Quote:
Originally Posted by Jarvamundo http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/....s/viewpost.gif
Steven knows very well the problems i have with the Sagnac experiment. I'm happy to discuss these.
The straw man is to then bring in the relativity transforms, that work, to try and setup a conflict with my interpretations of Narlikar Vs Sagnac experiment.
As i mentioned regarding intrinsic redshift i continue to investigate models for it: Narlikar's variable mass being the first (obviously, since it's the one Arp worked with).
BBT on the other hand flat out ignores intrinsic redshift as "chance alignments"....
I don't know where to go from here?
If you look at the photo and say.... well yep... thats clearly infront of the galaxy, or connected to it.... then what option do you have?
The only option offered up is to pump me full of sky survey results to cloud out the relevance.... unfortunately if "1" quasar is infront of a galaxy... it needs to be addressed for me to take you seriously.
|
Well, then Alex, we want to see your derivations of the experiment and why you have the problems you do. You're always "happy to discuss" the theory, but when you're challenged to explain yourself (as above, in Steven's last post) you run away in the opposite direction. The only person putting up strawman arguments here is you. Like said, all the links to wherever are not going to absolve you from the argument. It's clear from all of this, including the vast majority of the same things happening in every other post here, that you do not have the capacity to back your arguments up. We are not interested in anyone else's arguments about the matter, we know what some of the other scientist are saying because that's what we've studied (you seem to think we haven't studied this stuff ourselves) in our own degrees. What we want to know is your own knowledge of all of this....can you explain what you're on about. You have been the person making the "alternative" views the poster boy for these threads by barging in on our conversation and making grand pronouncements. So it's all in your court. Make your case.
There is no relevance to your "arguments" you have put up and the sky surveys and the subsequent work done on and from them have shown this quite clearly. You have been told umpteen times why the results of Arp's work and others on this have been found wanting, yet you persist in thinking otherwise. You don't know where to go from here because you don't know where you've come from to begin with.