Quasar Time Dilation

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Ned's tutes should be required reading for anyone wanting to go off at tangents with wild ideas. Then after reading and (hopefully) understanding what he has written, if they still want to go off on tangents, at least then they'll know enough to not make a complete fool of themselves.

It's disappointing to see the distaste for exploring the concepts that challenge BBT, even when the originator of the thread posted with the caviate "at the risk of starting a skirmish". I agree it's getting boring and distracts from the subject matter.

Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm

Hawkins has done some excellent and very thorough work here. Widely published body of long research, a great contribution.

Further reading in to the subject of this thread, which may also be interesting, is the observed quantization of the redshifts of quasars. Just google redshift quantization & quasars or Karlsson Redshift.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/in...d_galaxies.pdf

I would also recommend the writings of Jayant Narlikar. One of India's premiere cosmologists, and quasar specialist.

Very interesting topic. Good questions. Look forward to more news on this topic, good to see it being brought up by curious laymen as we are not stuck with BBT by default, and it's not unreasonable for us to expect a model to make atleast some predictions without adhock inventions.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Look Alex, instead of cherry picking stuff out of Hawkins and trying to back up your strawman arguments, why not actually read what he has written in his papers and then come back with a reply, with something a little more factual. Taking snippets out of papers and using them to try and make out that he backs up your line of thought is not debate. It's deception and the EU crowd are very good at that. It's nothing more than a trite attempt at spin.

As for Lerner's reply...what would he actually know....nothing. He's not even a scientist, despite his saying so to the contrary (a "plasma physicist"....hardly). He's nothing more than a sci-fi author, who happens to have an undergrad degree in physics. A BA at that. Did a bit of graduate work but never finished. And you're trying to tell me he knows more about astronomy, cosmology and physics than Ned Wright....give me a break!!!!. Lerner's book is that shot through with errors in maths and theory, it's not worth even reading except for as an example of what fringe pseudoscience does to actual science in it's pursuit of the irrational or the fanciful. If he actually understands one scintilla of what he's supposed to have read in order to have written his book, he'd know he was wrong himself in so many ways and he wouldn't have had the audacity to publish it.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

It's disappointing to see the distaste for exploring the concepts that challenge BBT, even when the originator of the thread posted with the caviate "at the risk of starting a skirmish". I agree it's getting boring and distracts from the subject matter.

Dr. Wright is Wrong-- a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"
http://bigbangneverhappened.org/p25.htm

Hawkins has done some excellent and very thorough work here. Widely published body of long research, a great contribution.

Further reading in to the subject of this thread, which may also be interesting, is the observed quantization of the redshifts of quasars. Just google redshift quantization & quasars or Karlsson Redshift.

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/in...d_galaxies.pdf

I would also recommend the writings of Jayant Narlikar. One of India's premiere cosmologists, and quasar specialist.

Very interesting topic. Good questions. Look forward to more news on this topic, good to see it being brought up by curious laymen as we are not stuck with BBT by default, and it's not unreasonable for us to expect a model to make atleast some predictions without adhock inventions.

No point in arguing with you Alex...you have the answers all sewn up.

[sjastro]

Hawkins has done some excellent and very thorough work here. Widely published body of long research, a great contribution.

For someone so manifestly opposed to mathematics, you seem blissfully unaware that Hawkin's studies on the lack of time dilation in quasars is based on mathematical filtering of the data involving fourier analysis.
The mathematics is far more involved when compared to time dilation studies of galaxies.

So the cherry picking now involves supporting mathematical manipulation of data to make a point.

I would also recommend the writings of Jayant Narlikar. One of India's premiere cosmologists, and quasar specialist.

It seems to me you are unaware that metric expansion is not an exclusive property of BBT but also is part of all Steady State theories including Narlikars.

Perhaps you would like to explain how you can integrate Narlikar's ideas into Lerner's without making a complete contradictory mess.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

That's the whole point, Steven. He and the rest of the EU crowd decry the maths and say it's all mumbo jumbo, but when they find something which they can use to make their point and take what was being said completely out of context, all of a sudden the maths is good, wonderful and very precise. Smells of hypocrisy to the core. It also shows how facile their own arguments are. You can't have one paradigm and believe in it then use evidence from another to back yours up, when they both contradict one another.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's the whole point, Steven. He and the rest of the EU crowd decry the maths and say it's all mumbo jumbo, but when they find something which they can use to make their point and take what was being said completely out of context, all of a sudden the maths is good, wonderful and very precise. Smells of hypocrisy to the core. It also shows how facile their own arguments are. You can't have one paradigm and believe in it then use evidence from another to back yours up, when they both contradict one another.

It simply proves that the EU crowd want to engage in ideological battles with mainstream science. When it involves ideology, logic becomes the first casualty.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

I don't think logic had anything to do with it in the first place. But you are right there

[bojan]

Guys, it's a logic of politics

My high school math professor was always stressing that "there are many kinds of logic... "

[renormalised (Carl)]

Politics...always rearing its ugly head

They've got their fingers in everything!!!!!

I wonder what Julia thinks about time dilation in quasars....of course, Tony would disagree with her!!!

And then they'd both promise to do something about it

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by bojan

Guys, it's a logic of politics

My high school math professor was always stressing that "there are many kinds of logic... "

Politics ? - Realty type 3 - "Reality by Concensus" - what politicians practise - eg: "Giant Jack Russels exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do - so they are real". (Straight from Witten's dictionary definitions, credits to Bert).

So the logic falls into the same category.

Cheers

[bojan]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I wonder what Julia thinks about time dilation in quasars....of course, Tony would disagree with her!!!

Quasars.. is this something to eat ???

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by bojan

Quasars.. is this something to eat ???

Must be....new fangled bickie I suppose

Hope they're chockie!!!!

Tony would say they're shortbreads

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Politics ? - Realty type 3 - "Reality by Concensus" - what politicians practise - eg: "Giant Jack Russels exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do - so they are real". (Straight from Witten's dictionary definitions, credits to Bert).

So the logic falls into the same category.

Cheers

I propose a subclass to reality type 3. (Say 3a)
"Reality by concensus on a common denominator."

""Giant Jack Russels exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do, but none of us agree on exactly what a Jack Russel is".

How do we go around ratifying this?

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I propose a subclass to reality type 3. (Say 3a)
"Reality by concensus on a common demoninator."

""Giant Jack Russels exist because me, my mate and everyone else agrees that they do, but none of us agree on exactly what a Jack Russel is".

How do we go around ratifying this?

Steven

Easy...hand it over to the experts....anyone know anything about guinea pigs??

They'll do for a control

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Look Alex,
As for Lerner's reply...what would he actually know....nothing. He's not even a scientist, despite his saying so to the contrary (a "plasma physicist"....hardly). He's nothing more than a sci-fi author, who happens to have an undergrad degree in physics. A BA at that. Did a bit of graduate work but never finished.

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

pseudoskeptisism at it's finest..... "show me your papers".

Seeming unaware of the JPL funded propulsion work? the ESO work? the IEEE & astro papers? The working relationships within the plasma research community including ITER. But all of this is irrelevant, for the rebuttal discusses the factual misrepresentations and misunderstandings of Dr Wrights efforts on the material.

Ahh yes, another authoritarian rant sparked from the mere sharing of ideas and information that might be different to those professed loudly by some of the establishment, but at the same time be specifically explored by the largest publisher of peer reviewed science on the planet (IEEE).

"It's not even worth reading"

Have you?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

Argumentum Ad Hominem.

pseudoskeptisism at it's finest..... "show me your papers".

Seeming unaware of the JPL funded propulsion work? the ESO work? the IEEE & astro papers? The working relationships within the plasma research community including iter.

Ahh yes, another authoritarian rant sparked from the mere sharing of ideas and information that might be different to those professed loudly.

I know all about his work. None of it has any bearing to do with the discussion and has everything to do with his insistence that he is a plasma physicist. He does not hold the necessary qualifications to be one. He has no PhD, little graduate training, which he didn't finish because he decided to go off and be a sci-fi author and he has the audacity to start a company and pass himself off as one. Only that he actually has plasma physicists and real scientists employed in his company would he have been even able to get the work that he did. He's a good talker, good at selling things, ideas. But he's no scientist. It's exactly the same as saying Bill Gates is an expert computer scientist.....Bill Gates dropped out of uni in his 3rd year. He never even finished uni. So, he's not a computer scientist and neither is Lerner a plasma (or any other kind of) physicist.

So, before you go accusing people of things you and your fellow mates are so fond of doing yourselves, you want to go and actually learn something about your little mates, instead of following their lead.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

He never even finished uni. So, he's not a computer scientist and neither is Lerner a plasma (or any other kind of) physicist.

hmm, revealing an innate appetite for authoritarian science.

There is a long list of highly successful mathematicians and scientists that do not pass this shiney badge test. What will we tell them all?

I know all about his work.

"It's not even worth reading"

Have you?

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Easy...hand it over to the experts....anyone know anything about guinea pigs??

They'll do for a control

Steady on ! ...

We hamsters control it all !
(Love the power, brother !!)

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Steady on ! ...

We hamsters control it all !
(Love the power, brother !!)

Oops, sorry, hamsters!!

You wouldn't want to be one (guinea pig) is Sth America...you'd be part of the menu!!!

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

hmm, revealing an innate appetite for authoritarian science.

There is a long list of highly successful mathematicians and scientists that do not pass this shiney badge test. What will we tell them all?
?

Whatever you like ... it shouldn't matter what you tell 'em !