big bang

[LightHeavyW8]

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

 

I'm sure you have a point, but seriously - WHO is available to record any more data points? Halton Arp is barred from major observatories and EVERYONE ELSE seems to be looking for gravitational lensing (89, count 'em, 89 authors at my last tally)...

 

LHW

[D H]

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.

For effs sake, man, learn to read! What Varshni did is right there in the first sentence of your crackpot site!

 

A careful search through Luyten's (1969) proper motion survey for quasars from the Hewitt and Burbidge (1993) catalog reveals that the bright quasar TON 202 (QSO 1425+267) has a proper motion of 0.053±0.016 arcsec/year.

 

Since you need help reading, let's parse this sentence.

 

 

"A careful search through Luyten's (1969) proper motion survey ..."

 

So what is this "Luyten's 1969 proper motion survey", and who was Luyten? This search at the SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System might help answer those questions:

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/basic_connect?qsearch=Luyten+%22A+Search+for+Faint+Blue+Stars%22&version=1

 

Amongst many of the other things WJ Luyten studied, he had a long-term interest in faint blue stars. There's a good reason for this. Blue stars are very bright in absolute magnitude. Faint blue stars are necessarily very far away -- if the objects are stars. It turns out that quasars are very, very, very far away. They aren't stars. They are something else entirely.

 

However, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself. The full title of Luyten's 1969 catalog is "A search for faint blue stars. L. Proper motions for 951 faint blue stars." Here, along with headers and notes, is the catalog entry 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

-------------------------------------------------------------------
ms     : revised, or new values for proper motions not yet published.

 

Note the columns labeled "RA (1950)" and "Dec". These are the coordinates of this object in mean of 1950 coordinates (an old coordinate system): right ascension 14 h 25.3 m, declination 26° 46'.

 

 

"... for quasars from the Hewitt and Burbidge (1993) catalog reveals that the bright quasar TON 202 (QSO 1425+267) ..."

That QSO 1425+267 designates the right ascension and declination of the quasar: 14 h 25 m, declination 26.7°. Right where Luyten's TN 202 is located.

 

 

"... has a proper motion of 0.053±0.016 arcsec/year."

 

Back to Luyten's catalog. Note the title: "A search for faint blue stars. L. Proper motions for 951 faint blue stars." The columns labeled mualpha and mudelta specify the proper motion as catalogued by Luyten. These are x and y coordinates of the proper motion, in units of milliarcseconds/year. [math]\sqrt{19^2+49^2} \approx 52.6[/math]. Luyten lists the error in each coordinate as 16 milliarcseconds/year. This catalog alone is without a doubt the source of Varshni's 0.053±0.016 arcsec/year value. It is right there in the catalog.

 

Bottom line: Varshni did not do what you said. He obtained the proper motion data directly from Luyten's 1969 catalog.

[LightHeavyW8]

... Bottom line: Varshni did not do what you said. He obtained the proper motion data directly from Luyten's 1969 catalog.

I stand corrected - but does Varshni? Did Luyten record a high proper motion for TON 202 (TN 202 per Luyten 1969), regardless as to whether or not Luyten called it a quasar? Is the location of TON 202 different between Luyten 1969 and H & B 1993 (which identified quasars, not proper motion). Since you appear to be willing and able, would YOU kindly compare the ra and decl between Luyten 1969 and H & B 1993, and show us what proper motion it reveals? Note that Varshni WELCOMED more study on his observations, but his work has been (systematically?) ignored for over 30 years. Some of Varshni's critics may take pleasure in the SYSTEM'S RETRIBUTION for his heresy.

 

 

LHW

Edited January 29, 2011 by LightHeavyW8