big bang

[LightHeavyW8]

No, that is not what he suggested searching for.

Even without the quotes, http://laserstars.org/abs/AV1995.html shows up first on my Google search. Surprised that your troops cannot find it... NOT.

As for you leaking HTML, I suggest you go to Settings>General Settings on this website (this link might take you there:

It was checked, I just now unchecked it - happier?

[D H]

Even without the quotes, [censored site deleted] shows up first on my Google search. Surprised that your troops cannot find it... NOT.

You should know that Google Now Personalizes Everyone’s Search Results. From the link,

 

The short story is this. By watching what you click on in search results, Google can learn that you favor particular sites. For example, if you often search and click on links from Amazon that appear in Google’s results, over time, Google learns that you really like Amazon. In reaction, it gives Amazon a ranking boost. That means you start seeing more Amazon listings, perhaps for searches where Amazon wasn’t showing up before.The results are custom tailored for each individual. For example, let’s say someone else prefers Barnes & Nobles. Over time, Google learns that person likes Barnes & Noble. They begin to see even more Barnes & Nobles listings, rather than Amazon ones.

 

 

The page in question shows up first for you because google knows that you have visited this site before from google searches. It knows that this is a site that nominally has very low page rank, but that you tend to go pages that have low page rank. You like crackpot sites, so google presents crackpot sites to you. The page in question will not show up first, or even close to first, for the typical scienceforums.net member.

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Even without the quotes, http://laserstars.org/abs/AV1995.html shows up first on my Google search. Surprised that your troops cannot find it... NOT.

 

Why should we bother looking through 17 million results when you could just give us the link to go there directly? Incidentally, I can see your link just fine.

 

It was checked, I just now unchecked it - happier?

 

Nevermind, it didn't work. Your quotes still contain HTML. Must be something with your browser.

[LightHeavyW8]

Why should we bother looking through 17 million results when you could just give us the link to go there directly? Incidentally, I can see your link just fine.

I just did, and I'm delighted that it now works for you - thank you for providing a good example of a paradox.

 

Nevermind, it didn't work. Your quotes still contain HTML. Must be something with your browser.

Funny, so do yours...

 

LHW

[Mr Skeptic]

Well if you see HTML on our posts, that would explain why we see some in yours. Let me guess, the character "<" appears to you as "<" rather than as the "less than" sign? So when you copy it it has these parts in it? But no one else seems to have that problem. What browser are you using? And do other web pages have HTML visible to you?

 

As for paradox, this is an example of what a paradox isn't. No one can give an example of a paradox because by definition they don't exist.

[LightHeavyW8]

<br />Well if you see HTML on our posts, that would explain why we see some in yours. Let me guess, the character "<" appears to you as "&lt;" rather than as the "less than" sign? So when you copy it it has these parts in it? But no one else seems to have that problem. What browser are you using? And do other web pages have HTML visible to you?<br /><br />As for paradox, this is an example of what a paradox isn't. No one can give an example of a paradox because by definition they don't exist.<br />

 

I only see your html in the "reply" window, and it copies into my responses. I have another browser on your approved list, but but its response is so slow (on your site only) that it is unusable. I have never had this problem with either browser on ANY other site.

 

A paradox is a self-contradiction, btw. Re-read your response (below) very carefully and see if you can spot it:

 

"Why should we bother looking through 17 million results when you could just give us the link to go there directly? Incidentally, I can see your link just fine."

 

LHW

[Klaynos]

I only see your html in the "reply" window, and it copies into my responses. I have another browser on your approved list, but but its response is so slow (on your site only) that it is unusable. I have never had this problem with either browser on ANY other site.

 

A paradox is a self-contradiction, btw. Re-read your response (below) very carefully and see if you can spot it:

 

"Why should we bother looking through 17 million results when you could just give us the link to go there directly? Incidentally, I can see your link just fine."

 

LHW

 

To aid our error finding, what browser are you using to produce these results and which browser is acting very slow on the site?

[LightHeavyW8]

<br />To aid our error finding, what browser are you using to produce these results and which browser is acting very slow on the site?<br />

 

While I appreciate your generous offer, I have privacy concerns. My browsers are common, so it's hard to believe EITHER of my browser symptoms have not manifested themselves on your site before. Maybe if you would at least acknowledge that I caught you in a paradox, it would give me the warm fuzzies about you.

 

LHW

[D H]

There is no paradox here, LHW. Just because your crackpot site shows up as the very first link when you do a google search for TON 202 does not mean that it will show up that way for everyone. Read post #44 to see why.

 

There is no censoring here, LHW. There are only some goofy interactions between your browser and the IP.Board software that is the engine for this site. That is why the admins are asking about your browser. They want to look into fixing those problems.

 

The last technical discussion in this thread was in post #38. Do you care to address any of the issues I raised there?

[Klaynos]

While I appreciate your generous offer, I have privacy concerns. My browsers are common, so it's hard to believe EITHER of my browser symptoms have not manifested themselves on your site before. Maybe if you would at least acknowledge that I caught you in a paradox, it would give me the warm fuzzies about you.

 

LHW

 

Your browser is logged with your IP address for every page request you make, as with nearly every website you visit, if you have privacy concerns about which browser you are using to visit websites I suggest you cut the comms cable from your house to the network ASAP.

[LightHeavyW8]

Thread seems to be getting off-topic. There was a request for me to provide the site with info on TON 202. HERE it is again, for those who may have missed it. The researcher compared TON 202's location in Luyten 1969 to H & B 1993, and found that, if its redshift of z=.366 indicates its distance, its proper velocity is around 1100c, and this superluminal number is not unique. The researcher suggests how amateur astronomers may confirm "superluminality" for themselves. The researcher has offered an alternative explanation for the observed redshift which I am not taking sides on. I do believe his work is serious and scholarly and deserves serious scrutiny, not name-calling and derision.

 

LHW

[D H]

Thread seems to be getting off-topic.

Yes, it is.

 

The researcher compared TON 202's location in Luyten 1969 to H & B 1993

No, they didn't. You appear to have missed by rebuttal to your nonsense in post #38. So, here it is again:

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.

 

 

Back to the most recent post,

The researcher suggests how amateur astronomers may confirm "superluminality" for themselves.

No, they don't.

 

The researcher has offered an alternative explanation for the observed redshift

An utterly crackpot notion, yes. A notion borne out by science, no.

 

which I am not taking sides on. /

ROTFL.

 

 

[LightHeavyW8]

D H - I see your posts are now arriving with their own seal of approval.

 

LHW

Edited January 28, 2011 by LightHeavyW8

[D H]

D H - I see your posts are now arriving with their own seal of approval.

Whatever. Can I take it that this means that you have no meaningful response to my post?

 

 

 

[LightHeavyW8]

<br />Whatever. Can I take it that this means that you have no meaningful response to my post?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

If one can cut through all your venom, it appears that you are claiming that Varshni erred in taking the position of "TN 202" from Luyten 1969. Do you claim it was another object? Do you claim that no "superluminal" objects have been observed by astronomers? Is BIRETTA also a "crackpot"? Would you like others to add to your list?

 

LHW

[imatfaal]

So we can now be sure that you don't even read your own citations

 

Please note this is from your claimed source of proof John Biretta - from the press release on the very page you cited

 

 

The term `superluminal motion' is something of a misnomer. While it accurately describes the speeds measured, scientists still believe the actual speed falls just below the speed of light.``It's an illusion created by the finite speed of light and rapid motion," Biretta said. ``Our present understanding is that this `superluminal motion' occurs when these clouds move towards Earth at speeds very close to that of light, in this case, more than 98 percent of the speed of light. At these speeds the clouds nearly keep pace with the light they emit as they move towards Earth, so when the light finally reaches us, the motion appears much more rapid than the speed of light. Since the moving clouds travel slightly slower than the speed of light, they do not actually violate Einstein's theory of relativity which sets light as the speed limit"

 

Oh by the way - thanks for dismissing the time I spent trying to sort out your browser problems and labelling those who tried to help as troops (of what? the orthodoxy).

Edited January 28, 2011 by imatfaal

[LightHeavyW8]

<br />So we can now be sure that you don't even read your own citations <br /><br />Please note this is from your claimed source of proof John Biretta - from the press release on the very page you cited<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Oh by the way - thanks for dismissing the time I spent trying to sort out your browser problems and labelling those who tried to help as troops (of what? the orthodoxy).<br />

 

So anytime an astronomer observes "superluminality", it's really trompe-l'œil? Good answer... NOT!

 

LHW

[imatfaal]

So you claimed Biretta aided your argument for the existence of observed and confirmed FTL speeds - I refuted your answer with text quoting Biretta; and that's not a good answer? I think I call troll. Oh yeah - and your browser is still screwed

[LightHeavyW8]

<br />So you claimed Biretta aided your argument for the existence of observed and confirmed FTL speeds - I refuted your answer with text quoting Biretta; and that's not a good answer? I think I call troll. Oh yeah - and your browser is still screwed<br />

 

Please, answer this directly - So anytime an astronomer observes "superluminality", it's really trompe-l'œil?

 

LHW

[imatfaal]

Or he is merely not very good at observations, or a crackpot that manipulates their results, or a fool who doesn't understand how to make correct observations in the first place.

 

There is the possibility of a paradigm breaking experiment - but nothing you have provided is even close to that.

Edited January 28, 2011 by imatfaal

[D H]

If one can cut through all your venom, it appears that you are claiming that Varshni erred in taking the position of "TN 202" from Luyten 1969. Do you claim it was another object?

No. I am claiming that technology and knowledge has improved just a tad since 1969. Varshni intentionally used old data. Worse than that: He intentionally used a data point that is explicitly marked as "unpublished" in Luyten's catalog. Had he used confirmed data based on the better observations available at the time he wrote his nonsense the proper motion would have vanished. He didn't use that confirmed, more modern data because doing so would have done away with his crackpot notion.

 

Luyten didn't have the foggiest idea what he was looking at back then. Nobody did. Nobody knew what quasars were, and very few quasars had been tied to optical objects. The huge redshift was viewed as a sign of something being wrong rather than a sign of something new. A tentative explanation of what quasars were would not come for another decade, evidence that this was the right explanation was another decade away, and evidence that this explanation is pervasive is very, very new.

 

So what is the correct explanation? It is that quasars are extremely active galactic nuclei. We now know that supermassive black holes are at the center of many galaxies, including our own. The scientific consensus amongst astronomers and cosmologists is that supermassive black holes lie at the heart of almost all galaxies.

 

 

 

Is BIRETTA also a "crackpot"?

I see that imatfaal has already beat me to the punch here. It would be a good idea for you to read what your sources say before you put words in their mouths. The only thing you are putting in people's mouths is a foot in your own.

 

 

 

[LightHeavyW8]

...and evidence that this explanation is pervasive is very, very new.

Nahhh, Galileo was very familiar with this kind of evidence... The message to any budding astronomers is crystal clear - DON'T ROCK THE BOAT!

 

LHW

[D H]

So, nothing of substance?

 

Time to lose this troll.

[LightHeavyW8]

Had he used confirmed data based on the better observations available at the time he wrote his nonsense the proper motion would have vanished.

Umm, I believe Varshni wanted to have two data points that differed in time, so he used the best sources he had which provided this. I'm sure a current data point would be most helpful. I cannot help but feel that it might be career-ending for a young astronomer to provide this, somehow.

 

LHW

 

It would be a good idea for you to read what your sources say before you put words in their mouths. The only thing you are putting in people's mouths is a foot in your own.<br /><br /><br /><br />

There is Biretta's observation of superluminality, and his conjectural explanation that doesn't "rock the boat". His explanation appears unprovable and unfalsifiable to me, but I would be delighted with a more definitive answer. Peace, y'all!

 

LHW

[insane_alien]

Umm, I believe Varshni wanted to have two data points that differed in time, so he used the best sources he had which provided this. I'm sure a current data point would be most helpful. I cannot help but feel that it might be career-ending for a young astronomer to provide this, somehow.

 

mmm 2 datapoints. if only we could all publish on such a full and complete dataset[/sarcasm]

 

seriously, two datapoints means NOTHING.

 

I have an experiment i'm running at work. I have forty five THOUSAND datapoints so far and i'm waiting on 20000 more before i can safely say whether or not there has been a success or not. (preliminaries look good though, unless the readings take a nose dive and stay there then it should be proof positive)

 

and even this can be considered a scant dataset in some fields. the LHC will gather trillions of datapoints before they say one way or the other on the higgs boson (and even then it might be tentative).

 

relying on 2 isn't good. especially when the data is known to be flawed and seemingly cherry picked.