LightHeavyW8 Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 (edited) I wish it were so. Scientists use the word "theory" for something that has a staggering amount of supporting evidence (like quantum theory, general relativity theory, and the theory of evolution). But they also us the same word "theory"; for models that have virtually no supporting evidence (like string theory), and everything in between. So unfortunately, the lay public often gets confused. The only thing one can do is read up on these theories with a healthy skepticism, and try to find out how much empirical evidence there is for a given "theory". And how many superluminal QSOs does it take to throw a monkey wrench into the BB Theory? Google TON 202 and see... ! Moderator Note Thread has been split from here Edited January 29, 2011 by swansont add modnote
D H Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 Google TON 202 and see... All I see are legitimate articles that say that Ton 202 is a very remote quasi-stellar object (a quasar) with a redshift of z=0.364 and a bunch of nonsense articles published on crackpot websites or in crackpot journals with zero impact (literally zero; so bad that they aren't even rated). In short, nothing to see, move along, move along.
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Posted January 25, 2011 All I see are legitimate articles that say that Ton 202 is a very remote quasi-stellar object (a quasar) with a redshift of z=0.364 and a bunch of nonsense articles published on crackpot websites or in crackpot journals with zero impact (literally zero; so bad that they aren't even rated). In short, nothing to see, move along, move along. And if amateur astronomers can measure TON 202's proper motion in the sky, which, if its redshift truly indicates its remoteness, means it is moving at 1100 c or more, shall we label them all "crackpot" as well? Or shall we question, as Janus does, the possible implications of TON 202's measured redshift?
imatfaal Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 And if amateur astronomers can measure TON 202's proper motion in the sky, which, if its redshift truly indicates its remoteness, means it is moving at 1100 c or more, shall we label them all "crackpot" as well? Or shall we question, as Janus does, the possible implications of TON 202's measured redshift? Does Janus really say that? I presume you are referring to the quote in a separate thread - I have reproduced it below in case Janus does not notice he/she is being cross-quoted. My reading of his post is that the present thinking is that one or both of the measurements is/are incorrect - i apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted/misrepresented Janus. As far as TON 202 goes, the calculated proper velocity comes from its proper motion( its side to side motion against the background of the sky), and assuming that its redshift is indicative of it being at a great distance. That is, if TON202 is as far away as its redshift seems to predict, and the measured proper motion is accurate, then it would be moving at 1100c. However, I don't think that there is any serious consideration that this is the case. In fact, this calculated proper velocity is taken to mean that one or both of these assumptions are flawed .
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 25, 2011 Author Posted January 25, 2011 Does Janus really say that? I presume you are referring to the quote in a separate thread - I have reproduced it below in case Janus does not notice he/she is being cross-quoted. My reading of his post is that the present thinking is that one or both of the measurements is/are incorrect - i apologize in advance if I have misinterpreted/misrepresented Janus. Yes, that is the post, and my interpretation of it is the same as you. Please note that TON 202's proper motion as angular velocity may be verified by any good amateur astronomer. Its redshift has hopefully been re-verified. The meaning of its redshift may be open to debate, as I understand it.
D H Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 And if amateur astronomers can measure TON 202's proper motion in the sky, which, if its redshift truly indicates its remoteness, means it is moving at 1100 c or more, shall we label them all "crackpot" as well? In a nutty nutshell, yes. You are simply rehashing some old, long-since debunked Halton Arp nonsense. I am not going to bother re-re-re-debunking that nonsense, it will fall on deaf ears. Crackpots are immune to logic, evidence, and reason. Is that really the camp you want to fall in? Or shall we question, as Janus does, the possible implications of TON 202's measured redshift? You're talking about this post in your crackpot anti-relativity thread. As far as TON 202 goes, the calculated proper velocity comes from its proper motion( its side to side motion against the background of the sky), and assuming that its redshift is indicative of it being at a great distance. That is, if TON202 is as far away as its redshift seems to predict, and the measured proper motion is accurate, then it would be moving at 1100c. However, I don't think that there is any serious consideration that this is the case. In fact, this calculated proper velocity is taken to mean that one or both of these assumptions are flawed. The measurement that is taken by professionals to be flawed is the proper motion measurement. First off, the large errors inherent in those visible observations combined with the small measured motions from those observations make many of those apparently large motions also consistent with the null hypothesis (no detectable proper motion). Moreover, there are systematic errors in these measurements that result in a perceived superluminal motion. Once those systematic errors are also taken into account the problem of proper motion vanishes. I'll get some references later this evening.
Klaynos Posted January 25, 2011 Posted January 25, 2011 And if amateur astronomers can measure TON 202's proper motion in the sky, which, if its redshift truly indicates its remoteness, means it is moving at 1100 c or more, shall we label them all "crackpot" as well? Or shall we question, as Janus does, the possible implications of TON 202's measured redshift? If they can measure it with small enough error bars to be worthwhile then they could publish it in a peer reviewed journal. None have done so.
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 If they can measure it with small enough error bars to be worthwhile then they could publish it in a peer reviewed journal. None have done so. Gee, it appears that ANYONE can confirm the proper motion of TON 202. Or do you also label the astronomers Hewitt and Burbridge "crackpots" ? http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/db-perl/W3Browse/w3table.pl?tablehead=name%3Dqso&Action=More+Options
Klaynos Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 Gee, it appears that ANYONE can confirm the proper motion of TON 202. Or do you also label the astronomers Hewitt and Burbridge "crackpots" ? http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/db-perl/W3Browse/w3table.pl?tablehead=name%3Dqso&Action=More+Options I can't see how your link backs up what you said about being able to confirm the proper motion of TON 202. I suspect I am missing something.
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) I can't see how your link backs up what you said about being able to confirm the proper motion of TON 202. I suspect I am missing something. If you would like to look at the work of someone who appears to have studied this subject (and the table I linked) extensively, Google TON 202. It seems that some unseen censor has decided to prevent the site from being linked directly. Judge what you see there on its merit, not on the preemptive dismissal by another poster as being the work of a "crackpot". This site goes into detail about how the proper motion info is extracted. Edited January 26, 2011 by LightHeavyW8
imatfaal Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 For those that are interested the correct name to be put into the search engine for H&B's catalogue linked above is HB93 1425+267. For LHW8 - H&B were in this instance cataloguers and compilers as well as observers - I cannot tell how much credence they gave to the other's observations. And they provide no reference to the proper motion of the object in question.
D H Posted January 26, 2011 Posted January 26, 2011 (edited) Gee, it appears that ANYONE can confirm the proper motion of TON 202. Or do you also label the astronomers Hewitt and Burbridge "crackpots" ? http://heasarc.gsfc....on=More+Options Did you even read the link you posted, or did you just get this link second hand from some crackpot site and take it for granted that the link says what you think it says? You are referring to Hewitt and Burbidge's "Revised and Updated Catalog of Quasi-stellar Objects" of 1993. Hewitt and Burbidge didn't look at the objects in this catalog. No single astronomer, or even team of astronomers, could. This is a compendium of tens of thousands of observations published in multiple astronomical journals. Astronomers have been publishing star catalogs for quite some time. It is an incredibly valuable service. So, does the Hewitt & Burbidge QSO catalog say anything about proper motion of any quasar? No. Data on proper motion is not in that catalog. Here's the SAO/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service entry for the ApJS publication that lists the catalog: http://adsabs.harvar...ApJS...87..451H You can retrieve the journal article, free, from this page. The entry for TON 202, listed as 1425+267, is on page 761 (the article starts on page 451). Is there anything on proper motion there? Nope. You can also get to the online data from the abstract server page. Just click on "On-line Data". This should bring you to this site, http://vizier.cfa.ha...-source=VII/158. Click on the VII/158/table1 button. This will bring you to a query form for the Hewitt & Burbidge QSO catalog. Just below Query by Position on the Sky you should see a text entry box. Type TON 202 into that box and hit return. This will give you a list of 18 entries for this quasar. As the form says, To get all details for a row, just click on the row number in the leftmost `Full' column. Selecting the very first one gives you this page: http://vizier.cfa.harvard.edu/viz-bin/VizieR-5?-out.add=.&-source=VII/158/table1&recno=16236. Is there anything on that page on proper motion? No. This QSO catalog doesn't have proper motion data. You are getting your nonsense non-data from a crackpot site. You will not find this nonsense in Hewitt and Burbidge's "Revised and Updated Catalog of Quasi-stellar Objects" of 1993 because it's nonsense. Edited January 26, 2011 by D H
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 26, 2011 Author Posted January 26, 2011 For those that are interested the correct name to be put into the search engine for H&B's catalogue linked above is HB93 1425+267. For LHW8 - H&B were in this instance cataloguers and compilers as well as observers - I cannot tell how much credence they gave to the other's observations. And they provide no reference to the proper motion of the object in question. Ot enter "TON 202 in the "alt name" field. It appears that the researcher at the censored site compared the position of TON 202 from Luyten's 1969 catalog with it in the H & B 1993 catalog in order to obtain its proper motion. I'm not sure if Luyten's 1969 catalog is online. It is no small irony that the censored site includes this quotation: Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley in 'Proper Studies'
imatfaal Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 (edited) Try posting this site that you claim SFN is censoring again - I am sure that if you do a simple copy and "insert link" (its the icon with a chain and a green/white plus sign is ten from the left above ) we will all be able to check it out. If that is not working - just type the url inthisformat(dot)com(slash)crackpot(slash)theory . I am not sure how you can be so certain that TON 202 is breaking so many boundaries of physics; but yet, not have a well researched article that, at the very least, explains the methodology used. Edited January 27, 2011 by imatfaal
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 Try posting this site that you claim SFN is censoring again - I am sure that if you do a simple copy and "insert link" (its the icon with a chain and a green/white plus sign is ten from the left above ) we will all be able to check it out. If that is not working - just type the url inthisformat(dot)com(slash)crackpot(slash)theory . I am not sure how you can be so certain that TON 202 is breaking so many boundaries of physics; but yet, not have a well researched article that, at the very least, explains the methodology used. Please Google TON 202. Cutting and pasting link seems to work for other sites, and it's very curious that when I posted this particular site link before, and checked to see if it worked, it did not. When I went to edit my post I saw that somehow a "no follow" tag appeared after the link, which I did not put there.
imatfaal Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 17 million results - give us a clue which one you mean!
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 <br /><a href='http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ton+202' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>17 million results</a> - give us a clue which one you mean!<br /> I had no idea TON 202 was so popular! Let's see, what comes up first for you? BTW, what does "nofollow external" mean in your post? It seems related to the search you are attempting. Are you aware of it?
imatfaal Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 What sort of home-brew browser are you using? I have just viewed my post (logged out) with chrome, firefox, safari, mobile safari, msie, and opera - and everyone provides a simple link that can be clicked on to goto "let me google that for you". Download chrome, firefox, or opera and use them - will make your browsing much easier. back to the post - just tell us which page you think is being censored. Cos I now think it's not censored - it's just your mad browser is doing something weird!
Mr Skeptic Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Eh, that's just some HTML that leaked into your post (post #33 seems fine to me). Just copy/paste your link and we can copy/paste it into our browsers, no need for you to have it in link form if you don't know how. Or just write it out by hand, if you don't know how to copy/paste.
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 <br />What sort of home-brew browser are you using? I have just viewed my post (logged out) with chrome, firefox, safari, mobile safari, msie, and opera - and everyone provides a simple link that can be clicked on to goto "let me google that for you". Download chrome, firefox, or opera and use them - will make your browsing much easier. <br /><br />back to the post - just tell us which page you think is being censored. Cos I now think it's not censored - it's just your mad browser is doing something weird!<br /> Thank you for your advice, but I'm not complaining about my browser. In the interest of helping you find the link you're curious about, please tell me what shows up first when you Google TON 202, and what does "nofollow external" mean in your earlier post?
D H Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 It appears that the researcher at the censored site compared the position of TON 202 from Luyten's 1969 catalog with it in the H & B 1993 catalog in order to obtain its proper motion. It appears that you are incapable of reading and understanding even your own crackpot sources. Quoting directly from your crackpot source, "We have searched the proper motion catalog of 951 faint blue stars measured by Luyten (1969) for quasars in the recent Hewitt and Burbidge (1993) catalog." What Varshni did was to determine which of those 951 objects listed by Luyten in 1969 have positions very similar to those of quasars listed by Hewitt & Burbidge in their 1993 QSO catalog. I'm not sure if Luyten's 1969 catalog is online. It's right there at your crackpot site. Follow the links. Let's see what they give for TON 202: Absolute Name RA(1950) Dec mpg color mualpha mudelta Ref. ------------------------------------------------------------------- TN 202 14 25.3 +26 46 15.1 -0.1 +019±16 -049±16 ms The "Ref." column is the reference (e.g., journal publication) for the entry. Now what is that "ms" in the "Ref." column? It means "revised, or new values for proper motions not yet published." Bottom line: Varshni is basing his claims on unpublished data taken from a 40+ year old catalog that mistakenly interpreted some quasars to be stars. That's no ding on Luyten; a lot of quasars were originally mis-identified as stars 40+ years ago. Astronomers didn't have a clue what quasars were back then. What happens if modern data, using modern telescopes, VLBI, and other techniques that did not exist 40+ years ago are used in lieu of that 40+ year old unpublished data? The answer is simple: Varshni's claims fall apart. It is no small irony that the censored site includes this quotation:Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Ironic? Yeah, that is one way to put it. The irony is that crackpots are so wont to sling that quotation around when it is invariably the crackpots who are ignoring facts. You really ought to pay attention to that quotation. ============================================================================ Try posting this site that you claim SFN is censoring again - I am sure that if you do a simple copy and "insert link" (its the icon with a chain and a green/white plus sign is ten from the left above ) we will all be able to check it out. I found his crackpot site long ago. I'm not going to post that link because I disagree with how scienceforums.net loves and cherishes its crackpots. I did give more than enough info for you to find it: Just do a search for "TON 202" "laser star". I'll even do the search for you: http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22TON+202%22+%22laser+star%22. 1
LightHeavyW8 Posted January 27, 2011 Author Posted January 27, 2011 I found his crackpot site long ago. I'm not going to post that link because I disagree with how scienceforums.net loves and cherishes its crackpots. I did give more than enough info for you to find it: Just do a search for "TON 202" "laser star". I'll even do the search for you: <a href='http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=%22TON+202%22+%22laser+star%22' class='bbc_url' title='External link' rel='nofollow external'>http://www.lmgtfy.co...22laser+star%22</a>.<br /> Umm, doing a search for TON 202 was MY suggestion, also. Your troops may still be wondering why "nofollow external" keeps showing up in the search string... -2
A Tripolation Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Thank you for your advice, but I'm not complaining about my browser. In the interest of helping you find the link you're curious about, please tell me what shows up first when you Google TON 202, and what does "nofollow external" mean in your earlier post? No. We're complaining about your browser. You assert that SFN is censoring your links, yet your browser continues to mutilate pretty much any feature that this board offers, eg, the "quote" function.
Mr Skeptic Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 Umm, doing a search for TON 202 was MY suggestion, also. Your troops may still be wondering why "nofollow external" keeps showing up in the search string... No, that is not what he suggested searching for. Also, "nofollow external" does not show up at all in the search string. My guess is it's a message to spiders not to follow the link and that the link is not on scienceforums.net, but maybe its something that the censoring agencies stuck into your computer to confuse you. As for you leaking HTML, I suggest you go to Settings>General Settings on this website (this link might take you there: http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=core&module=usercp&tab=core ), then check the box that says Enable visual (RTE) editor? Rich Text Editor requires IE6+, Mozilla / Firefox 3.0+, Safari 4+, Google Chrome, or Opera 9+
Klaynos Posted January 27, 2011 Posted January 27, 2011 "Nofollow external" is part of an html tag where your browser is not correctly parsing the code. If you view the link in one of the browsers mentioned above you'll find the link works fine. There is no conspiracy here.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now