on the interpretation of the Virgo cluster peculiar velocity anomaly. You asked why I would think that is anything other than a statistical fluke. So we agree that it is unusual. Well, if I think there might be other examples, why shouldn’t I pursue that? Maybe it will turn out it’s the only example of that phenomenon and maybe it won’t. But what harm is done in pursuing the possibility? Don’t give me a lecture about the poor ignorant public that will be misled. That’s elitist.

In the meantime you have not explained the NGC 7603 case http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0203466 Nor have you explained the NGC 1068 case: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/astro-ph/0111123 And note that both these examples are provided by researchers not connected to Arp. So its not just Arp saying these things. You often say to people on this board something to the effect of “Submit it to a Journal”. Well these people did that – and got it published. Arp has published hundreds of journal articles. Does this mean they are definitely right? – or course not. Does this mean they could be right? – Yes it does. That is why it is not ridiculous to discuss Arp on this board. Not to mention Morley Bell advocates that Arp’s phenomenon happen within the context of an expanding universe. There are lots of variations out there among these people.

You demanded a mechanism earlier on this thread and on another threads a while back suggested Arp hasn’t even tried to explain his intrinsic redshifts. He has and this is the reference: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...e5c03c80a11903

And here is their answer for the question about Time dilation in supernova light curves: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/np...e5c03c80a11948

And if you can find something wrong with these papers that the referees missed, then take a look at the Quasi Steady State Cosmology – because that model is compatible with Arp’s examples too.

No harm to science will be done in exploring the fringes and alternate possibilities – as long as the presentation of the possibility is honestly done. I have no problem with dishonest people being called on the carpet. But not every “against the mainstream” view is dishonest.

JS, I'm sorry if this is harsh. That is not my intent, but I'm trying to defend the right of people to feel comfortable posting alternate views on this board. I think there is enough evidence in this thread alone to justify the discussion.

There's a difference between "theory" and "speculation", Atko. It's a very important difference. For example, the Big Bang is a theory based on observation and cannot be simply said it is a "maybe" the way the universe is. It's the way we have observed the universe to be. Now "Bubble universes" are speculative, we have no observational evidence right now to say whether that works or not. The Big Bang as a theory isn't a "maybe", it's an observational fact that would take some pretty hefty evidence to overthrow. The BA posted a good article by Jeff Bennet to explaining why that is (especially now with WMAP results).

Further analysis from WMAP leads to amazing results incompatible with the BB theory.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/sc...ewanted=2&8isc





<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Orion38 on 2003-03-22 01:25 ]</font>

Orion, this is just plain wrong. Read that link again. They have found a very tentative piece of evidence, which is said several times to be quite possibly noise, or a fluke; in other words, not real.

You have taken an article which makes it very clear that the results are at best marginal, and stated your opinion like it's fact.

See, that's what gets me. The "Against the Mainstream" folk think "I worship the mainstream with every fiber of my being." I have made my position on the matter clear time and again. Are Arp objects weird? Sure they are! Do they represent a challenge for the existing model? You bet. Are they explained adequately? Probably not. Are there explanations from the mainstream available: absolutely.

Perhaps you've missed, dgruss, the conversations we've had with various members of this board over intrinsic redshifts. Specifically, there's a basic problem of people not admitting that the redshift-distance relationship exists. Arp has a problem doing that, in fact. I got into some fairly extensive discussions six months ago about this very issue. They're all in the archive for you to look at. The fact of the matter is that Arp's proposal has been effectively disproven by some very simple considerations of the Cosmic Microwave Background. Quasi-steady state is just unable to explain the stuff. Nor does it offer a nucleosynthesis model that makes any sense. The Big Bang does.

It's the truth, ain't it?

If my style bugs, you, dgruss, we have a discussion section for it. Please take it up in Against the Mainstream Netiquette thread.

I don't see myself as doing that at all. People should be able to stand up for themselve, I think. This is the way I interact. I'm sorry if you think it gruff. Have you read Phil's book by the way? I'd be interested to hear what you think of his style.

What is a "real anomaly"? They are anomalous by virtue of being anomalous.

Some things he may be right on, there is a large amount of things he is just wrong about. Take the quantization of redshift idea (blown out of the water, but he won't admit it... even though he agreed to the criteria for the test of the idea).

Never said Arp's stuff wasn't unusual. That's not the issue. The issue is if it warrants throwing away the paradigm. Your case needs to be extremely strong to do that.

Arp is, frankly, arguing from the perspective of one who has lost a debate. He's been around for ages and is an amazing observer. There's no question of that. But frankly, the theory he supports is no longer tenable, and he's holding on the last strands of a steady-state universe that has become little more than pie-in-the-sky. The WMAP results could have come out contradicting all of this. That would have been exciting and we might have taken an interest in Arp. As it is, there doesn't seem to be a decent motivation behind his curmudgeonry other than to continue to fight the wipper-snapper Big Bangers. This is a bit opionated, I know, but a lot of science comes through the dying out of the old breed. Arp represents one of the last of the old-breed in many ways. He's an iconic figure, but it doesn't look like he's right.

Pursuit is great. Some people love the pursuit. I don't begrudge them that and I don't begrudge you the right