9 replies to this topic

[almeisan]

According to astronomers a recently discovered group of quasars exceeds in size anything previously believed possible, requiring a fundamental revision of cosmological theory.
But perhaps the real mystery is how the scientific media failed to acknowledge that discoveries of this sort were predicted by one of the 20th century's leading astronomers, Halton Arp.

Many years ago, Arp observed that astronomers were misinterpreting quasar redshift, placing these objects at the boundaries of observable space. Quasars, he said, are much closer than assumed and nothing like the size required by the standard interpretation of redshift.

[Coffey]

The thing is you get 2 types of scientists.

You get real scientists who always look for new things and error in previous theories etc. Then you get the "textbook" scientist. The ones who base everything on the theories which might be proven wrong at some point.


There is also the "textbook" people, like many skeptics who come on this forum and just quote from textbooks, they are just as bad as religious extremists, clinging to every word a book says.


Science is supposed to evolve, just like nature.

Take Einstein and Tesla, in today's world they would be called wackos...  Nobody would listen to them now. lol

We need to be researching new things and exploring new avenues and re-exploring old ways with new ideas. Money and resources have been put into such stupid research the last few years. (Do dogs have feelings?.. wtf was that about?! Most people know the answer)

[AsteroidX]

I had an encounter with a dog with feelings last night. He was barking from the back of this guys pick up at everyone that walked by so I walked up and started petting him to calm him down. The dogs owner ran outside and started yelling at me for giving his dog attention.

I ask why the hell would you bring a dog to a public place leave it in the back of your pick up and not expect people to give it attention. Ant to boot the dog was unattended not restrained. It vwas ont of those dangerous dog breeds if you know what Im talking about.

Long story short after my ahem confrontation with this guy as Im leaving theres a group of about 6 people standing at the back of the guys pick up giving the dfog attention. I couldnt help but get a chuckle. Im sure the dog felt much better about it then his owner did.

And yes science needs to be explored and theories presented in books but the proofs in the pudding. We gotta get out and prove or disprove the theories through real science and it shouldnt be costing a billion dollars to advance humanities knowledge. Nice article OP.

[Frank Merton]

AsteroidX, on 03 February 2013 - 02:02 PM, said:

Nice article OP.

I'm glad you liked it.  Arp has been around awhile with this sort of thing, and I am underwhelmed.  It seems to appeal to those who want to undermine the Big Bang.

As things stand they have a hard road; the evidence from chemical abundances in favor of the Big Bang is to me utterly convincing.

[AsteroidX]

I just like hearing alternate theories..The Big Bang is pretty convincing in my book as well. Im really enjoying some of the "pre bang theories floating around".

[Seeker79]

This is interesting, I have always smelt a rat in the way that we calculate cosmological distances. I don't know if this little hunch of mine is valid at all, probably not, but I would not be surprised if one day a misunderstanding of redshift and distance did not throw cosmology on its head. I'm not certain it will, I just would not be surprised. Quasars might simply be horribly redshifted object of a narrow escape  from or dance with a black whole, gravity causes red shift aswell. The extra redshift might make the object apear to be farther away. But I would hope that cosmologists would have worked this out already and ruled it out.

Edited by Seeker79, 04 February 2013 - 06:37 AM.

[Frank Merton]

Seeker79, on 04 February 2013 - 06:36 AM, said:

This is interesting, I have always smelt a rat in the way that we calculate cosmological distances. I don't know if this little hunch of mine is valid at all, probably not, but I would not be surprised if one day a misunderstanding of redshift and distance did not throw cosmology on its head. I'm not certain it will, I just would not be surprised. Quasars might simply be horribly redshifted object of a narrow escape  from or dance with a black whole, gravity causes red shift aswell. The extra redshift might make the object apear to be farther away. But I would hope that cosmologists would have worked this out already and ruled it out.

Yes, well, astronomy is pretty much past its astonishment at the energy quasars put out and they now fit well into the overall picture, both the physics and the cosmology, so I have little doubt the picture is basically accurate.  The scenarios you paint have all been ruled out.  The "opposition" (if scientific doubts can be called that) nowadays comes mostly from creationist sources.

[bison]

They have tweaked the numbers before to allow newly discovered large (but not this large!) objects, within the current scheme of things. If they can't do this again, it seems that either red shift as a consistent function of distance, or the cosmological principle, and so, the big bang has to go. What appears to be a huge shake-up in astrophysics seems to have crept up on us, without warning.

[Waspie_Dwarf]

Coffey, on 03 February 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

The thing is you get 2 types of scientists.

You get real scientists who always look for new things and error in previous theories etc. Then you get the "textbook" scientist. The ones who base everything on the theories which might be proven wrong at some point.

Absolute nonsense. You either don't understand how science works or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Science evolves because a new theory offers a better explanation than the old. For it to do this it has to be tested against the old. If it fails it is rejected if it passes it is adopted.

Einstein was not accepted because his theory was new and wonderful, it was accepted because it offered an explanation that fitted the observed fact better than Newton's theories did. If you know much about the history of science than you will know that Einstein's theories were not accepted at first. That they were considered wacko.

Arp's theories are not accepted because they have not yet passed this test. If they do so then they will become accepted by the scientific community, if they don't they will continue to be rejected. Those that reject a theory because it does not fit the observed facts are REAL scientists just as much as those that offer the hypothesis in the first place.

Those that support a hypothesis simply because it is new and shiny and sounds nice are not scientists at all.

[Coffey]

Waspie_Dwarf, on 05 February 2013 - 01:20 PM, said:

Absolute nonsense. You either don't understand how science works or are deliberately misrepresenting it.

Science evolves because a new theory offers a better explanation than the old. For it to do this it has to be tested against the old. If it fails it is rejected if it passes it is adopted.

Einstein was not accepted because his theory was new and wonderful, it was accepted because it offered an explanation that fitted the observed fact better than Newton's theories did. If you know much about the history of science than you will know that Einstein's theories were not accepted at first. That they were considered wacko.

Arp's theories are not accepted because they have not yet passed this test. If they do so then they will become accepted by the scientific community, if they don't they will continue to be rejected. Those that reject a theory because it does not fit the observed facts are REAL scientists just as much as those that offer the hypothesis in the first place.

Those that support a hypothesis simply because it is new and shiny and sounds nice are not scientists at all.

You completely took what i said wrong.

Quote

Those that support a hypothesis simply because it is new and shiny and sounds nice are not scientists at all.

I never meant it like that at all. lol


I would like to say though, you said a new theory is tested against old theories... This is an exact example of the mistake a lot of scientists make. It is also why we are stuck ina  lot of ways. If the old theories are wrong ina nay way then how cna they be 100% evidence for a new theory?!

Hence my point, we should go back to old theories with new ideas as well.