Slashdot Mirror

Is it anything like Math?

There's an interesting quirk in human psychology that makes negative facts and news seem more salient than positive ones. For media that thrives on reader attention (and that's both new and old media), this naturally leads to more emphasis on the negative.

I think this is a bias worth noting and pushing back on. The world is pretty far from perfect, but there's also huge helpings of good news all around us.

• Continuing the trend, nearly 70M people in dire poverty gain access to electricity
• Extreme global poverty continues its decline, although it's getting harder to make progress on that front
• The US death rate from cancer continues its steady yearly drop. Cumulatively, this has prevented hundreds of thousands of deaths
• The pack of criminals who made a wholesale business of taking sex slaves in war lost their last city
• The world continues its steady march towards universal literacy. You can't embed pictures in /. (for reaaaalllly goatse reasons) but the figures here are really striking
• The Long Peace continues for another year, meaning millions of lives impacted
• Cigarette smoking, a leading cause of totally preventable death, fell to its lowest rate in the US
• Automobile deaths per vehicle mile continued to drop

Most of these (Daesh not withstanding, but threw them in just because they were really vile) follow the same pattern: slow but steady progress. It's hardly clickbait -- in fact these are not even specific events you can point to, they are trends seen on the scale of decades. And on the scale of decades, the world is consistently becoming a less-bad place.

I do quadrupule random-hyphenation every day and I am doing fine and I plan to be able to retired in 2020.

I told you creimertards how to do it but no, you were to smart to listen!

I have a hearing loss in one ear, so my audio will always be suspect. I use a Zoom H2 audio recorder with a pop filter 12" away from my mouth, Audacity to clean up and normalize the audio, and sync the audio to the video and apply a "voice enhancement" eq to the audio in the video editor.

I find AmazonTM the gretest thing since sliced bread and helps taking care of my health at retirement with the Amazon long tail revenue streams!

All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. You can even make video of yourself going to pick up AmazonTM parcel at the convenience store and post it on your youtube channel for more redundant revenue streams.

They also have a wide supply, the best of lattes, clif/power bars and microwave popcorn at the best cost, espicially if you make a friend buy them for you with your own affiliate link!

Also, I still use my iPhone 6s and reduce my monthly bill from $80 to $50. As a phone and a video camera, the iPhone 6s isn't obsolete and I use it to make my videos on youtube. As a Sprint very special customer for 20+ years, Sprint will always give me a new iPhone for free if I decide to stop using the 6s as a phone in the next several years.

I use PhotoShop daily!

My PC has an eight-core processor and a Nvidia 1050 Ti 4GB video card. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the processor takes a minute. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the Nvidia card takes 10 seconds. I don't think an iPad has the same performance of my PC for renedering videos longer than a short clip.

I can't imagine using Photoshop without a keyboard and mouse, or not being able to access my files from my file server. Video renedering on the iPad will probably suck donkey balls.

Blackmagic also charges high prices for their gear as Apple does. Need an HDMI to USB3 capture device? Blackmagic is $300. Any generic company is $50.

I take public transit. A local bus take me down the street to pick up the express bus, the express bus drops me off in Palo Alto, and a local bus take me down the street to my job. An hour each way. Driving through Palo Alto during rush hour is insane. Since I work in government I.T., I start work at 7:00AM.

For a final project in Small Group Communications, my four Vietnamese classmates appointed me to do all the work and be the speaker because I was white. So I did all the work and spoke in front of the class. Our instructor, a black woman, gave me all their credit for the assignment and forced them to retake the class. They screamed "white privilige" all the way to administration and their complaint landed on deaf ears. They couldn't prove that they did anything to merit a grade and cheerleading from the back of the room doesn't count.

The background file for my national security clearance got stolen by the Chinese a few years ago That contained a lot more information than the credit reports that Uncle Sam requested from all three bureaus.

Bonus: get some silver coins, view recommendations on my special Youtube channel dedicated to the topic! They constitute a fail-safe insurance strategy for your retirement!

--
$700 For A Vacuum Cleaner -- Are You #%@$ Nuts?!

It's hypocrisy. If women are attracted to something on men, well that's okay to show (everything but the genitals!), but if men are attracted to something on women, why, that must be hidden! Well, at least we've gotten past hiding things like hair and ankles....

I think last year's áramótaskaup did a great job parodying the double standard in a (NSFW) video about the "Free The Nipple" campaign that was a big deal for a while here (the video is in Icelandic, so remember the subtitles button)

Compressed Earth Blocks: Why and How, Here and There https://youtu.be/IuQB3x4ZNeA

PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals.

How is 'cultured meat' any different from a tofu from an ethics point of view? Oh well, at least they've redeemed themselves with this most awesome commercial.

Do you have any essperience with roaming numerals?

Chris is currently indisposed and can't reply to your post at the moment.

Granny PottyMouth has just revealed to Chris (see https://slashdot.org/comments....) that most of the views on our YouTube channels were caused by one of her employee using her click-bots.

She says she instructed him to stop immediately and what she says must be true since the views stopped on our channel and we have only 12 views since last week on our latest video "How to Pronounce The New Apple iPhone XR, XS & XS Max (September 2018)". Note that the pronunciation might change in December so make sure to keep watching our channel!
--
Ethell, Team Creimer Administrative Assistant.
How to Pronounce The New Apple iPhone XR, XS & XS Max (September 2018)

CRTs didn't have resolutions, that's not how they worked. The dots were not pixels.

There is a great video explaining it here: https://youtu.be/Ea6tw-gulnQ

The Amiga could run MacOS so did the Atari ST since they had the same cpu. These non apple computers were also able to run macos better than Apple's own machines. https://youtu.be/Jph0gxzL3UI

Re: "When scientists tell you for example that we are observing dark matter filaments because a variety of reasons, you pretend that this is conclusive evidence of plasma filaments because they didn't take into account some hypothetical feature (Birkeland currents)."

What even is a dark matter filament? How would a person even argue against such a conceptual label? Is there any way to falsify it? What are your own personal reasons to believe such claims?

Re, Tom Bridgman's claim: "If Arp's interpretation was correct, how could a galaxy have the SAME redshift as a nearby quasar? Perhaps they're chance alignments? According to Arp, that is not likely!"

I don't see why Bridgman believes this is such a challenge to explain. He's certainly not trying very hard to apply Arp's model! Imagine, e.g., that a quasar is ejected through the plane of the galaxy. Due to the high density of material it would encounter, one could speculate that its inherent component would very rapidly adjust to reflect its surroundings.

Now, if you were to just reflect for a moment on the current situation of cosmology - that 95% of the universe's matter is apparently missing, and yet this has not induced anybody to abandon the framework - you should realize that Bridgman's analysis is not one bit a fair treatment. By the precedent standards which have already been deployed by Big Bang proponents, Arp should be permitted to propose all sorts of ad hoc extensions to fit observations to his framework. How can anybody possibly suggest that only the Big Bang framework is allowed to make such adjustments? You're being led to a designed conclusion, and not thinking too deeply about the context which Bridgman is having you ignore.

It's great that you are taking the time to learn of the arguments on both sides, but are you also thinking about what Bridgman is claiming? You want to go online to argue against Arp, but you're not taking the time to actually learn his model sufficient to apply it. This can still work as a way of learning a model, but you've really stacked the deck against acceptance of Arp's model with your approach of keeping it vague in your own mind.

Re, Tom Bridgman's claim: "By the 1990s, the Hubble Space Telescope was demonstrating that QSOs appeared to be in galaxies ... In Arp's book, he reports on a press conference where John Bahcall was announcing some of these early results (pg 55). Rather than acknowledge this was a severe blow for his model, Arp emphasized that this could not be demonstrated for ALL quasars observed. Arp's denial was in the same class as creationists complaining about gaps in the fossil record, who, when an intermediate is found, insists that evolution now has TWO gaps!"

First of all, you should have noticed the red flag of using Hubble imagery to judge Arp's model. QSO's can have features which obviously don't appear in optical.

But, more than that, it's not entirely clear to me, after reading this, that Bridgman understands the model which Arp had in mind towards the end of his life. Quasars do not have to eject perpendicular to the parent galaxy. Why must this always be the case? Circumstances can surely alter the trajectory if these ejections can indeed be modeled as violent electrodynamic plasma focus ejections - as Eric Lerner has suggested. In fact, Arp readily admits in the materials which I have seen that the ejections can also, in some cases, occur along the plane of the galaxy. Arp even somewhere in his Intrinsic Redshift lecture positions this as the likely cause for the violently disturbed galaxies he has documented in his "Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies".

The argument that Bridgman puts forward appears designed to invite the reader to dismiss Arp as a waste of time - which may work as an argumentative tool for many of his readers because it gives them an excuse to stop learning Arp's model.

twice the size of Texas

What does this even mean?

It means that it's time for Michael Bay to start work on Armageddon 2. [ref]

Maybe, but there are actual counterfeit copies of popular text books out there. These are printed overseas without the publisher's permission, usually full of OCR errors and with shitty bindings. For example: a fake copy of The Art of Electronics sent to EEVBlog by the real book's author. Here's another example a counterfeit copy of the DSM V . Textbooks are expensive, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that pirated copies would start coming in from Asia.

Sorry, I forgot to mention:

I still use my iPhone 6s and reduce my monthly bill from $80 to $50. As a phone and a video camera, the iPhone 6s isn't obsolete and I use it to make my videos on youtube. As a Sprint very special customer for 20+ years, Sprint will always give me a new iPhone for free if I decide to stop using the 6s as a phone in the next several years.

I have a hearing loss in one ear, so my audio will always be suspect. I use a Zoom H2 audio recorder with a pop filter 12" away from my mouth, Audacity to clean up and normalize the audio, and sync the audio to the video and apply a "voice enhancement" eq to the audio in the video editor.

I find AmazonTM the gretest thing since sliced bread and helps taking care of my health at retirement with the Amazon long tail revenue streams!

All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. You can even make video of yourself going to pick up AmazonTM parcel at the convenience store and post it on your youtube channel for more redundant revenue streams.

They also have a wide supply, the best of lattes, clif/power bars and microwave popcorn at the best cost, espicially if you make a friend buy them for you with your own affiliate link!
--
$700 For A Vacuum Cleaner -- Are You #%@$ Nuts?!

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Your statements demonstrate that you are avoiding to actively try to understand the controversies. Thus, you are failing to learn how a Sagnac interferometer actually works and what actually measures, you are stating arguments that have nothing to do with the real issue [who EVER claimed that the Sagnac interferometer could measure linear motion with respect to the all-pervading aether? It contracts with linear motion with respect to aether, as everything else], stating demonstrably false reasons for "why Michelson and Morley" chose a different setup than Sagnac, accusing me with denying the QUANTITATIVE usefulness of the conceptually meaningless quantum theory when I clearly stated otherwise before, etc.

Regarding your exceedingly optimistic statements about the Standard Model, this seems to relate to what Nobel Laureate Robert Laughlin considers the worldwide "infection" by "quantum field theory idolatry". People interested in scientific progress need to watch this thought-provoking lecture:

https://youtu.be/yF869nAYlfQ?t...

As he argues, such an "infection" is the reason why people fail to see the forest for the trees. Laughlin remarkable statements are consistent with the conclusions of many analysts who have carefully studied all the multi-disciplinary aspects affecting particle physics research. For example, Alexander Unzicker, a committed physicist and academic whistleblower summarizes the disturbing situation as follows:

"The standard model is complicated beyond any credibility, it does not address a single fundamental problem of physics, it is a textbook example of a Kuhnian crisis, its experimental techniques make it increasingly more likely that researchers fool themselves, knowledge in the community mostly consists of parroting expert opinions, and the experiments are practically not repeatable and completely nontransparent. The standard model is bad science. Nobody has to be afraid of stating that."

Alexander Unzicker, "The Higgs Fake", How Particle Physicists Fooled the Nobel Committee, p.141.

What everyone needs to always remember is that an updated “Neo-Ptolemaic” geocentric system with sufficient amount and sufficiently complex epicycles could provide the same rigorous quantitative results for planetary positions that our currently accepted heliocentric system provides. So, if you are happy working with the epicycles of particle physics, please enjoy!

Anyway, time is precious and you have failed to provide any meaningful challenge to my previous statements, so I will kindly leave you with the last word so I can continue with more productive matters. It was fun anyway. =)

Cheers!

Juan

On the contrary, I plan to be able to retired in 2020. I told you creimertards how to do it but no, you were to smart to listen!

I find AmazonTM the gretest thing since sliced bread and helps taking care of my health at retirement with the Amazon long tail revenue streams!

All you need to do is find a website with a permissive TOS, say, Slashdot, create a Python script to scrape your own comments, sprinkle Amazon affiliate links in various posts, and then re-post past links whenever possible. You can even make video of yourself going to pick up AmazonTM parcel at the convenience store and post it on your youtube channel for more redundant revenue streams.

They also have a wide supply, the best of lattes, clif/power bars and microwave popcorn at the best cost, espicially if you make a friend buy them for you with your own affiliate link!

Also, I still use my iPhone 6s and reduce my monthly bill from $80 to $50. As a phone and a video camera, the iPhone 6s isn't obsolete and I use it to make my videos on youtube. As a Sprint very special customer for 20+ years, Sprint will always give me a new iPhone for free if I decide to stop using the 6s as a phone in the next several years.

I use PhotoShop daily!

I have a hearing loss in one ear, so my audio will always be suspect. I use a Zoom H2 audio recorder with a pop filter 12" away from my mouth, Audacity to clean up and normalize the audio, and sync the audio to the video and apply a "voice enhancement" eq to the audio in the video editor.

My PC has an eight-core processor and a Nvidia 1050 Ti 4GB video card. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the processor takes a minute. A minute of 1080p video renedered on the Nvidia card takes 10 seconds. I don't think an iPad has the same performance of my PC for renedering videos longer than a short clip.

I can't imagine using Photoshop without a keyboard and mouse, or not being able to access my files from my file server. Video renedering on the iPad will probably suck donkey balls.

Blackmagic also charges high prices for their gear as Apple does. Need an HDMI to USB3 capture device? Blackmagic is $300. Any generic company is $50.

I take public transit. A local bus take me down the street to pick up the express bus, the express bus drops me off in Palo Alto, and a local bus take me down the street to my job. An hour each way. Driving through Palo Alto during rush hour is insane. Since I work in government I.T., I start work at 7:00AM.

For a final project in Small Group Communications, my four Vietnamese classmates appointed me to do all the work and be the speaker because I was white. So I did all the work and spoke in front of the class. Our instructor, a black woman, gave me all their credit for the assignment and forced them to retake the class. They screamed "white privilige" all the way to administration and their complaint landed on deaf ears. They couldn't prove that they did anything to merit a grade and cheerleading from the back of the room doesn't count.

The background file for my national security clearance got stolen by the Chinese a few years ago That contained a lot more information than the credit reports that Uncle Sam requested from all three bureaus.

Bonus: get some silver coins, view recommendations on my special Youtube channel dedicated to the topic! They constitute a fail-safe insurance strategy for your retirement!

--
$700 For A Vacuum Cleaner -- Are You #%@$ Nuts?!

They just released a video explaining why it's 'physically impossible as a practical matter' for their motherboards to have malicious components.

Hope they can back up these strong comments!

Creimer's Slashdot video was an April's Fool parody video. No doubt that the editors were miffed that they were replaced with the Kia hamsters.

" On the other hand you don't have the evidence to rule out coincidence."

WE HAVE FUCKING NEWS REPORTS ON TV about this shit even when the goddamned location services are turned off.

Get your head out of your ass.

Especially if you combine it with eating while working with computers all day

Like "King Size Homer" https://youtu.be/-VHlwcxUUnE

Check out this video:

https://youtu.be/r-7lUgpemqc

Along with showing how this is done, heâ(TM)s a great speaker.

Min

That Gamers Nexus 2017 i7-2600K benchmark has been updated for 2018: i7-2600K benchmark.
i.e.
  They added Threadripper 2990WX metrics both in Creator Mode and Game Mode.

Sad that modern CPUs only give single digit performance increases. :-/

Glad you mentioned Civ 6 -- a perfect example that shows some games are still dominated by single core performance. (Quad core has been a standard for *years* but some game devs are still not using it efficiently. Granted not everything is parallelizable but console game devs can't get away with this due to their poor single core performance. Well aside from Dark Souls which was addressed with the remaster.)

With such a wide difference in performance one really needs to compare what apps they are using with the hardware to make sure they are getting the expected bang/buck.

Indies, while I love them, tend to be the worst at not using multi-core -- either at all, or poorly. Hopefully with cheap(er) multi-cores this will motivate people to start using cores more efficiently.

It's good we finally have some competition again. Ryzen is keeping Intel "honest."

Because Tom Cruise has made a career of total commitment.

It's true. After decades, he's still committed to not coming out of the closet.

https://youtu.be/IKbLquqxBAQ

Not where I live. A house where termites have devoured the foundation is going to see its value go in the crapper and doused with Montezuma's Revenge. So I guess if I move I'll have to rely on home inspectors if appraisers follow the Sherry Bobbins method.

Do you have any essperience with roaming numerals?

Chris is currently indisposed and can't reply to your post at the moment.

Granny PottyMouth has just revealed to Chris (see https://slashdot.org/comments....) that most of the views on our YouTube channels were caused by one of her employee using her click-bots.

She says she instructed him to stop immediately and what she says must be true since the views stopped on our channel and we have only 12 views since last week on our latest video "How to Pronounce The New Apple iPhone XR, XS & XS Max (September 2018)". Note that the pronunciation might change in December so make sure to keep watching our channel!
--
Ethell, Team Creimer Administrative Assistant.
How to Pronounce The New Apple iPhone XR, XS & XS Max (September 2018)

https://youtu.be/bR8RrmEizVg

Re: "Lol, you really don't seem to know how redshift works. The shift occurs in the spectral absorption and emission lines of interstellar gas (mostly Hydrogen). These have a specific fingerprint (i.e. a pattern of lines, like a barcode) that shifts to the red side of the spectrum. The quasar is just the light source that ionizes the gas in front of it, often hundreds of thousands light years away."

That's a simple narrative you've got there. Halton Arp was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He states in the theory section of his Intrinsic Redshift lecture:

"[I]f the electron mass - when it makes its transition in the atom, and emits the photon - if the mass is small, the photon is weak and it's redshifted. As the electron grows in mass, the photon which is emitted is stronger, and it drops in redshift."

Plasma physicist Eric Lerner has pointed out that if active galactic nuclei can be compared to plasma focus devices, then it is alternatively possible that quasars are being ejected electron-deficient. Arp was not a plasma physicist, and it seems unlikely that he was aware of Lerner's detailed argument.

Wal Thornhill appears to have built his own inference on top of Lerner's plasma physics approach:

"Quasars appear to be ejected, deficient in electrons, from their parent active galactic nucleus (AGN). The lightweight electrons remain tangled in the AGN plasmoid for much longer than the heavier protons and uncharged neutrons. As a result, the quasar has lower initial charge polarization compared to matter on Earth and, from the principle of E-MOND, all subatomic particles in the quasar have lower masses. Therefore, the emitting atoms also have lower masses, and their radiation has lower energy. The result is the observed intrinsic redshift of atomic emissions from quasars and their relative faintness."

What you are doing is pointing to the textbook theory, and saying "See?!" What these guys are pointing out is that there are alternative ways to explain what we see. They are working at the level of scientific frameworks, formulating new ways to interpret the data. This is a level of thinking above what you yourself are doing. Nobody is confused here about what the textbook says. Higher-level reasoning simply looks like confusion from the outside.

That's a great paper you just pointed to. It begins:

1.1. Anomalous redshift problem

"The problem of the apparent optical associations of galaxies with very different redshifts, the so-called anomalous redshifts (Narlikar 1989; Arp 1987, 1998), is old but still alive. Although surprisingly ignored by most of the astronomical community, there is increasing evidence of examples of such anomalies. Statistical evidence has grown for such associations over the last 30 years (Burbidge 1996, 2001). For instance, all non-elliptical galaxies brighter than 12.8 mag with apparent companion galaxies have been examined (Arp 1981), and 13 of the 34 candidate companion galaxies were found to have QSOs with higher redshift. Given an accidental probability of less than 0.01 per galaxy, the global probability of this to be a chance is 1017. Bias effects alone cannot be responsible for these correlations (Burbidge 2001; Hoyle & Burbidge 1996; Bentez et al. 2001). Weak gravitational lensing by dark matter has been proposed (Gott & Gunn 1974; Schneider 1989; Wu 1996; Burbidge et al. 1997) as the cause of these correlations, although this seems to be insufficient to explain them (Burbidge et al. 1997; Burbidge 2001; Bentez et al. 2001; Gaztanaga 2003; Jain et al. 2003), and cannot work at all for the correlations with the brightest and nearest galaxies. The statistical relevance of these associations is still currently a matter of debate (Sluse et al. 2003)."

The explanation of this object became increasingly awkward for Big Bang proponents over time, as a reaction to unexpected observations:

See documentary, Universe: The Cosmology Quest:

"Peculiar galaxy NGC 7603 discovered 30 years ago by Halton Arp is one of the more striking examples of galaxy-quasar connections. It has recently been re-examined after the discovery of two new quasar-type objects embedded in the connecting filament. The renowned optical astronomer Margaret Burbidge has for decades been a central figure in the struggle to bring controversial observations such as NGC 7603 to the attention of conventional astronomers. And for her fairness and untiring efforts in the field, she has become one of the most widely repected women in astronomy."

Margaret Burbidge on NGC 7603:

"There's a very interesting galaxy known as NGC 7603 ... It's a Seyfert galaxy. That means it has one of these active nuclei with strong emission lines and a lot of activity, obviously, going on in its center. And it was studied years ago by Chip Arp in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. It has a spiral arm that seems to come right outside of the galaxy, trailing right out, and it ends up on a fainter galaxy. But it ends right up as though it's connecting the nuclei of the two galaxies."

Halton Arp on NGC 7603:

"In the Atlast of Peculiar Galaxies which was published in 1966, that was the point of the atlas. And one of the objects, just to illustrate what a peculiar galaxy is, is this what is now famous NGC 7603 - and this is the central Seyfert, which means just a very, very active galaxy with a lot of energy in the nucleus and a lot of explosive energy, and so forth, and here is the high-redshift companion here, and you see joined by a filament of material. It turns out from the observations that this filament of material is material of the galaxy - gas and dust and stars and so forth - that's been drawn out in the ejection. But the astonishing thing - a controversial matter - is that this galaxy is a much higher redshift than this.

Now, NGC 7603 has one redshift of about 8,000 kilometers per second, and the other galaxy has a much larger redshift. So, how can they be connected? Well, ... these data we

That's a great paper you just pointed to. It begins:

1.1. Anomalous redshift problem

"The problem of the apparent optical associations of galaxies with very different redshifts, the so-called anomalous redshifts (Narlikar 1989; Arp 1987, 1998), is old but still alive. Although surprisingly ignored by most of the astronomical community, there is increasing evidence of examples of such anomalies. Statistical evidence has grown for such associations over the last 30 years (Burbidge 1996, 2001). For instance, all non-elliptical galaxies brighter than 12.8 mag with apparent companion galaxies have been examined (Arp 1981), and 13 of the 34 candidate companion galaxies were found to have QSOs with higher redshift. Given an accidental probability of less than 0.01 per galaxy, the global probability of this to be a chance is 1017. Bias effects alone cannot be responsible for these correlations (Burbidge 2001; Hoyle & Burbidge 1996; Bentez et al. 2001). Weak gravitational lensing by dark matter has been proposed (Gott & Gunn 1974; Schneider 1989; Wu 1996; Burbidge et al. 1997) as the cause of these correlations, although this seems to be insufficient to explain them (Burbidge et al. 1997; Burbidge 2001; Bentez et al. 2001; Gaztanaga 2003; Jain et al. 2003), and cannot work at all for the correlations with the brightest and nearest galaxies. The statistical relevance of these associations is still currently a matter of debate (Sluse et al. 2003)."

The explanation of this object became increasingly awkward for Big Bang proponents over time, as a reaction to unexpected observations:

See documentary, Universe: The Cosmology Quest:

"Peculiar galaxy NGC 7603 discovered 30 years ago by Halton Arp is one of the more striking examples of galaxy-quasar connections. It has recently been re-examined after the discovery of two new quasar-type objects embedded in the connecting filament. The renowned optical astronomer Margaret Burbidge has for decades been a central figure in the struggle to bring controversial observations such as NGC 7603 to the attention of conventional astronomers. And for her fairness and untiring efforts in the field, she has become one of the most widely repected women in astronomy."

Margaret Burbidge on NGC 7603:

"There's a very interesting galaxy known as NGC 7603 ... It's a Seyfert galaxy. That means it has one of these active nuclei with strong emission lines and a lot of activity, obviously, going on in its center. And it was studied years ago by Chip Arp in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. It has a spiral arm that seems to come right outside of the galaxy, trailing right out, and it ends up on a fainter galaxy. But it ends right up as though it's connecting the nuclei of the two galaxies."

Halton Arp on NGC 7603:

"In the Atlast of Peculiar Galaxies which was published in 1966, that was the point of the atlas. And one of the objects, just to illustrate what a peculiar galaxy is, is this what is now famous NGC 7603 - and this is the central Seyfert, which means just a very, very active galaxy with a lot of energy in the nucleus and a lot of explosive energy, and so forth, and here is the high-redshift companion here, and you see joined by a filament of material. It turns out from the observations that this filament of material is material of the galaxy - gas and dust and stars and so forth - that's been drawn out in the ejection. But the astonishing thing - a controversial matter - is that this galaxy is a much higher redshift than this.

Now, NGC 7603 has one redshift of about 8,000 kilometers per second, and the other galaxy has a much larger redshift. So, how can they be connected? Well, ... these data we

That's a great paper you just pointed to. It begins:

1.1. Anomalous redshift problem

"The problem of the apparent optical associations of galaxies with very different redshifts, the so-called anomalous redshifts (Narlikar 1989; Arp 1987, 1998), is old but still alive. Although surprisingly ignored by most of the astronomical community, there is increasing evidence of examples of such anomalies. Statistical evidence has grown for such associations over the last 30 years (Burbidge 1996, 2001). For instance, all non-elliptical galaxies brighter than 12.8 mag with apparent companion galaxies have been examined (Arp 1981), and 13 of the 34 candidate companion galaxies were found to have QSOs with higher redshift. Given an accidental probability of less than 0.01 per galaxy, the global probability of this to be a chance is 1017. Bias effects alone cannot be responsible for these correlations (Burbidge 2001; Hoyle & Burbidge 1996; Bentez et al. 2001). Weak gravitational lensing by dark matter has been proposed (Gott & Gunn 1974; Schneider 1989; Wu 1996; Burbidge et al. 1997) as the cause of these correlations, although this seems to be insufficient to explain them (Burbidge et al. 1997; Burbidge 2001; Bentez et al. 2001; Gaztanaga 2003; Jain et al. 2003), and cannot work at all for the correlations with the brightest and nearest galaxies. The statistical relevance of these associations is still currently a matter of debate (Sluse et al. 2003)."

The explanation of this object became increasingly awkward for Big Bang proponents over time, as a reaction to unexpected observations:

See documentary, Universe: The Cosmology Quest:

"Peculiar galaxy NGC 7603 discovered 30 years ago by Halton Arp is one of the more striking examples of galaxy-quasar connections. It has recently been re-examined after the discovery of two new quasar-type objects embedded in the connecting filament. The renowned optical astronomer Margaret Burbidge has for decades been a central figure in the struggle to bring controversial observations such as NGC 7603 to the attention of conventional astronomers. And for her fairness and untiring efforts in the field, she has become one of the most widely repected women in astronomy."

Margaret Burbidge on NGC 7603:

"There's a very interesting galaxy known as NGC 7603 ... It's a Seyfert galaxy. That means it has one of these active nuclei with strong emission lines and a lot of activity, obviously, going on in its center. And it was studied years ago by Chip Arp in his Atlas of Peculiar Galaxies. It has a spiral arm that seems to come right outside of the galaxy, trailing right out, and it ends up on a fainter galaxy. But it ends right up as though it's connecting the nuclei of the two galaxies."

Halton Arp on NGC 7603:

"In the Atlast of Peculiar Galaxies which was published in 1966, that was the point of the atlas. And one of the objects, just to illustrate what a peculiar galaxy is, is this what is now famous NGC 7603 - and this is the central Seyfert, which means just a very, very active galaxy with a lot of energy in the nucleus and a lot of explosive energy, and so forth, and here is the high-redshift companion here, and you see joined by a filament of material. It turns out from the observations that this filament of material is material of the galaxy - gas and dust and stars and so forth - that's been drawn out in the ejection. But the astonishing thing - a controversial matter - is that this galaxy is a much higher redshift than this.

Now, NGC 7603 has one redshift of about 8,000 kilometers per second, and the other galaxy has a much larger redshift. So, how can they be connected? Well, ... these data we

Re: "There *is* an intrinsic redshift due to gravitational effects, but this only comes into play extremely close to extremely massive objects. The accretion disc of a black hole (i.e. the light generating part) is already too far out of the gravity well to show much gravitational redshift."

There appears to also be a component that is related to the quasar's age.

Re: "Sure, and since then we used that data in ever-larger sky surveys and realized what we were seeing was the large scale structure of galactic layout with walls and voids. Since the majority of galaxies are found in certain structures, then of course one will find that their red shifts also tend to cluster.

Can you point me to any examples where this is the argument which was put forward?

This is what I ran into:

Selection Effects in the SDSS Quasar Sample: The Filter Gap Footprint
M.B. Bell, S.P. Comeau (Submitted on 30 Nov 2009)

"In the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) quasars are targeted using colors and anything that can cause the identifying characteristics of the colors to disappear can create problems in the source selection process. Quasar spectra contain strong emission lines that can seriously affect the colors in photometric systems in which the transmission characteristics vary abruptly and significantly with redshift. When a strong line crosses a gap between two filter passbands the color effects induced by the line change abruptly, and there is also a dimming in apparent brightness compared to those redshifts where the strong line is inside a filter passband where the transmission is high. The strong emission lines in quasars, combined with the varying detectability introduced by the transmission pattern of the five filters, will result in a filter-gap footprint being imprinted on the N(z) distribution, with more quasars being missed when a strong line falls in a filter gap. It is shown here that a periodicity of (z) ~ 0.6 is imprinted on the redshift-number distribution by this selection effect. Because this effect cannot be rigorously corrected for, astronomers need to be aware of it in any investigation that uses the SDSS N(z) distribution. Its presence also means that the SDSS quasar data cannot be used either to confirm or to rule out the (z) ~ 0.6 redshift period reported previously in other, unrelated quasar data."

Re: "Just look at your own list of papers, lots in the 60s and 70s, then less and less until the 2000s when its just a handful. Did the effect disappear, or did people just ascribe this to something more prosaic than the, well, whatever was supposed to be causing it?"

What has happened has been described by Geoffrey Burbidge:

"The observers come in now with the belief that we live in a Big Bang universe, and therefore all of their ways of understanding things are tailored to that. And they don't come in with the possibility that this - our alternative, or any other, for that matter - is right, and really do it in an open-minded way. And of course what goes along with that is that observers who would like to test this way find it very hard to get observing time, and so on. I mean, this relates to the whole issue of whether the ... the complete lack of balance in the ... way the observational programs and the funding are conducted. There's no question about that. I don't think that anybody would argue about it."

Re: "Good grief man, you're either a troll or an idiot. No, I'm not conflating anything. And no, the Big Bang singularity was not a mathematical point. It had a measurable albeit extremely small volume. And there is a good chance it was part of a bigger volume, which all inflated at the same rate, outside our observable universe."

This is cosmology we are talking about here, and the "dark" data is very much telling you right now that something important and fundamental is wrong with the idea.

Many practicing scientists have themselves gone on the record to express their own displeasure with the idea, its origins, its ad hoc nature, and the matter-of-fact manner in which its proponents speak about its chronology - which is itself ironic because they've also expressed a willingness to confidently change the chronology in order to explain away contradictions.

The Soviet Nobel laureate, Lev Landau, famously observed that

“Cosmologists are often wrong but never in doubt.”

Martín López Corredoira is the author of more than 50 cosmology and astrophysics papers, often as lead. He's written papers on the structure of the Milky Way, stellar populations, and observational astronomy topics which required analytical calculations, simulations, statistics, photometrical and spectroscopical observations and analysis. He has remarked:

"Cosmology is ... is not a science. It has a lot of scientific aspects. We can know many things with the science: We can know how the galaxies are distributed - this is our measurement with observations - we can know how ... many metals are in the intergalactic medium or in some galaxy, and all of these aspects are scientific. But, with regards and considerations about the beginning of the universe, this is in some way crossing the barrier of the science, and going to something in between the science and metaphysical aspects, in my opinion."

Eric Lerner's description of the ad hoc nature of the theory seems to also perfectly describe the way in which proponents behave when they are challenged on the idea:

"People have said that science is a method for asking questions of nature. And if that's true, then we can say the Big Bang supporters are people who don't take NO for an answer."

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea:

"Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers:

'[T]he cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened. Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe ...

[I]nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.'

The problem with inflation isn’t the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. There are literally hundreds of these models, and they are -- as the philosophers say -- severely underdetermined. This means if one extrapolates the models that fit current data to regimes which are still untested, the result is ambiguous. Different models lead to very different p

Re: "Good grief man, you're either a troll or an idiot. No, I'm not conflating anything. And no, the Big Bang singularity was not a mathematical point. It had a measurable albeit extremely small volume. And there is a good chance it was part of a bigger volume, which all inflated at the same rate, outside our observable universe."

This is cosmology we are talking about here, and the "dark" data is very much telling you right now that something important and fundamental is wrong with the idea.

Many practicing scientists have themselves gone on the record to express their own displeasure with the idea, its origins, its ad hoc nature, and the matter-of-fact manner in which its proponents speak about its chronology - which is itself ironic because they've also expressed a willingness to confidently change the chronology in order to explain away contradictions.

The Soviet Nobel laureate, Lev Landau, famously observed that

“Cosmologists are often wrong but never in doubt.”

Martín López Corredoira is the author of more than 50 cosmology and astrophysics papers, often as lead. He's written papers on the structure of the Milky Way, stellar populations, and observational astronomy topics which required analytical calculations, simulations, statistics, photometrical and spectroscopical observations and analysis. He has remarked:

"Cosmology is ... is not a science. It has a lot of scientific aspects. We can know many things with the science: We can know how the galaxies are distributed - this is our measurement with observations - we can know how ... many metals are in the intergalactic medium or in some galaxy, and all of these aspects are scientific. But, with regards and considerations about the beginning of the universe, this is in some way crossing the barrier of the science, and going to something in between the science and metaphysical aspects, in my opinion."

Eric Lerner's description of the ad hoc nature of the theory seems to also perfectly describe the way in which proponents behave when they are challenged on the idea:

"People have said that science is a method for asking questions of nature. And if that's true, then we can say the Big Bang supporters are people who don't take NO for an answer."

One of inflation’s cofounders has turned his back on the idea:

"Inflation was proposed more than 35 years ago, among others, by Paul Steinhardt. But Steinhardt has become one of the theory’s most fervent critics. In a recent article in Scientific American, Steinhardt together with Anna Ijjas and Avi Loeb, don’t hold back. Most cosmologists, they claim, are uncritical believers:

'[T]he cosmology community has not taken a cold, honest look at the big bang inflationary theory or paid significant attention to critics who question whether inflation happened. Rather cosmologists appear to accept at face value the proponents’ assertion that we must believe the inflationary theory because it offers the only simple explanation of the observed features of the universe ...

[I]nflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.'

The problem with inflation isn’t the idea per se, but the overproduction of useless inflationary models. There are literally hundreds of these models, and they are -- as the philosophers say -- severely underdetermined. This means if one extrapolates the models that fit current data to regimes which are still untested, the result is ambiguous. Different models lead to very different p

I still remember how it began They produced a carbon copy man Born in a science lab late one night Without a mother or a father, just a test tube and a womb with a view...

I'm doubtful from this quote below that you've actually understood what Arp is claiming:

"The redshift of a quasar comes from the galaxy redshift, so even if the supermassive black hole had been ejected, it would still be as distant as the galaxy is. Being ejected from a galaxy will not instantaneously make the black hole substantially closer."

Arp is arguing for an inherent redshift component. He makes this argument by showing bridges connecting objects of very different redshifts; in some cases quasars in front of galactic bulges; with statistics showing that quasars appear next to "foreground" galaxies far too often than they should; and he also points to an anomalous periodicity in redshift datasets.

You've not done anything within your post here to argue against any of the observations he points to to justify his claims. The idea that redshift can only result from a Doppler-like effect is an assumption which followed from the order in which the observations historically occurred:

"When Hubble made his great discovery, it was for galaxies like our own Milky Way galaxy, and they all followed the same rule that the fainter they are, the larger their redshift - in other words, the faster they are moving away from us. This is known as the Hubble Law, and directly led to the expanding universe theories. But in the 1960's, there was a new discovery: the quasi-stellar objects, often referred to as quasars. They appear as star-like points on the sky frequently blue in color, and they have very, very large redshifts - implying that they are at huge distances from the Earth, at the very boundaries of the observable universe. Some astronomers soon found that a vast number of these strange new objects populated the regions around spiral galaxies, and were not only observable with radio telescopes - but were optical and x-ray sources as well. There were two properties of the quasars that were difficult for astronomers to understand using the expanding univere theory. The first was that if one plotted their apparent brightness against their redshifts as one does for galaxies, one gets an unexpected scatter on the diagram instead of the smooth curve made by the same plot done for galaxies. This seems to indicate that the quasars do not follow the Hubble Law, as do most other objects, and that there is no direct indication that they are actually at their proposed redshift distances. In fact, it is argued that if Hubble had first been given the plots for quasars, he and other astronomers would never have concluded that the universe was expanding."

It is not that hard to get up to speed with IPv6.

IPv6 Primers:
Quick 6 minute video on IPv6 addressing and subneting: https://youtu.be/dUmhZOnz_qc
Tech Quickie: https://youtu.be/aor29pGhlFE

Microsoft has a really in depth guide to many aspects of IPv6. It is a really long read, but worth it to get in depth knowledge on the subject.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...

It is not that hard to get up to speed with IPv6.

IPv6 Primers:
Quick 6 minute video on IPv6 addressing and subneting: https://youtu.be/dUmhZOnz_qc
Tech Quickie: https://youtu.be/aor29pGhlFE

Microsoft has a really in depth guide to many aspects of IPv6. It is a really long read, but worth it to get in depth knowledge on the subject.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-...

I truly think we are starting to see the edge of an education bubble. For many years, high school pushed college so hard people got worthless degrees that did nothing to prepare them for the job market.

I'm sorry to tell ya but the education system is there to maintain the class system and give the illusion that you live in a meritocratic society, the fact that you'd mouth talking points without any kind of evidence at all speaks volumes about the average american. The "job market" is just a bunch of big corporations and small businesses and they are always looking for ways to fuck people who work for them.

The reality is modern society is a big scam.

George Carlin said it best:

https://youtu.be/ILQepXUhJ98?t...

He just posted his first and second videos from Heroes & Villains FanFest/Walker Stalker San Jose 2018.

He just posted his first and second videos from Heroes & Villains FanFest/Walker Stalker San Jose 2018.

Unfortunately the bullshit is pretty universal.

"Einstein was an Einstein denier. He came from the crackpot community. He couldn't get a job. After graduating, he almost starved to death until somebody took pity on him. He had a talk with somebody at the patent office.

So, here's this unknown crackpot submitting papers. He's not associated with any academic group. And they actually took him seriously. Things were different back at the turn of the century.

But, if you have somebody working a day job, who has nothing to do with physics, and sending in physics papers, and they're in the miracle year ... Today, would any of them be accepted? They're not on university letterhead, so Einstein was from the crackpot community. But, nobody ever says that. So, after the fact, he's redefined to always have been a scientist all along. So, that way they can say that the crackpot community will never ever produce anything, because anyone who does produce anything, well they were a scientist who was hiding in the crackpot community.

The same thing had happened with the Wright brothers. They were bicycle company owners; they don't have any connection with any academia. And they do the breakthrough which brings up human flight and controls aircraft. So, now they're defined as always having been scientists -- that they build the first wind tunnel and were doing rigorous testing. So, they weren't crackpots along with all the thousands of other flying machine crackpots at the time that were being horrendously ridiculed.

The Wright brothers couldn't make any headway in the United States, and their breakthrough actually came, not at Kitty Hawk, but when they took their flying machine to France, and flew it at a crackpot flying machine convention. They had people that actually had machines that were sort of like the leather bat wing steam powered thing, that would fly in a straight line. And the Wright brothers came and flew rings around them, literally. I think that's probably where the expression comes from.

But, no longer crackpots. They must have been scientists all along!"

Of particular interest is the press release by the Space Telescope Science Institute - the research arm of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope - promoting the claim that NGC 4319 is not connected by a filament to Markarian 205, the object next to it. These press releases appear to be a case of scientific fraud insofar as they point the readers to visible light photographs from the Hubble instead of the far more radio-deep imagery produced on much less expensive, even amateur, CCD telescopes.

Markarian 205 was reported by Weedman as a Seyfert nucleus appearing within the arms of the lower-redshift spiral galaxy NGC 4319. Most of the argument here has centered on whether or not there is a visible connection between the two. Pictures were published with and without a bridge (Arp once said that he had pictures that showed no bridge as well, and didn't want to be thought lacking in observational skill). There was some early discussion of photographic proximity effects creating false bridges between bright objects, but it doesn't go away with linear detectors. Various reports were given by Arp 1971 (ApLett 9,1), Lynds and Millikan 1972 (ApJLett 176, L5), Stockton et al 1979 (ApJ 231, 673), and Sulentic 1983 (ApJLett 265, L49). Cecil and Stockton (1985 ApJ 288, 201) used CCD data from Mauna Kea to show that there is definitely some kind of luminous object between Mkn 205 and NGC 4319, stating that "Arp was correct in his insistence that his broad-band plates showed luminous intervening material. The opposite conclusions of his critics were - depending on their degree of qualification - either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant."

Arp commented:

"We realized that ... the people who had been processing the pictures and released it must have known that the bridge was there, and yet they chose to try to convince the public that ... in fact it wasn't there, and that everything was right with the current expanding universe paradigm."

Realize that they could have argued that the radio filament was a background object, a "chance" observation. They didn't. They literally said that the filament is not there. But, the filament clearly shows up on CCD imagery - just not the optical.

The public needs to think more clearly about what has happened here. I was able to even get Ethan Siegal, one of the world's most vocal proponents of the Big Bang, to agree with me that something is not right about this particular situation.

Bill Beaty - Doing Science Outside the Mainstream - Part 1 - YouTube

"An interesting concept which sort of guided me - especially after the book, The End of Science - that if we're in the end times of science, and there's no ... revolutionary discoveries possible, well you look around and there aren't many revolutions that you see coming along. And there's articles about why are there no new Einsteins?

Suppose you met a time traveler from 50 or 100 years in the future, who said:

'You guys are crazy; you didn't discover X or Y or Z'

... that all of physics is this tiny little bit of progress compared to these giant discoveries that are going to happen in 20 years, and everyone's complaining that there's not any new Einsteins. Well, they're all sort of being crushed. Anyone that comes up with something weird can't get funding.

So, if you think that you're in the end times, you end up being in the end times because the certainty that you're in the end times puts you in the end times ...

You come up to sort of an asymptote, or stasis, where there's no more progress.

Everyone's convinced that there's no more progress, so anything that looks like progress doesn't get funded. Since there's no progress possible, everything that looks like progress is actually crackpotism and heresy. There's nothing up there to explore, so anyone that wants to go up there is crazy, and you don't fund crazy people.

But, it's a closed loop of belief causing reality and reality causing belief. If everyone thought that we were at the lowest end of the great exponential curve of physics discovery, then you'd have little kids making giant discoveries, and people taking them seriously when they find their website that they are the new Einstein. So, it's possible that there are many new Einsteins, and they're all in the crackpot community publishing on the web cause no journal would ever take their papers. You might have people that have flying cars and time machines that really work, but they've never built them because you can't do this stuff as an individual. You need your money for almost anything. At least you have to be able to quit your day job to work full-time.

So, funding controls what happens. If you fund bold leaps out into the unknown, you start boldly leaping out into the unknown. And if you only fund small intermittent progress, then that's what everything ends up being."

The best emerging plot line is the living universe concept. This topic elicits really interesting reactions from people. Michael Clarage's presentation offers a good introduction to it if you start at the 5:14 timestamp, but I think there are many more arguments which could be put forward on this.

Follow through on the implications of that strange concept: We can see that there is life which exists inside of our own bodies at multiple scales of existence: we can have parasites, which in turn have bacteria, etc. So, what if we are simply a middle rung of this larger living structure, and the features we are witnessing with telescopes are actually pieces of a larger living creature? If that was true, then what if that creature possesses an immune system?

Imagine that humans are colonizing space and we are getting a bit too casual with our electromagnetic emissions, or that we've sent a probe to some distant place, which then triggers an immune response? I suspect that the immune system would be misinterpreted by people as aliens, but you could somehow slowly reveal the "truth" of the science as the book nears its conclusion.

Unfortunately that's enough to make cycling more dangerous. If you have made teenagers, who go through puberty and are very self-conscious, wear bicycle helmets which are not exactly fashion statements, then you've turned them off cycling for life. With no cycle traffic to speak of, car traffic won't learn to share the space and treat cyclists with respect. Safe cycling looks like this. Normal people in normal clothes without helmets. They're not racing. Leave the cycling armor at home. Bicycle helmets are not a good idea.

A list of vindications for Halton Arp:

In most of these cases, cosmologists and science journalists point the public to ad hoc extensions of the Big Bang. Yet, their original model did not predict these observations.

1. Alignment of quasar minor axes (vindication of Arp ejection model)

"The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other -- despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years"

2. Numerous apparent interactions of objects of wildly different redshifts (not possible with Big Bang, vindication of Arp)

For example, NGC 7603, NGC 4319 and NGC 3628, just to name three. There are many, many more at this point. See the first part of the Universe: Cosmology Quest documentary and Arp's Intrinsic Redshift lecture for a more thorough treatment.

Of particular interest is the press release by the Space Telescope Science Institute - the research arm of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope - promoting the claim that NGC 4319 is not connected by a filament to Markarian 205, the object next to it. These press releases appear to be a case of scientific fraud insofar as they point the readers to visible light photographs from the Hubble instead of the far more radio-deep imagery produced on much less expensive, even amateur, CCD telescopes.

Markarian 205 was reported by Weedman as a Seyfert nucleus appearing within the arms of the lower-redshift spiral galaxy NGC 4319. Most of the argument here has centered on whether or not there is a visible connection between the two. Pictures were published with and without a bridge (Arp once said that he had pictures that showed no bridge as well, and didn't want to be thought lacking in observational skill). There was some early discussion of photographic proximity effects creating false bridges between bright objects, but it doesn't go away with linear detectors. Various reports were given by Arp 1971 (ApLett 9,1), Lynds and Millikan 1972 (ApJLett 176, L5), Stockton et al 1979 (ApJ 231, 673), and Sulentic 1983 (ApJLett 265, L49). Cecil and Stockton (1985 ApJ 288, 201) used CCD data from Mauna Kea to show that there is definitely some kind of luminous object between Mkn 205 and NGC 4319, stating that "Arp was correct in his insistence that his broad-band plates showed luminous intervening material. The opposite conclusions of his critics were - depending on their degree of qualification - either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant."

Arp commented:

"We realized that ... the people who had been processing the pictures and released it must have known that the bridge was there, and yet they chose to try to convince the public that ... in fact it wasn't there, and that everything was right with the current expanding universe paradigm."

3. Numerous instances where high-redshift quasars appear aligned with the axes of low-redshift "foreground" galaxies (statistics indicate this occurs far too often for a strict recession velocity interpretation of redshift)

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, by Halton Arp (1987)

"To summarize this initial chapter, I would emphasize that with the known densities with which quasars of different apparent brightness are distributed over the sky, one can compute what are the chances of finding by accident a quasar at a c

A list of vindications for Halton Arp:

In most of these cases, cosmologists and science journalists point the public to ad hoc extensions of the Big Bang. Yet, their original model did not predict these observations.

1. Alignment of quasar minor axes (vindication of Arp ejection model)

"The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other -- despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years"

2. Numerous apparent interactions of objects of wildly different redshifts (not possible with Big Bang, vindication of Arp)

For example, NGC 7603, NGC 4319 and NGC 3628, just to name three. There are many, many more at this point. See the first part of the Universe: Cosmology Quest documentary and Arp's Intrinsic Redshift lecture for a more thorough treatment.

Of particular interest is the press release by the Space Telescope Science Institute - the research arm of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope - promoting the claim that NGC 4319 is not connected by a filament to Markarian 205, the object next to it. These press releases appear to be a case of scientific fraud insofar as they point the readers to visible light photographs from the Hubble instead of the far more radio-deep imagery produced on much less expensive, even amateur, CCD telescopes.

Markarian 205 was reported by Weedman as a Seyfert nucleus appearing within the arms of the lower-redshift spiral galaxy NGC 4319. Most of the argument here has centered on whether or not there is a visible connection between the two. Pictures were published with and without a bridge (Arp once said that he had pictures that showed no bridge as well, and didn't want to be thought lacking in observational skill). There was some early discussion of photographic proximity effects creating false bridges between bright objects, but it doesn't go away with linear detectors. Various reports were given by Arp 1971 (ApLett 9,1), Lynds and Millikan 1972 (ApJLett 176, L5), Stockton et al 1979 (ApJ 231, 673), and Sulentic 1983 (ApJLett 265, L49). Cecil and Stockton (1985 ApJ 288, 201) used CCD data from Mauna Kea to show that there is definitely some kind of luminous object between Mkn 205 and NGC 4319, stating that "Arp was correct in his insistence that his broad-band plates showed luminous intervening material. The opposite conclusions of his critics were - depending on their degree of qualification - either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant."

Arp commented:

"We realized that ... the people who had been processing the pictures and released it must have known that the bridge was there, and yet they chose to try to convince the public that ... in fact it wasn't there, and that everything was right with the current expanding universe paradigm."

3. Numerous instances where high-redshift quasars appear aligned with the axes of low-redshift "foreground" galaxies (statistics indicate this occurs far too often for a strict recession velocity interpretation of redshift)

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, by Halton Arp (1987)

"To summarize this initial chapter, I would emphasize that with the known densities with which quasars of different apparent brightness are distributed over the sky, one can compute what are the chances of finding by accident a quasar at a c

A list of vindications for Halton Arp:

In most of these cases, cosmologists and science journalists point the public to ad hoc extensions of the Big Bang. Yet, their original model did not predict these observations.

1. Alignment of quasar minor axes (vindication of Arp ejection model)

"The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other -- despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years"

2. Numerous apparent interactions of objects of wildly different redshifts (not possible with Big Bang, vindication of Arp)

For example, NGC 7603, NGC 4319 and NGC 3628, just to name three. There are many, many more at this point. See the first part of the Universe: Cosmology Quest documentary and Arp's Intrinsic Redshift lecture for a more thorough treatment.

Of particular interest is the press release by the Space Telescope Science Institute - the research arm of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope - promoting the claim that NGC 4319 is not connected by a filament to Markarian 205, the object next to it. These press releases appear to be a case of scientific fraud insofar as they point the readers to visible light photographs from the Hubble instead of the far more radio-deep imagery produced on much less expensive, even amateur, CCD telescopes.

Markarian 205 was reported by Weedman as a Seyfert nucleus appearing within the arms of the lower-redshift spiral galaxy NGC 4319. Most of the argument here has centered on whether or not there is a visible connection between the two. Pictures were published with and without a bridge (Arp once said that he had pictures that showed no bridge as well, and didn't want to be thought lacking in observational skill). There was some early discussion of photographic proximity effects creating false bridges between bright objects, but it doesn't go away with linear detectors. Various reports were given by Arp 1971 (ApLett 9,1), Lynds and Millikan 1972 (ApJLett 176, L5), Stockton et al 1979 (ApJ 231, 673), and Sulentic 1983 (ApJLett 265, L49). Cecil and Stockton (1985 ApJ 288, 201) used CCD data from Mauna Kea to show that there is definitely some kind of luminous object between Mkn 205 and NGC 4319, stating that "Arp was correct in his insistence that his broad-band plates showed luminous intervening material. The opposite conclusions of his critics were - depending on their degree of qualification - either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant."

Arp commented:

"We realized that ... the people who had been processing the pictures and released it must have known that the bridge was there, and yet they chose to try to convince the public that ... in fact it wasn't there, and that everything was right with the current expanding universe paradigm."

3. Numerous instances where high-redshift quasars appear aligned with the axes of low-redshift "foreground" galaxies (statistics indicate this occurs far too often for a strict recession velocity interpretation of redshift)

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, by Halton Arp (1987)

"To summarize this initial chapter, I would emphasize that with the known densities with which quasars of different apparent brightness are distributed over the sky, one can compute what are the chances of finding by accident a quasar at a c

A list of vindications for Halton Arp:

In most of these cases, cosmologists and science journalists point the public to ad hoc extensions of the Big Bang. Yet, their original model did not predict these observations.

1. Alignment of quasar minor axes (vindication of Arp ejection model)

"The first odd thing we noticed was that some of the quasars’ rotation axes were aligned with each other -- despite the fact that these quasars are separated by billions of light-years"

2. Numerous apparent interactions of objects of wildly different redshifts (not possible with Big Bang, vindication of Arp)

For example, NGC 7603, NGC 4319 and NGC 3628, just to name three. There are many, many more at this point. See the first part of the Universe: Cosmology Quest documentary and Arp's Intrinsic Redshift lecture for a more thorough treatment.

Of particular interest is the press release by the Space Telescope Science Institute - the research arm of NASA's Hubble Space Telescope - promoting the claim that NGC 4319 is not connected by a filament to Markarian 205, the object next to it. These press releases appear to be a case of scientific fraud insofar as they point the readers to visible light photographs from the Hubble instead of the far more radio-deep imagery produced on much less expensive, even amateur, CCD telescopes.

Markarian 205 was reported by Weedman as a Seyfert nucleus appearing within the arms of the lower-redshift spiral galaxy NGC 4319. Most of the argument here has centered on whether or not there is a visible connection between the two. Pictures were published with and without a bridge (Arp once said that he had pictures that showed no bridge as well, and didn't want to be thought lacking in observational skill). There was some early discussion of photographic proximity effects creating false bridges between bright objects, but it doesn't go away with linear detectors. Various reports were given by Arp 1971 (ApLett 9,1), Lynds and Millikan 1972 (ApJLett 176, L5), Stockton et al 1979 (ApJ 231, 673), and Sulentic 1983 (ApJLett 265, L49). Cecil and Stockton (1985 ApJ 288, 201) used CCD data from Mauna Kea to show that there is definitely some kind of luminous object between Mkn 205 and NGC 4319, stating that "Arp was correct in his insistence that his broad-band plates showed luminous intervening material. The opposite conclusions of his critics were - depending on their degree of qualification - either wrong, misleading, or irrelevant."

Arp commented:

"We realized that ... the people who had been processing the pictures and released it must have known that the bridge was there, and yet they chose to try to convince the public that ... in fact it wasn't there, and that everything was right with the current expanding universe paradigm."

3. Numerous instances where high-redshift quasars appear aligned with the axes of low-redshift "foreground" galaxies (statistics indicate this occurs far too often for a strict recession velocity interpretation of redshift)

Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies, by Halton Arp (1987)

"To summarize this initial chapter, I would emphasize that with the known densities with which quasars of different apparent brightness are distributed over the sky, one can compute what are the chances of finding by accident a quasar at a c