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?
It's got nothing to do with authoritarian science or any other nonsense you might like to call anything.
It's got everything to do about having the necessary knowledge...which means learning and spending time to do that learning, in order to be able to fully understand what you're on about and to be able to critically analyse the current state of that knowledge, without resorting to wild speculation and outright fantasy in order to do so.
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?
Let's just see here....
Where's the logical fallacy in stating what the actual qualifications of a so called "scientist" actually are. He does not have the necessary qualifications in the field he supposedly studied to be called a scientist in that field. You tell me...what do you ordinarily have to have before you're considered a physicist (of any sort). Especially to be able to teach or do the research required of most physicists in big labs and such. At a minimum, you need a PhD. Bachelors degrees of anything just don't cut the mustard. A bachelors degree is barely a start...might just qualify you as a junior technician and even there, they like you to have actual postgraduate qualifications.
If anything, your entire statement is in fact Argumentum ad Hominem and argumentum ad verecundium.
Why....you appeal to validity of EU by saying that it must be true because here's Eric Lerner and he wrote this book saying it is (in this case). Wow, he should know he's a plasma physicist. Which he is not. He may own a company dealing in the area. He may have a BA (Bachelor of Arts....mind you, and if you knew anything about how they structure their courses you'd know exactly what I was talking about) in physics and little bit of graduate work under his belt. But a fully qualified physicist.....no.
Let alone appealing to the likes of David Talbott and Wallace Thornhill. Then you get the same appeals to Don Scott and Anthony Peratt. The only two who have any sort of qualifications in their fields of interests. But that doesn't make them uniquely qualified to be experts in any other field or to know something the others don't. Or to have the hutzpah to call themselves something they're not....which fortunately they don't. Unless Scott and Peratt think they're astronomers, geologists and other scientists too.
You also argue to the point of the IEEE etc and how it's the largest publisher of peer reviewed material on the planet. Yes and in what field mostly....Electronic and Electrical Engineering. Nothing to do with astronomy, astrophysics or any other science except in a few fields like biomedical imaging, remote sensing, plasma science etc. Everything to do with electronics and electrical engineering. Your appeal to authority here is another example of the pot calling the kettle black, as you and your fellows are so quick to blame everyone else for appealing to authority. They have no authority in astronomy or astrophysics. Would you expect a plasma physicist to tell a neurosurgeon what to do. Seems you might given the ridiculous nonsense that gets posted over at thunderbolts.info in the forum "The Human Question". Just because they are the largest publishers of peer reviewed science is a function of their raison detre and nothing to do with the anything else. They have a large number of journals under their auspices....so what. They're mostly to do with electronics, electrical engineering, computers and the like. NewsCorp has a large number of newspapers. That doesn't make them experts on publishing books (or even at telling balanced news for that matter).
All you have done was try to appeal to the authority of a few and to the veracity and validity of even less.
Electronic and Electrical Engineering. Nothing to do with astronomy, astrophysics or any other science except in a few fields like biomedical imaging, remote sensing, plasma science etc.
besides...
* Radio / Radio telescopes
* Optics
* Plasma dynamics (99.9% of the matter in the universe)... used to model magnetospheres, CME's, auroral dynamics
* Bio systems
* Nuclear physics
* Computers, computational simulations & modelling algorithms
Nothing to do with astro? please... highly relevant, and increasingly so... astro can wander off an invent 'space tornados' 'flux tubes' 'rubber bands', just sayin, alot of answers seem to have good empirical physics that have yet to be fully explored, before moving onto supernatural dark concepts, a body of terrestrial science is there to be utilized.
besides...
* Radio / Radio telescopes
* Optics
* Plasma dynamics (99.9% of the matter in the universe)... used to model magnetospheres, CME's, auroral dynamics
* Bio systems
* Nuclear physics
* Computers, computational simulations & modelling algorithms
Nothing to do with astro? please... highly relevant, and increasingly so... astro can wander off an invent 'space tornados' 'flux tubes' 'rubber bands', just sayin, alot of answers seem to have good empirical physics that have yet to be fully explored, before moving onto supernatural dark concepts, a body of terrestrial science is there to be utilized.
Notice, Alex, that I qualified my statement on the relevancy of E&EE to astrophysics etc, by saying "etc" at the end of my sentence. Or did you conveniently forget to see that and thought you'd take another shot instead. I even mentioned biomedical imaging. Seems you don't read what you don't like to see, Alex. It's as I have said, that the IEEE is a large publisher of scientific literature is neither here nor there. It is not the main source for astronomical literature nor is it the main source of physics literature. It is solely to do with communications, electronic and electrical engineering and a few other sidelines. You do know what IEEE stands for, don't you??
As for your links to your friends of the EU, plasma cosmology "universe"...accusing others of appellations to authority and yet you and your fellows do exactly the same thing yourselves. So, as I have also previously stated, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
If Peratt et al, are so confident of their ideas why don't they try and publish them in the journals that matter....the astronomy and astrophysics journals, the pure physics journals, the geological journals and the archaeological/history journals etc etc etc (since I see Peratt has even encroached upon that territory as well....who else has). Forget about your little conspiracy theories and all that rot as to why not...if they think their theories are so cogent and correct, put them in journals that have strong peer review processes and rigorous citation/usage occurring, instead of journals with lax academic/peer review standards and barely read, or those only read amongst the converted and/or their own profession. That'll be a true test of their ideas, not hiding behind bushes and hoping no one will notice what they're saying.
As for your links to your friends of the EU, plasma cosmology "universe"...accusing others of appellations to authority and yet you and your fellows do exactly the same thing yourselves. So, as I have also previously stated, it's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
It was only in response to your original adhom dismissal, often employed to mislead or misguide. "they are not real scientists"
I've never said don't believe xxx because he's doesnt "have an xx degree" and is a "fool".
Passionately curious about astronomy and cosmology.
Whats yours Craigs jul-2010?
The same.
I actually look forward to seeing some contributions from you .. Steven's question buried somewhere way back there which asks you to explain the logic behind some of your views would be a great starting place.
a Lead in with a personal slag "for someone"... but hey lets move on...
Correction: manifestly opposed to abstract mathematical models demanding new physics, then reinvoking these hypothetical inventions as fact. Black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy. Gravity waves... you know where we are going with this. Irrefutably noone has ever found any of the above inventions.
Mathematics to aid in measurements i'm all for....
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
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.
... some important analysis issues have been brought up in this thread... this is where i really absorb some great insight from you and carl.
Now, I simply said a) we are not stuck with BBT or expansion by default b) the Hawkins 10yr+ body of work was a great contribution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
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.
cherry picking? this may be your interpretation.... i just simply said it's darn interesting and a great contribution. You have raised some questions on mathematical analysis..?
I remain very puzzled as to why quasars:
1) appear (in this body of work) to be void of time dilation
2) appear (in photos) infront of galaxies
3) appear to be connected by jets to host galaxies
4) appear to be frequently located near interacting galaxies
5) appear to exibit a quantised stepped redshift, when analysed from their (hypothesised) ejection parents in a 40,000+ dataset.
6) appear to exibit a relationship of distance from parent and this quantisation stage
7) appear to have a statistical weighting to be located along the minor axis of galaxies
8) does not obey hubble relationship
9) demands one of those inventions up above
the "very distant superdooper bright early galaxies far far away" just "cut the mustard" shall we say (for me).
this is why i point out some alternative models.... i just seems a good time to explore some ideas.
Quote:
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.
Question? Maybe there is some confusion, I was speaking in terms of narlikar's work on quantized redshift mentioned in my post "karlsson"
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
Perhaps you would like to explain how you can integrate Narlikar's ideas into Lerner's without making a complete contradictory mess.
Maybe some of these names have enough degree's for Carl not to be too peeved.
Lerner's ideas, but lets be more precise and call this experimental lab physic's experiments with plasma z-pinch dynamics are modeling what could be a mechanism for this ejection hypothesis.
As far as Lerner's ideas on expansion, i was not aware that he had formed any models? Although he has published with the Pacific Astronomy Society, recent work on the Toleman surface brightness tests. http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.4284
"Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary results challenge the expanding universe model"
My experience with his past work (JPL research) is focussed on his z-pinch experiments for fusion propulsion, and z-pinch modelling, although yes he has written about a number of other peoples work in his book. Ofcourse now he heads up focus fusion development using this same device. Peratt and Alfven layed the ground work for this, i see Eric's work being exciting empirical investigations, with a distinct relationship to Peratts galaxy models. Why is this investigation a bad thing? why should it be trashed when clear results and relationships to alternative galaxy models are finding empirical and experimental success? (maybe it's me, but i find this exciting).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lerner
Wright says that my book endorses Alfven's explanation of the Hubble relationship. But again, that implies that Wright did not even read the book he criticizes. In the book, I present Alfven's, AND several other explanations of the Hubble relationship in the Appendix to the book (which was in both editions), as well as in Chapter 6. I concluded that "the question of the Hubble relationship remains unanswered" (p.279) and that none of the possible explanations were without problems, a conclusion that still stands. However, the one explanation that can be ruled out, because of its many contradictions with observation, is the Big Bang. We are not stuck with the Big Bang by default.
Carl's rants about 'he is not qualified' really bug me... if there is an error with the analysis or the science above lets discuss it. Lets leave the dogmas at the door.
Last edited by Jarvamundo; 13-08-2010 at 06:37 PM.
"Peratt and Alfven layed the ground work for this, i see Eric's work being exciting empirical investigations, with a distinct relationship to Peratts galaxy models. Why is this investigation a bad thing? why should it be trashed when clear results and relationships to alternative galaxy models are finding empirical and experimental success? (maybe it's me, but i find this exciting)."
...
...if there is an error with the analysis or the science above lets discuss it. Lets leave the dogmas at the door.
Ok. I can't see any probs with you being passionate about this work.
I'm not particularly passionate about it & some others aren't also. I respect your views, however.
I'm also not sure anyone's going to resolve it on an Amateur Science website, either. Which still leaves me with the question as to why you're trying to extract answers here. ??
These matters should be resolved amongst the guys who write the papers and follow some kind of more rigorous process than postings.
I'll leave comments about the deeper technical aspects to others better suited to comment, if they so choose.
a Lead in with a personal slag "for someone"... but hey lets move on...
Correction: manifestly opposed to abstract mathematical models demanding new physics, then reinvoking these hypothetical inventions as fact. Black holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy. Gravity waves... you know where we are going with this. Irrefutably noone has ever found any of the above inventions.
Narlikar uses GR and has developed an "abstract" mathematical model based on modifying Einstein's field equations and is able is derive a metric solution on which interpretations and theoretical predictions are made.
One of his "hypothetical inventions" is that the age of mass that is created in his steady state model determines the amount of redshift. Currently there is no data to support this.
See where I am going with is ...........
Narkilar's work displays all the characteristics that you criticize mainstream cosmology for.
Yet to recommend Narlikar is all the more remarkable given that in previous posts you have argued that SR is wrong (hence GR is wrong).
It might give you a better insight into how mainstream science operates and how theory is used to make predictions not statements of proof.
Perhaps even more important is knowing about the history of relativity and how it was built on observation and experiment.
Quote:
You have raised some questions on mathematical analysis..?
It's called Fourier Analysis. It's the mathematics of isolating periodic (repeatable) information in what would otherwise appear to be random data. It has nothing to do with statistics. It's used extensively in Science and Engineering. Some astroimagers use it for processing.
I remain very puzzled as to why quasars:
1) appear (in this body of work) to be void of time dilation
2) appear (in photos) infront of galaxies
3) appear to be connected by jets to host galaxies
4) appear to be frequently located near interacting galaxies
5) appear to exibit a quantised stepped redshift, when analysed from their (hypothesised) ejection parents in a 40,000+ dataset.
6) appear to exibit a relationship of distance from parent and this quantisation stage
7) appear to have a statistical weighting to be located along the minor axis of galaxies
8) does not obey hubble relationship
9) demands one of those inventions up above
You need to really read the literature of the field and not pick and choose between what papers to read and what not to read (possibly because they aren't kosher in your view).
There's more to come yet...but I'm tired and I'm off to zzz land.
I'm not going to do all the legwork for you. I've given you some avenues of inquiry to look at, now it's upto you to do the hard yards in order to actually learn something, instead of swallowing the first bit of nonsense that makes some twisted sense to "common sense". It's quite plain to see you have no experience in the subject matter at hand because if you did, you'd know that common sense doesn't necessarily apply to what occurs in physics...any physics and especially quantum physics, relativity and the like. I'm afraid that what you believe is common sense and what is actual reality are two entirely different things. You're suppose to have some background in physics, you should know that. Or have you just forgotten everything you were taught, or don't want to acknowledge what you were taught as being right and somehow your "unique" point of view on things is correct.
In any case that paper of 40000+ you refer to, Bell and McDiarmid. Yes, interesting. Both of them had already acknowledged that selection effects were the cause of the most prominent peaks in their study and yet they went ahead and included that data anyway. They then said that the selection effects couldn't be the reason for the apparent periodicity and then gave no analysis of why that was the case at all. Just a brief statement upon cross survey comparisons. What sort of science is that. They know full well they can't use data that has by rights been contaminated by effects that they have already acknowledged as being the cause of the periodicity in their study. Then set about just ignoring the fact and then brushing it aside by claiming that there is a periodicity when there isn't any. That's nothing more than trying to explain away a great embarrassment in order to justify their previously held conclusions.
Quote:
Carl's rants about 'he is not qualified' really bug me... if there is an error with the analysis or the science above lets discuss it. Lets leave the dogmas at the door.
Really gets up your nose. Well, it's good to see I'm getting some sort of response out of you. Why should it bug you....because what I have stated about Lerner is correct. He is not a qualified physicist, of any sort. All he has is a BA (Bachelor of Arts) degree. Not even a science degree. He didn't even complete any of the graduate work he did at UM. None of it. He has no postgraduate qualifications whatsoever. And yet, he has the audacity to pass himself off as a plasma physicist!!!!. All he is, is the CEO and President of his own company that happens to deal in plasma and nuclear physics. And a sci-fi author. Oh, and a political activist, if you didn't know about that. The fact that he passes himself off as a scientist is a joke. Despite the fact I don't agree with either Peratt or Scott, I have more respect for them and their positions as academics than I have for someone who basically isn't what he says he is. At least they took the time to gain the required knowledge they needed to become successful in their own fields of study.
You talk about leaving dogma at the door....take real good look at yourself in the mirror, Alex. If anything, it is you that is being dogmatic about your ideology here. Personally, I couldn't give a rats about what you may or may not believe in. That is your choice, not mine. However, when you come on here spreading what is essentially wild speculation for the most part about the grand scheme of plasma cosmology and how it is so much more viable as a theory than standard cosmological theory, especially when you haven't a clue at what you're on about and don't know the science...spreading that Neo Velikovskian nonsense that is EU and expect people to swallow it without question...who do you take us for??!!. The worrying thing that I see is that "joe public" doesn't have the knowledge for the most part to be able to see through the strawman nonsense that the proponents of EU like to spout as science. The fact that you even use the works of scientists like Alfven, Arp and other to somehow justify your mistaken beliefs is nothing short of an abuse of science...and an abuse of the reputations of those scientists you so much revere. Just because a scientist has an idea that sounds good doesn't make it right and when so much subsequent observation and detailed work has shown that they were wrong in the first place, for the most part, then why continue to hold onto such notions. Yes, BBT isn't perfect. No theory is and for all we know they maybe replaced by something else in the future. That's the way science works. However, given the facts that actually present themselves through observation and theoretical work (and despite your disdain for it, science is based on hypothesis and theory, as well as observation), it is by far the majority consensus amongst scientist that the best current theory that explains what is out there is BBT. Whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not. What you want it to be is neither here or there. You have not done the ground work to either prove or disprove the theories. Many many others, far better educated and more intelligent than most people at this forum or anyone of your EU crowd have done the legwork and written countless papers on this subject and so many others. If they are supposedly all wrong, then I'd like to see you find the definitive proof that they are. If you're upto the task, which I seriously doubt. The fact that I have seen the derision with which you and your EU colleagues treat many of the scientists in these fields, such as Hawking, Susskind, Wright and others only goes to show just how little you really do know and how much disrespect you have for anyone who's taken the time to learn something about science. The only scientist whom you show anything like a sort of respect for are those that seem to have some sort of concordance with your beliefs. Quite frankly if I was one of them, I wouldn't want to even be associated with the sort of pseudoscientific fantasy I've seen being proselytised over at thunderbolts or holoscience or any one of the other crackpot sites. Might come as huge surprise to you but Alfven actually concurred with the expansion of spacetime. So does every other scientist you follow. If you knew anything about any of the Steady State Theories you espouse, you'd know right off the cuff that they all propose metric expansion of spacetime. Just their mechanisms differ from currently accepted cosmological theory. They also even use much of the same mathematics and background theory that you EU proponents have this huge beef with. Go read the literature in it's entirety instead of cherry picking at it. Look at it in the context of the overall picture, not some myopic, self serving view of the theory.
You know what annoys me the most about this. I have a degree to finish and I don't have the time to be countering the arguments of the likes of yourself or the other EU proponents. Yet, despite the fact I have a lot more important things to do, I have to make the time to respond to what is being written here because as a geologist and as a trainee astronomer, if you will, I have a duty to respond when I see nonsense being promulgated as respectable science. When arguments of pure fallacy, unsubstantiated and/or misinterpreted science, erroneous circular reasoning and unjustifiable statements made out to be fact are bandied about by people who have no clue themselves. Not one of the EU camp that I have ever come across has any training in the sciences needed to be able to critically analyse any of what has been written and the few of you that actually have degrees have seem to forgotten most of what you've been taught, or were never interested in that being taught which would've honed your skills as critical thinkers. Critical thinking is not about being skeptical. It's about applying logic, clear thinking and your knowledge to a problem(s) in order to figure out what the answer(s) is/are to that/those problems. It's not about belief or disbelief and that is the huge difference between science and cultism. Between rationality and irrationality. Between what is fair a reasonable and what is flights of fancy and delusion.
No Alex, you miss the point entirely as to why people such as myself, Steven and many, many others hold the positions that we do. It's not about this science or that science or what is ultimately right or wrong. What it is about is the utter disregard towards and downright misrepresentation of a subject being made a notion of as being legitimate and then the disrespect being shown towards those in that field who happen not to agree with a notion that has, at its very best, only circumstantial evidence and speculation to provide it with any substance at all. For the most part, wild speculation, flights of ridiculous fancy and a complete *******isation of all and any legitimate scientific inquiry, theory or practice...even that which it so sorely clings to for its own dubious legitimacy.
Respond how you wish Alex, I have nothing further to say on this thread. Except to add more things for you to look at, as and when I have the time to do so.
Last edited by renormalised; 14-08-2010 at 01:10 AM.
Narlikar uses GR and has developed an "abstract" mathematical model based on modifying Einstein's field equations and is able is derive a metric solution on which interpretations and theoretical predictions are made.
One of his "hypothetical inventions" is that the age of mass that is created in his steady state model determines the amount of redshift. Currently there is no data to support this.
See where I am going with is ...........
Narkilar's work displays all the characteristics that you criticize mainstream cosmology for.
Yet to recommend Narlikar is all the more remarkable given that in previous posts you have argued that SR is wrong (hence GR is wrong).
It might give you a better insight into how mainstream science operates and how theory is used to make predictions not statements of proof.
Perhaps even more important is knowing about the history of relativity and how it was built on observation and experiment.
Thanks Steven, i am intrigued by Narlikars models with regard to the quasar redshift. To me some form of Bohr style model seems to be in action with regard to the observed quasar redshift quantisation.
I'm interested to see other ideas and solutions if you have them.
Increasingly i'm not convinced that these quasars are not at the distances implied by their redshift. This time dilation just adds to it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sjastro
It's called Fourier Analysis. It's the mathematics of isolating periodic (repeatable) information in what would otherwise appear to be random data. It has nothing to do with statistics. It's used extensively in Science and Engineering. Some astroimagers use it for processing.
I'm aware of the technique, you have comments and questions regarding this [particular] paper Steven? Or is this just the 'application of the technique' confidence level.... style broad comment?
Last edited by Jarvamundo; 14-08-2010 at 08:29 AM.
Thankyou Carl, I'll leave the rest of your rant out, part of it did actually address some science so hey lets progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by renormalised
In any case that paper of 40000+ you refer to, Bell and McDiarmid. Yes, interesting. Both of them had already acknowledged that selection effects were the cause of the most prominent peaks in their study and yet they went ahead and included that data anyway. They then said that the selection effects couldn't be the reason for the apparent periodicity and then gave no analysis of why that was the case at all.
ok, the way i understand the to-ing and fro-ing on "selection effects" are that the peaks are formed when the quasars are analyzed with regard to the (hypothesized) ejecting galaxy. There are plenty more quantization papers, not just this.
To me, if you are looking for a quantization with respect to ejecting parent, well... you'd kinda need to include those no?
If there are other selection effects please share.
Which still leaves me with the question as to why you're trying to extract answers here. ??
I wouldn't call it extracting answers.... sharing insights, references and discussion would be more my take on it.
Is this an exclusive standard model BBT only forum? If it is, then apologies, it's certainly not part of any of the forum specifications i have seen.
As mentioned on other threads i explore all models, clearly plasma science has answers to *some* questions, but not all, to gain exposure to the other material i have found this as a good source for some material.
Appreciate the attitude look forward to further insights.
Spot on, Carl..
However, pseudo science is unstoppable in our market-oriented society, where everything is treated as saleable product to someone.
The same thing is happening with ID.. currently stopped by court in US (and it is a shame it came to that in a first place.. better than nothing, I guess), but who knows for how long..
I wouldn't call it extracting answers.... sharing insights, references and discussion would be more my take on it.
Is this an exclusive standard model BBT only forum? If it is, then apologies, it's certainly not part of any of the forum specifications i have seen.
As mentioned on other threads i explore all models, clearly plasma science has answers to *some* questions, but not all, to gain exposure to the other material i have found this as a good source for some material.
Appreciate the attitude look forward to further insights.
Ok. Cool.
Please excuse my use of the term 'extracting answers'. It wasn't intended to provoke anything (I've had enough of all that).
Thanks Steven, i am intrigued by Narlikars models with regard to the quasar redshift. To me some form of Bohr style model seems to be in action with regard to the observed quasar redshift quantisation.
I'm interested to see other ideas and solutions if you have them.
Increasingly i'm not convinced that these quasars are not at the distances implied by their redshift. This time dilation just adds to it.
I'm aware of the technique, you have comments and questions regarding this [particular] paper Steven? Or is this just the 'application of the technique' confidence level.... style broad comment?
(See pictures below)
So, I'm going to break my silence here.
OK Alex, you know what this is. I've made it large so you can see what's there, just so there's no ambiguous nonsense to be bandied about with the results of this survey. Now, where's your Bohr Model like redshift quantisation here, Alex. Where's the evidence for discrete bands of quasars at preferred distances all nice and neatly delineated by a shell like structure. Can you see it Alex, in the survey data or has there been a conspiracy to hide it from the scientific community and the public. Add a few more data points to hide the patterns...that's the sort of answers I'd expect from the EU crowd. Or is this just all "sheer nonsensical filth" as you so blithely labeled another paper over at thunderbolt.info. What, is everything you don't agree with that actually relates to real science filth, nonsensical and any one of a number of other labels I've seen yourself and the rest of your compatriots over at these sites label science and the authors of those papers.
For anyone interested, here is the paper so decried...
to read and download the respective papers. You will note that most of these papers were written before the large scale z surveys on both quasars and galaxies were done in the late 90's. You can also go here...
To find some papers on redshift quantisation. Also note the repetition of the same authors espousing the same views. Important as it shows where each author is coming from.
Here is also papers about quasar clustering you can look at...
And if you need further evidence.... click on below (doesn't want to paste here). That's a similar survey done on galaxies. If anything, the periodic redshifts would show up in this and other galaxy survey even more strikingly simply because of the far larger numbers of galaxies involved in the surveys. Where's the Bohr Model shells here, Alex. Despite some obvious clustering in the galaxies measured, there is none. And, there are even more recent surveys, some done on quasars, which show no periodicity, as well as many other interesting things.... SDSS DR7 Data
And if anyone is interested in where the figures came from, here are the sites for those...
Carl, don't waste your time, get back to work and finish that masters.
Alex, there are quite a few members of this forum (my self included) who have physical science degree's with post grad qualifications. To us it is very clear that your focus on this forum is not to learn but to convert others i.e.
You seem to run on a very predictable cycle yet you claim you are working inside the TOS for this site. May I suggest you read them again and look for the word troll.
I don't believe anyone on this forum is an absolute believer in the state of current cosmology. Dark matter and dark energy are just a couple of things that bother me. But right now it's the best we have. It would be better to discuss the flaws without reverting to diversionary tactics and constructed myths based on no real evidence what so ever. So you don't like it? Best go back to uni, get qualified and find a better explanation. Don't post pseudo science, start arguments and waste peoples time.
Alex, there are quite a few members of this forum (my self included) who have physical science degree's with post grad qualifications. To us it is very clear that your focus on this forum is not to learn but to convert others i.e.
Science degree is not necessary to understand where all this leads (I don't have one - 'only' engineering... + 35 years of experience in industry..) but I have enough understanding of how science works to see all this throughout.. and so do many others, fortunately.
The problem is with people who may be fooled by all this advertising for 'freedom' of ideas .. and even recent pulling out the arguments related to "Terms Of Service" on this forum...
(I don't have one - 'only' engineering... + 35 years of experience in industry..) but I have enough understanding of how science works to see all this throughout.. and so do many others, fortunately.
