The Sociology of Cosmology

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

It's a conspiracy!!!

Why not email Arp again, ask him if he signed it?

Email Narlikar to take a basic physics course & math too.... maybe he could start by buying one of his own texts

hahah... man you guys are funny....

Sorry that the sarcasm went over your head.

OK explain to me why Narlikar's work is any "less fudged" than BB theory.

Steven

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Hah... got me...

Re: "less fudged" Just a few photos he didn't ignore: http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Red.../dp/0968368905

I'm surprised you didn't get a copy in exchange for your brilliant Arp Catalog photos?

I'm still puzzled on the mechanism for the intrinsic redshift tho and continue to explore mechanisms for it.

Current BBT affords me no avenues to pursue here, hopefully it may someday.

We both know if the developing galaxies end up at a non-redshift distance, then much of BBT falls over.... I'm not convinced of the 'chance alignment' explanation and continue to follow the identification programs developed by Fulton at JCU.

Cheers,

[renormalised (Carl)]

Now we're resorting to trying to be funny are we Alex??

You can't even get the context of people's statements correct, so how do you expect to understand anything being said here...I'll give you a hint....Cydonia.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

In any case, the BB was already in existence, in its basic form, long before any of these so called "fudge factors" existed, so what's the problem. None of their competing theories can adequately explain the observations made (especially the Horizon problem and the flatness of spacetime, for a start), so where's their great answers.

Fudge factors are an anathema to science.

For example if I have a theory that gives the following theoretical predictions (a, b, c, d) but Joe Bloggs finds the experimental values to be (a+1, b+1, c+1, d+1), then according to our fudge factor friends all I have to do is add +1 to the theoretical values and hey presto theory agrees with experiment!

If science was only that easy.
Adding a fudge factor tells me absolutely nothing why the theory was wrong in the first place or the physical significance of adding "+1".

When comments are made that Inflation theory is nothing more than an elaborate fudge factor shows either a degree of ignorance or a distortion of the facts.

Regards

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

I'd say it's a combination of both....ignorance and distortion.

Alex can't explain the so called "fudge factors" because he doesn't understand them in the first place and won't explain anything he's been challenged on for the same reasons. How often have you challenged him to explain Narlikar, for example??? I've lost count.

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Now we're resorting to trying to be funny are we Alex??

You can't even get the context of people's statements correct, so how do you expect to understand anything being said here...I'll give you a hint....Cydonia.

I just find it hard to believe you carl, since most of what you said on Arp, Flandern, Lerner, Thornhill, upon inspection, is patently false.

Unfortunately your pre-emptive psuedo-skeptic-jibes, when inspected only reveal gross-misrepresentation, these have only created skepticism when listening to the sites 'self-proclaimed expert' speakings.

I resided here (IIS) for almost a year, before checking things for myself. Funny thing is, it was Arp in the first place which lead to PC.

So the absurdity of your "something about EU/PC" rant made me fall off my chair.

SJ on the other hand, although we clash heads on relativity, often sticks to details, something i at times try in vein to do, whilst dealing with your grossly misleading 'crackpot-rants'.

It'll pass tho... i hope...

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by renormalised

I'd say it's a combination of both....ignorance and distortion.

Alex can't explain the so called "fudge factors" because he doesn't understand them in the first place and won't explain anything he's been challenged on for the same reasons. How often have you challenged him to explain Narlikar, for example??? I've lost count.

I think the number must be approaching the values discussed in the thread on Archimedes.

Steven

[renormalised (Carl)]

What's this....hit and run tactics, Alex. One minute I'm here, next I'm not. We're still waiting on all these explanations........

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

I think the number must be approaching the values discussed in the thread on Archimedes.

Steven

At the rate things are going, they'll approach asymptotic proportions very shortly

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

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.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Still waiting Alex, or are you just hiding behind your own ignorance, hoping we'll forget or it just goes away. If you can't explain the "fudge factors", if you can't explain the challenges then why bother posting at all. All you're doing is making a mockery of this forum and yourself. It's no skin off our nose because we're not the ones having to justify ourselves. You've made statements to the contrary of accepted, mainstream science and now we're asking you to back them up yourself...not post umpteen links to this or that...especially YouTube vids and crackpot sites like Thunderbolts and Holoscience. That's not backing them up. You may have read some journal articles (or given that impression...you did talk about "polling" articles over at thunderbolts because you found reading the actual articles tedious and time consuming...meaning you didn't understand them), but there's a big difference between reading something and understanding it.

No, you back up your statements with your own explanations. Give us the theory and the workings behind it...now you're going to be put under the same scrutiny as any scientist would. As both Steven and myself have on many occasions...and as quite a few of the others here as well have been in their degrees. If you want what little credibility you actually have to remain intact, then you'd be wise to either put up or shut up.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

[SIZE=4]

The signers of the document should take a crash course in basic physics and how mathematics is applied.

Regards

Steven

I agree with Steven in that the statement contains some pretty extreme wording and some fairly blunt reasoning.
Even I was surprised by the incongruity of what the signatories' life work stands for, and the spin of the wording.

Which is why I'm questioning its legitimacy !
One of the signatories - Thomas Gold, must've been on his death-bed when his name was associated with it. (Within a month or so).

The ownership of the site has also changed exponentially since it was published. Those who created it seem to have intentionally covered their tracks extremely well. Which is strange when others are prepared to declare their support by disclosing their vitals for all to see.

Why would they do this if the 'system' persecutes them in the first place ?

It's like the Monty Python knight ... I'm OK .. I can still fight on !!

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

I agree with Steven in that the statement contains some pretty extreme wording and some fairly blunt reasoning.
Even I was surprised by the incongruity of what the signatories' life work stands for, and the spin of the wording.

Which is why I'm questioning its legitimacy !
One of the signatories - Thomas Gold, must've been on his death-bed when his name was associated with it. (Within a month or so).

The ownership of the site has also changed exponentially since it was published. Those who created it seem to have intentionally covered their tracks extremely well. Which is strange when others are prepared to declare their support by disclosing their vitals for all to see.

Why would they do this if the 'system' persecutes them in the first place ?

It's like the Monty Python knight ... I'm OK .. I can still fight on !!

Cheers

It's precisely that, Craig.....a Monty Python skit.

I doubt it is legitimate.

Or, if it was, there's a few people there willing and wanting to risk their careers and reputations on what is basically poor science at best.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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.

The other option would be to research the anomaly to see if it can be explained within the context of current thinking. There are lots of other options to explore before 'jumping ship'.

I haven't seen anyone really trying to do this although, the scientist who wrote the paper that started this thread has published some serious observational studies about NGC 7603 etc. AND made the point that he's not going to step into static space theories etc to explain it.

I actually like that approach, myself.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

The other option would be to research the anomaly to see if it can be explained within the context of current thinking. There are lots of other options to explore before 'jumping ship'.

I haven't seen anyone really trying to do this although, the scientist who wrote the paper that started this thread has published some serious observational studies about NGC 7603 etc. AND made the point that he's not going to step into static space theories etc to explain it.

I actually like that approach, myself.

Cheers

Yeah...Fair call Craig.... i have tried that... and will continue to...

Unfortunately this one represents a death blow to current theories.

Which is why you get the LOUD "it's a chance alignment" rant, "so just ignore it".... "here look heres a million quasars that are not related to that galaxy"....

Fortunately for us inquisitive laymen there is no financial repercussions to jumping ship. For that reason we form impartial observers.

As it turns out... from sometime absorbing PC is actually quite well down the path of investigating these ejections and quantized redshifts.... so hey maybe BBT will meet up with it somehow... although i doubt it.

We would not expect to receive any wisdom on this from establishment rants, they have clearly revealed to be misleading.

[CraigS]

You know, I could be accused of throwing petrol on a smouldering fire by creating this thread. And I notice that Alex only chooses to 'strike' (and agitate) on these types of threads.

Why didn't you do the same to Carl's EU thread, Alex ? That was the best place for you to 'duke it out', surely ?

All I want to do is to explore some of the fringes to gain an appreciation of how mainstream theories stand up (or otherwise) in the eyes of those who do real science and explore the solidity of current thinking. I'd like to understand the science behind their perspectives.

I could stop creating such threads but I've chosen not to. There is a lot of value which comes from this approach, not only for me, but many others too, I'm sure of that. The value devolves rapidly when ideological arguments dump all over them.

Sorry for the bluntness but I'm in a hurry.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

FYI - This site is operated by Professor Hilton Ratcliffe - SA

http://www.cosmology.info/

The same statement can be found there.... the group is active and runs a newsletter... this is where Arp, Hawkins etc present.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

FYI - This site is operated by Professor Hilton Ratcliffe - SA

http://www.cosmology.info/

The same statement can be found there.... the group is active and runs a newsletter... this is where Arp, Hawkins etc present.

Thanks for that. Will look into it later.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Why didn't you do the same to Carl's EU thread, Alex ?

Why? He mislead over Flandern in this thread.

Have also corrected Carl on the EU-Arp thread too.

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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.....

I'm highlighting the logical fallacies of your own arguments. If it's a staw man then why don't you refute it. You have been given so many opportunities.

Here is something else to ponder. Narlikar's model like any steady state model is based on a metrically expanding Universe which conflicts with PC.
So how does Narlikar support PC? Yet another massive contradiction.

Steven