Our discussion started with name calling and has gotten worse. I'd prefer to see if we can agree on who believes what and why. The issue is very complicated, so I'm attempting to separate put the numerous theories into a small number of camps.
Camp 1: Support the work of William Tifft in '70s, and subsequent work of Napier and Guthrie in '97 showing quantized redshifts, used as proof of geocentric or galactocentric universe, with concentric shells of galaxies around us or our galaxy. Tifft's early work utilized results of pencil-beam surveys, largely discredited because a foamy universe produces the same results. Napier and Guthrie find quantization in larger sample of galaxies in the Virgo cluster, statistically significant only when assuming the local cluster is falling towards Virgo. Many members of this camp are Christians who think that Earth is special because of Divine Interest in the human race.
Camp 2: Arp and friends. They think that redshift has two components, one associated with velocity and one an intrinsic (inherent) property of the object that increases with time. While they deny the geocentric shell model and the quantization of "total" redshift, they do think the intrinsic redshifts are quantized. Start with galaxies in the middle of a pair of quasars. One must assume the quasars have the same intrinsic redshift (and that they had a common origin in the 'parent' galaxy), and then the intrinsic redshift of both can be found by an average of the total redshifts of the two quasars. Quantization of the intrinsic redshift is implied to mean that something about the quasars changes as they age- in discrete steps. This is where they decide to throw out much of modern physics on its ear. They conclude that quasars are new matter being born in an infinitely-old, flat universe (somehow being spit out of the hearts of more mature galaxies). New matter starts out with zero mass and gains mass as it ages, either as the square of the elapsed time or in discrete quantum steps, depending on which website one reads. ref.
Camp 3. 'Mainstream' scientists - Think that redshift is due to the peculiar velocity of the emitting object and the stretching of the space through which the photons must travel on their way here. Quasars are very far away, not near foreground galaxies. Problems: 90% of the expected matter is invisible. A 'dark energy' is necessary to explain the perceived expansion. ref
So I got confused when you started the thread by saying something that sounded like you were in camp 1, but then posting links to camp 2. Some mainstream astronomers think there may be something interesting lurking in reports of quantization., so don't knock us for asking about it. Even worse would be if we ignored it entirely.
Also, there is nothing to stop Markarian 205's quasar from being behind the "host" galaxy relative to us, since we are working in 3D here."
No. NGC 4319 has been disrupted by gravitational forces from something massive, as evidenced by the wide flung arms and the dust lanes. These are roughly perpendicular to our line of sight, meaning the galaxy and the massive object are also in a plane perpendicular to our line of sight. Many members of your wacky little group thinks it's the Seyfert, Markarian 205, that is the disrupting massive object, because they think they see a bridge between the two. Any proof that the Seyfert is not in the plane is proof against this theory.
Another potential explanation for low near-UV, one pulled out of the ether as I type rather than dreamed up by a competent astrophysicist might be that quasars throw off UV in bands shaped roughly like Jupiter's clouds, and Markarian 205 happens to not have a band aimed at us.
Your ad hoc theory has no plausible mechanism, and it doesn't address the evidence. Markarian 205 is shining near-UV at us. If one were to measure the near-UV at equal distances from the center of Markarian 205, one would expect the same amount of near-UV from all points, as Markarian 205 is very spherically symmetrical. Instead, less near-UV is noted from the side closer to NGC 4319 than the side opposite.
Since you didn't actually supply links to the concentric galaxy shell theory, I will do so. Here's one from the Institute of Creation Research. Here's another from the highly respected Science Frontiers. One study was done only on galaxies in our local supercluster. Since these galaxies are gravitationally bound, it is not surprising that small packs of them might be traveling at the same speeds. Other studies were pencil-beam surveys. Since they did not cover the whole sky, or even a significant fraction of it, claiming that quantized redshifts from them are proof of shells of galaxies is bad science. A more realistic interpretation is that each pencil-beam saw the walls of bubbles, much like the wedge surveys show. Evidence of large-scale structure, yes. Proof of a geocentric universe, no.
The concentric shell theory relies on redshifts providing proper distances (quantized redshifts imply quantized distances). You provided links to pages that claim evidence that redshifts don't provide proper distances. To claim that you provided links to the concentric shell discussion is completely dishonest, as these groups are in opposing camps.
"from RGB photos instead of spectral lines on a plate."
Yeah, exactly, so why did you supply the link to the photos of the Arp collection of peculiar galaxies? You originally were arguing about concentric shells of galaxies. That's what I'm curious about, and because you are too reticent to post an appropriate link, I still know nothing about this theory.
And the hubblesite quotes were taken from a page quite relevant to the Arp galaxies. The famous Markarian 205 photos showing a purported link between a high-z Seyfert nucleus and a low-z galaxy are discussed, including the fact that near-UV light from the Seyfert is absorbed by the galaxy, indicating that the Seyfert is behind, not to the side. This argument is particularly convincing as it does not rely on redshift.
I was hoping for "links to concentric galaxy stuff." Instead it is a discussion of non-cosmological redshift, which is a related topic but not quite what I was hoping for. According to hubblesite.org, "Only a few astronomers still think there is reasonable evidence for noncosmological redshifts," and "An overwhelming abundance of evidence long ago convinced virtually all astronomers that quasars are indeed at the vast distances indicated by their redshifts." Much of this shift in view comes from Hubble's own higher resolution photos.
Their criteria is "cannot or should not be repeated." They go to some lengths to explain that they don't mean "bad research."
But it should be repeated. The young cab drivers should have the measurements repeated periodically to see if individual hippocampi can be caught in the act of growing.
offhand i'd say we've been Trolled. Maps of galaxies, generally thin wedges, show them to be arranged as filaments or sheets around the edges of voids, for example this and a higher res version. The galaxies are not arranged as concentric shells but as the matrix of an open-celled foam. Any appearance of concentricity is due to the fact that galaxies further away are harder to see (see the bottom image).
I'm not certain why the London Taxi Driver study received an Ig Nobel. It was a beautifully done study. For those who don't know, people who want to be black cab taxi drivers in London take a 3 year course (3/4 drop out) to pass an exam. They have to memorize essentially every street in a 6 mile radius (street names sometimes change block by block) and significant landmarks along those streets. All this information they refer to simply as "the knowledge." It was shown that the hippocampi of these taxi drivers are larger than normal and are larger in drivers who have been driving longer. This study helped change medical opinion on the 'plasticity' of the adult brain and has important implications for brain damage and diseases like Parkinson's.
It'a an active field of reasearch. A similar study found that the hippocampus of the chickadee increases by 30% in the fall when it needs to memorize the locations of all the food stores it is busily hiding,
It probably had a lot of copper in it, copper burns green.The green color probably comes from oxygen ions regaining electrons, just like the green color in aurora.
I forgot the most important side effect. The magnetic bubble is very good at deflecting even high-energy ions and electrons, i.e. just about everything besides neutrons, neutrinos, and electromagnetic waves like UV, x-rays, or gamma rays. This type of radiation shielding seems like a natural for a mission with astronauts.
My favorite proposal from the near past was the magnetic bubble. Create a large static magnetic field - a simple dipole will do- in space, and then fill it up with plasma. The plasma causes it to expand greatly in size, which is important because the dipole field decays as r^-3. It would act much like the Earth's own magnetosphere with a shock upwind and a long tail. But unlike at Earth, this magnetic bubble can be oriented in any direction. It has been compared to a balloon in operation.
Hippos aren't pachyderms. They are in the order Artiodactyla, which also has the pigs, deer, camelids, giraffes, bovines (cows, sheep, goats, buffalo, etc.), and the pronghorn antelope. The horse is in the order Perissodactyla, which also includes tapirs and rhinos. Elephants are in their own order, Proboscidea. The closest living relative of the elephant is probably (debated by some) the hyrax (order Hyracoidea), a small guinea pig-like animal that you probably confused with the guinea pig. Also distantly related to the elephant is the order Sirenia, manatees and dugongs.
Thanks for trying to confuse the issue. Who the hell modded you informative?
I ate a guinea pig in Ecuador. The locals claim the head meat is the best, but I couldn't tell. And it certainly didn't taste like chicken. The meat was oily, maybe a little like duck. The restaurant owners kept the guinea pigs in a room specifically for the rodents; they just ran around on the straw-covered floor. That kind of scene that would instantly fail a health inspection in the States.
If you want karma points and weren't worried about plagiarism, you could just search through this dupe's original story's discussion for the highest rated comments, and then repost them here and pretend they are your own. Unless all the moderators are on crack and hand out mods randomly.
Re:never underestimate gravitational potential ene
on
Planet-Gobbling Star
·
· Score: 1
If the planet never falls into the star (the star rises and meets it instead) you don't get to extract that gravitational potential energy..
And you're being pretty blithe invoking tides. Since tidal forces fall of like 1/r^3, you'd need a monster of a planet to induce significant tides in the star.
Well, which is it? When you say that "the star rises and meets it", you seem to be describing the inducement of a tidal bulge or Roche lobe. You then complain that I am invoking a tidal bulge. And while you say "Since tidal forces fall of like 1/r^3, you'd need a monster of a planet to induce significant tides in the star," it should be obvious that the closeness of the planet is far more important than mass. The force goes as r^-3, so it takes only a small decrease in r for a large increase in force, while the tidal force is only linear in m. Also, you'll have to explain how the planet would be moving out from the star if the star's 'day' is greater than the planet's year, as I basically don't believe you. It goes against what I was taught about the orbits of Phobos and Deimos, one of which is doomed to crash into Mars or get crushed into a ring in the process, and one is not. But ultimately to me it didn't matter how the planet got to surface of the star.:Like you, I was interested in modeling it once the planet and star atmospheres had contacted each other. That's when the real fireworks begin. We're merely disagreeing as to the height in the star's atmosphere that the planet descends to before it is transferring the maximum mount of power to the star. Once the two objects are touching, the tidal forces have to be important, but that would be a more complicated model than I am willing to work on at the moment. But yes, I am anxious to see the "goddamn paper."
Slashdot Mirror
NASA didn't invent velcro.
Yeah, I realized that after I started running through the numbers and ran out of categories.
A statistical fluke known Simpson's Paradox?
Camp 1: Support the work of William Tifft in '70s, and subsequent work of Napier and Guthrie in '97 showing quantized redshifts, used as proof of geocentric or galactocentric universe, with concentric shells of galaxies around us or our galaxy. Tifft's early work utilized results of pencil-beam surveys, largely discredited because a foamy universe produces the same results. Napier and Guthrie find quantization in larger sample of galaxies in the Virgo cluster, statistically significant only when assuming the local cluster is falling towards Virgo. Many members of this camp are Christians who think that Earth is special because of Divine Interest in the human race.
Camp 2: Arp and friends. They think that redshift has two components, one associated with velocity and one an intrinsic (inherent) property of the object that increases with time. While they deny the geocentric shell model and the quantization of "total" redshift, they do think the intrinsic redshifts are quantized. Start with galaxies in the middle of a pair of quasars. One must assume the quasars have the same intrinsic redshift (and that they had a common origin in the 'parent' galaxy), and then the intrinsic redshift of both can be found by an average of the total redshifts of the two quasars. Quantization of the intrinsic redshift is implied to mean that something about the quasars changes as they age- in discrete steps. This is where they decide to throw out much of modern physics on its ear. They conclude that quasars are new matter being born in an infinitely-old, flat universe (somehow being spit out of the hearts of more mature galaxies). New matter starts out with zero mass and gains mass as it ages, either as the square of the elapsed time or in discrete quantum steps, depending on which website one reads. ref.
Camp 3. 'Mainstream' scientists - Think that redshift is due to the peculiar velocity of the emitting object and the stretching of the space through which the photons must travel on their way here. Quasars are very far away, not near foreground galaxies. Problems: 90% of the expected matter is invisible. A 'dark energy' is necessary to explain the perceived expansion. ref
So I got confused when you started the thread by saying something that sounded like you were in camp 1, but then posting links to camp 2. Some mainstream astronomers think there may be something interesting lurking in reports of quantization., so don't knock us for asking about it. Even worse would be if we ignored it entirely.
No. NGC 4319 has been disrupted by gravitational forces from something massive, as evidenced by the wide flung arms and the dust lanes. These are roughly perpendicular to our line of sight, meaning the galaxy and the massive object are also in a plane perpendicular to our line of sight. Many members of your wacky little group thinks it's the Seyfert, Markarian 205, that is the disrupting massive object, because they think they see a bridge between the two. Any proof that the Seyfert is not in the plane is proof against this theory.
Another potential explanation for low near-UV, one pulled out of the ether as I type rather than dreamed up by a competent astrophysicist might be that quasars throw off UV in bands shaped roughly like Jupiter's clouds, and Markarian 205 happens to not have a band aimed at us.
Your ad hoc theory has no plausible mechanism, and it doesn't address the evidence. Markarian 205 is shining near-UV at us. If one were to measure the near-UV at equal distances from the center of Markarian 205, one would expect the same amount of near-UV from all points, as Markarian 205 is very spherically symmetrical. Instead, less near-UV is noted from the side closer to NGC 4319 than the side opposite.
Since you didn't actually supply links to the concentric galaxy shell theory, I will do so. Here's one from the Institute of Creation Research. Here's another from the highly respected Science Frontiers. One study was done only on galaxies in our local supercluster. Since these galaxies are gravitationally bound, it is not surprising that small packs of them might be traveling at the same speeds. Other studies were pencil-beam surveys. Since they did not cover the whole sky, or even a significant fraction of it, claiming that quantized redshifts from them are proof of shells of galaxies is bad science. A more realistic interpretation is that each pencil-beam saw the walls of bubbles, much like the wedge surveys show. Evidence of large-scale structure, yes. Proof of a geocentric universe, no.
The concentric shell theory relies on redshifts providing proper distances (quantized redshifts imply quantized distances). You provided links to pages that claim evidence that redshifts don't provide proper distances. To claim that you provided links to the concentric shell discussion is completely dishonest, as these groups are in opposing camps.
Yeah, exactly, so why did you supply the link to the photos of the Arp collection of peculiar galaxies? You originally were arguing about concentric shells of galaxies. That's what I'm curious about, and because you are too reticent to post an appropriate link, I still know nothing about this theory.
And the hubblesite quotes were taken from a page quite relevant to the Arp galaxies. The famous Markarian 205 photos showing a purported link between a high-z Seyfert nucleus and a low-z galaxy are discussed, including the fact that near-UV light from the Seyfert is absorbed by the galaxy, indicating that the Seyfert is behind, not to the side. This argument is particularly convincing as it does not rely on redshift.
I take two aspirin and skip the doctor.
I was hoping for "links to concentric galaxy stuff." Instead it is a discussion of non-cosmological redshift, which is a related topic but not quite what I was hoping for. According to hubblesite.org, "Only a few astronomers still think there is reasonable evidence for noncosmological redshifts," and "An overwhelming abundance of evidence long ago convinced virtually all astronomers that quasars are indeed at the vast distances indicated by their redshifts." Much of this shift in view comes from Hubble's own higher resolution photos.
But it should be repeated. The young cab drivers should have the measurements repeated periodically to see if individual hippocampi can be caught in the act of growing.
offhand i'd say we've been Trolled. Maps of galaxies, generally thin wedges, show them to be arranged as filaments or sheets around the edges of voids, for example this and a higher res version. The galaxies are not arranged as concentric shells but as the matrix of an open-celled foam. Any appearance of concentricity is due to the fact that galaxies further away are harder to see (see the bottom image).
It'a an active field of reasearch. A similar study found that the hippocampus of the chickadee increases by 30% in the fall when it needs to memorize the locations of all the food stores it is busily hiding,
Crap, somebody beat me by a minute and with the right halflife, 10^-7 seconds. The halflife from Wolfram is incorrect.
It's called positronium, and it lasts 10^-10 seconds.
It probably had a lot of copper in it, copper burns green.The green color probably comes from oxygen ions regaining electrons, just like the green color in aurora.
I forgot the most important side effect. The magnetic bubble is very good at deflecting even high-energy ions and electrons, i.e. just about everything besides neutrons, neutrinos, and electromagnetic waves like UV, x-rays, or gamma rays. This type of radiation shielding seems like a natural for a mission with astronauts.
My favorite proposal from the near past was the magnetic bubble. Create a large static magnetic field - a simple dipole will do- in space, and then fill it up with plasma. The plasma causes it to expand greatly in size, which is important because the dipole field decays as r^-3. It would act much like the Earth's own magnetosphere with a shock upwind and a long tail. But unlike at Earth, this magnetic bubble can be oriented in any direction. It has been compared to a balloon in operation.
Yeah, whenever I get any sunlight I get a sunburn, and that really depresses me.
But seriously, how about 'negatively correlated'?
Blatant racist statement in parent, and it hasn't been modded Troll or Flamebait?
You're right, Sir, though my dictionary adds the words 'large' and 'hoofed.'
Nope. Rabbits/hares and pikas comprise the order Lagomorpha, but they occupy separate families, the Leporidae and the Ochotonidae.
Thanks for trying to confuse the issue. Who the hell modded you informative?
I ate a guinea pig in Ecuador. The locals claim the head meat is the best, but I couldn't tell. And it certainly didn't taste like chicken. The meat was oily, maybe a little like duck. The restaurant owners kept the guinea pigs in a room specifically for the rodents; they just ran around on the straw-covered floor. That kind of scene that would instantly fail a health inspection in the States.
Oh crap. I just duped this guy's post, and it's in the dupe discussion, not the original.
If you want karma points and weren't worried about plagiarism, you could just search through this dupe's original story's discussion for the highest rated comments, and then repost them here and pretend they are your own. Unless all the moderators are on crack and hand out mods randomly.
And you're being pretty blithe invoking tides. Since tidal forces fall of like 1/r^3, you'd need a monster of a planet to induce significant tides in the star.
Well, which is it? When you say that "the star rises and meets it", you seem to be describing the inducement of a tidal bulge or Roche lobe. You then complain that I am invoking a tidal bulge. And while you say "Since tidal forces fall of like 1/r^3, you'd need a monster of a planet to induce significant tides in the star," it should be obvious that the closeness of the planet is far more important than mass. The force goes as r^-3, so it takes only a small decrease in r for a large increase in force, while the tidal force is only linear in m. Also, you'll have to explain how the planet would be moving out from the star if the star's 'day' is greater than the planet's year, as I basically don't believe you. It goes against what I was taught about the orbits of Phobos and Deimos, one of which is doomed to crash into Mars or get crushed into a ring in the process, and one is not. But ultimately to me it didn't matter how the planet got to surface of the star. :Like you, I was interested in modeling it once the planet and star atmospheres had contacted each other. That's when the real fireworks begin. We're merely disagreeing as to the height in the star's atmosphere that the planet descends to before it is transferring the maximum mount of power to the star. Once the two objects are touching, the tidal forces have to be important, but that would be a more complicated model than I am willing to work on at the moment. But yes, I am anxious to see the "goddamn paper."