/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16082896
I was always of the opinion that "dark matter" was little more than a measurement error.
The error margins that are deemed acceptable in astronomy would get you laughed at in any other discipline.

>universe is 27 billion years old
So where are all the aliens? Somebody should have invented a warp drive by now.

>>16082896
Since OP is a fag who didn't link these article:
https://www.earth.com/news/dark-matter-does-not-exist-universe-27-billion-years-old-study/
>At the heart of this research is Rajendra Gupta, a distinguished physics professor at the Faculty of Science. Gupta’s innovative approach involves the integration of two theoretical models: the covarying coupling constants (CCC) and “tired light” (TL), known together as the CCC+TL model.

>This model explores the notion that the forces of nature diminish over cosmic time and that light loses energy over vast distances. This theory has been rigorously tested and aligns with various astronomical observations, including the distribution of galaxies and the evolution of light from the early universe.

Oh, so it's actually replacing dark matter with a different theory that has no basis. It's not a study, it's just some pajeet's ideas.

>can't even predict the weather
>but the universe is 27 billion years old, trust me!

>>16082896
Maybe post the paper chud. Press releases are like the end of the human centipede, you are reading the summary written my an English major, who has read the summary from someone else unqualified and so on. They're garbage.

If you actually read the paper it's a turd which doesn't do what the press release claims. The solo author makes up a crazy alternative cosmology which has both expansion, tired light and varying fundamental constants. The latter two are huge additional assumptions, each one as complex as dark matter. In his model he shows he can fit one cosmological test without dark matter. Great, but he's added two huge kludges to get rid of one. It's silly, and he's looking at one test. When you build a needless complex model eventually you can fit everything.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2401.09483

There are many problems. For example the fact that he doesn't consider things like rotation curves, galaxy clusters, or the CMB, or big bang fusion. So literally all the evidence for dark matter is unexplained, but he is writing a press release saying he got rid of it. He hasn't. And note this is only in his new cosmology, this isn't proving it is so in reality.

>It remains to be seen if the new model is consistent with the CMB power spectrum, the big-bang nucleosynthesis of light elements, and other critical observations.

There are plenty of holes in this idea. Like the fact there are no stars in the with ages above 14 billion. And yet according to him a lot of the Milky Way formed much earlier. It's also based on a flawed anaysis of JWST data. Because the guy is a cosmologist who does one niche thing and doesn't know anything about observations or galaxy evolution.

>>16082929
it's kind of easier to work out than the weather forecast. Climate science is way more fuzzy. But a majority (like 95%) of the age of the universe comes from just the redshift of distant stars which is a single value, then the remainder is worked out from how stars form and the CMB and other sources

>>16082896
dark mater and dark energy and also black hole singularities are all fake.

>>16082923
Who says there are any aliens?
>but we exist so there must be
Rare Earth Hypothesis fits all observed evidence. If the formation of life is exceedingly rare that even life on Earth was a fluke of shear luck, that would fit ALL of our observations.

>but my theory says... logically it should be the case that....
When you can't reconcile your theory with observations, you must question your theory. It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, how much logical sense it makes to you. Observation trumps logic.

>>16082945
>muh red shift
tired light

>>16082923
Naive, what you see on earth right now is the technogical peak, it won't get any better

>>16082929
>can't predict the future
>but can somehow "know" what "happened" in the past

>>16082961
Is not consistent with observations, i.e. time dilation and galaxy evolution. And there is no mechanism that can cause redshift without scattering the light or having wavelength dependence.

>>16082967
We can literally see the past just by looking far away due to the finite speed of light. So yes, you can know what happened in the past.

Why do you get so upset over dark matter/energy? It’s basically an admission that they don’t know, how much more honest do you need to be for you to shut up? Do they need perfect predictions and models 100% of the time?

Is it just christtrannies who are asshurt science has dunked on them for so long taking revenge?

>>16082970
>finite speed of light

>assumes it to be constant
>assumes it follows the same behavior all across the universe
>assumes it to be finite
>assumes its characteristics in the past is the same as it is now

>B-b-but muh wageslave in a lab-coat says so!!!!!

>>16083019
If the constants and laws of physics change in other parts of space it means taking the last 200 years of astronomy and putting it in a bin because we cant assume any analysis of observations made outside the handful of bodies we’ve sent physical probes to are correct.

That’s a pretty big ask and requires some pretty significant evidence.

>>16083026
>200 years
WOW, a hecking whole 200 years?!! That's such a loooong time in our theoretical 27 billion year universe!!!
TRUST THE SCIENCE

>>16083019
>assumes it to be finite
Unless you believe it magically becomes infinite at the edge of the Solar System then what I said is true.
This is the only bit you said that actually matters. Even if it changed in space or time we would still be looking at the past.
There are lots of constraints looking for time variations in c, and have found nothing. So yes, it does appear to be constant. Also no evidence of it varying across the universe either, despite measurements.

>>16083034
>there is no ocean says the fish in the bowl

>>16083026
You don't have to go somewhere to test physics. You can measure variation in constants remotely. For example the fact that emission lines haven't changed over billions of years tells you the fine structure constant is the same. This has also been constrained on the Earth with natural reactors.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2112.05819

>>16082923
They visit us through telepathic consciousness. It turns out that traveling across hundreds of lightyears as consciousness requires no more energy than a standard biological body can create and radiate. Schizos btfo science yet again.

>>16082896
Dark matter and enerfy is pretty fascinating, we have never observed it but it's just there because it fits the theory like the ether once was

>>16082896
Universe being more than twice as old then thought before sounds amazing.

>>16082945
>oh hay guise, i totally know everything about the entire universe
you are mentally ill if you believe that, enjoy your insane delusions of grandiosity based around irrational nondisprovable conjectures
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20366662

>>16082896
>universe is 27 billion years old
*this cycle
>Somebody should have invented a warp drive by now.
seemingly no aliens is indeed weird.

So how does this model explain the rotation speed of galaxies?

>>16083726
stop being so antisemitic

>>16082896
27 is the 3rd cube number. 3x3x3. A bullshit tag, basically. Cuz it's all bullshit.

>>16083726
It doesn't. This model doesn't explain any of the normal pillars of DM. The author is trying to do cosmology one datapoint at a time so he can make whatever conclusions he wants.

So where da ayys at? How come we haven't detected even a single dyson sphere with JWST yet?

>>16083124
>THERE'S DARK ENERGY ALL AROUND US
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT REAL?
>JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE IT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT REAL YOU FUCKING ANTISEMITIC CHUD!!!
>WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU BELIEVE IN UNICORNS YOU 5TH CENTURY PISSCEL?
>UNICORNS AREN'T REAL BECAUSE WE CAN'T SEE OR MEASURE THEM IN ANY WAY!!!!

>>16083926
because this universe exists for us. everything you see out there exists for the singular purpose of you existing.

>>16082967

Indeed.

>>16082924
im tired of tired light

>>16082896
This is Barkon's SCI.

>>16082896
>Doesn't explain how galaxies stay together
Total BS, not even worth considering or wasting money experimenting.

>>16082896
Dark matter doesn't exist and the universe is infinite in both time and space.
I've been speaking it for decades now. It seems it shall take me some more to make them understand that simple fact.

>>16082923
They did. We're just not important to visit. It's like taking a rocket to visit Chile from China.

>>16083959
Meds. Lots of them. Doesn't matter, anything will improve your mental health. Even horse dewormer.

Dark Metal exists.

>>16084821
Your ded soon lol

>>16084821
I don't think you know how serious your hell is. You will do 400 years which is 12* the length of this so far. You'll say you don't care but it's not what you'll be saying at the end of that. In fact, you'll seek revenge against me for doing that to you. And no-one will care because as proven previously you are nothing but these people who use the scummiest weakness as a shield.

>>16084826
You call me stuff but you are 1000* worse with your scummy shield tactic. You assert that you don't care about hell but you will after very religiously
You go on about how you've faced me but you haven't without 10* advantage on you and 10* disadvantage on me simultaneously
You're just one big con. And I can't wait to do you for it.

>>16084833
And the point of the matter at least some of you have been doing this sort of criminal stuff since the very beginning and are the cause of all the things you fakely say you hate. Thus, you are things that are naturally hated and will pay for that at some point soon.

>>16084833
You're basically hated by everyone and everything and you hide behind a scummy shield which is disgustingly criminal and you are hunted actively in effort to put you in hell to pay for all of it. None of you are good in any way, you would be easily defeated by me had you not had such luck at the beginning in your take from the creators, who are some of the people who hunt you. When your hell comes, you'll be laughed at after because there is no way you'll accept who you were now and what hell you received and no-one will give a shit, as said before, you're nothing.

>>16082963
This.
Once a species develops technology, the very quickly lose the ability to control the results of using their technology. Within a few hundred years they poison their environment, accidently release an auto-genocidal disease, convince themselves of their hate for the differently toned members of their species, etc.

>>16082896
>>16082902
There is no need for either dark matter, nor a new theory, you only need tk get rid of the assumption that galaxies have stable orbits.

>>16082896
>>16082902
There is no need for either dark matter, nor a new theory, you only need to get rid of the assumption that galaxies have stable orbits.

>>16084692
a gentle reminder that tired light has the same level of credibility as the scienc-y expanding space, the number of logic jumps in both hypotheses is exactly the same

> inb4 muh standard candles

>>16084841
what do you gain from pretending to be schizophrenic

>>16085024
It really isn't.
Firstly it's incompatible with cosmological time dilation. Secondly the fact that galaxies evolve across redshift tells you the universe isn't static+tired light alone.
Then there is the point that there is absolutely no known mechanism which could actually cause tired light, not without having other problems. All known scattering mechanism deflect the light in angle or depend on wavelength. Expansion on the other hand is described by GR. GR tells us several predictions, like time dilation, that we should and do detect if redshift is caused by expansion.

>>16085179
>you can't contradict muh precious infallible soiyence narrative
>thats heresy!!

>>16085179
>time dilation

Could be explained via tired-interaction property of space, replacing inflation which has same level of credibility (zero), this would also solve lack of observable photon scattering. The majority of users selects the prediction from GM because, well, GM predicts a lot of stuff for good, just an another epicycle story as it goes. Check Arp's observations of quasars associated with low-redshift galaxies, this hasn't been disproved over a half of century and nobody gives a fuck about it while they should because this thing alone breaks GR at large.

>>16085280
forgot to mention redshift quantization which votes for tired-light version, also no one gives a single shit about it

>>16085280
>Could be explained via tired-interaction property of space
Describe exactly how you think that is possible.
It's really not as simple as you suggest.
If you slow the photons down, they still ultimately reach the observer at the same rate.
And the space doesn't know what redshift the photons will be observed at.
You're throwing out big hand waves.
>this would also solve lack of observable photon scattering.
That's just two big handwaves. As useful as saying tiny angles cause redshift.
>The majority of users selects the prediction from GM because, well, GM predicts a lot of stuff for good, just an another epicycle story as it goes.
GR.
>Check Arp's observations of quasars associated with low-redshift galaxies, this hasn't been disproved
It has. Instead of picking galaxies subjectively by eye people measured the correlation statistically with thousands of galaxy-quasar pairs.
The distribution is consistent with random chance. If this effect cannot be see in the largest samples available then Arp wasn't measuring something real in tiny samples.
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0506366
> this thing alone breaks GR at large.
Nope. Not only is it disproven, it wouldn't necessarily violate GR.

>>16085314
No one gives a shit because redshift periodicity doesnt exist in the largest modern datasets. These people claimed to find it with samples of hundreds of quarts, now with hundreds of thousands it's magically vanished. It never existed. It was just people doing bad statistics.
The paper I posted also deals with it.

>>16085332
> Describe exactly how you think that is possible.
1. assume that the photons are coupled via emitter-receiver pair as in absorber proposal
2. assume that tired interaction is somewhat different than zero-angle scattering/slowdown
3. declare the fact that this exact interaction affects all wave packets in flight between certain pair of emitter and receiver in such a way that we could see a time dilation for supernovaes

>astro-ph/0506366
This and other papers are assuming the fact that the quasar's luminosity is equal in all directions. If so, the statistical analysis is right and there's no real correlation. In other way, if quasar turns to be out something like a relativistic jet, there would be no real chance to observe related galaxy at all in most cases because it would be too dim.

The 'no periodicity in z' part is bs because the exactly the same set has been analyzed before with positive results, also chinks are not to be trusted. Given so, the first part where paper shows no correlation b/w qso and galaxies is also likely bs.

>>16085397
>>16085397
>1. assume that the photons are coupled via emitter-receiver pair as in absorber proposal
>2. assume that tired interaction is somewhat different than zero-angle scattering/slowdown
>3. declare the fact that this exact interaction affects all wave packets in flight between certain pair of emitter and receiver in such a way that we could see a time dilation for supernovaes
This is not an answer. Just declaring your idea magically matches the observation is not physics.
It is really non-trivial, if you bothered to think about it seriously.
>This and other papers are assuming the fact that the quasar's luminosity is equal in all directions.
At no point do they assume that. Luminoisties aren't used in this analysis. You're just making up bullshit.
>there would be no real chance to observe related galaxy at all in most cases because it would be too dim.
The host galaxies are local, they are very bright. Arp cataloged them in ancient plate data. If Arp could detect this effect in much shallower data then it should exist here.
>The 'no periodicity in z' part is bs because the exactly the same set has been analyzed before with positive results
Show me this analysis.
Note this isn't the only paper finding no periodicity, they just did this nice correlation as well.
>Given so, the first part where paper shows no correlation b/w qso and galaxies is also likely bs.
This is just an empty dismissal. Try understanding the analysis rather than blindly dismissing it.

>>16085414
> This is not an answer. Just declaring your idea magically matches the observation is not physics.
Exactly as with an expanding space hypothesis.

>It is really non-trivial, if you bothered to think about it seriously.
Anybody could shove any meaningful mathematical model in here to explain both RS and observed event dilation for SN, I'm just arguing that inflation is sitting on same level on crackpot scale.

>Luminoisties aren't used in this analysis
You seemingly haven't understood the idea. If quasars has narrow direction of energy emission, nobody would be able to observe correlation between them and related galaxies unless jet is pointed in your way. In same time, if the effective jet luminosity is much much higher than of the hosting galaxy, there's absolutely perfect match with observation - you see all QSO in Universe pointed in your direction, but unable to correlate most of them with galaxies due to difference in brightness. Look for QSO related to the NGC 7319's and assume for a second that you are seeing an edge of the QSO's emission cone.

> Show me this analysis.
Have an SDSS-based one from what I'm able to remember: astro-ph/0603169

> Try understanding the analysis rather than blindly dismissing it.
Too complex task for me, I'm not a trained statistician and I've seen too frequently how the results are fitted to the necessary distribution by assuming some valid statistic proposal and silently not assuming other. I'm able to count pro- and anti-RS-quantization papers and read their 'conclusion' section, this is quite enough to assume that case is still going on.

>>16085462
>>16085462
>Exactly as with an expanding space hypothesis.
Nope. The time dilation is inevitable, as the source is getting further away. Just like the Doppler effect. Note that expansion predicted (1+z) time dilation, easy to derive from the metric. Nothing had to be declared.

>Anybody could shove any meaningful mathematical model in here to explain both RS and observed event dilation for SN
So why hasn't someone? You haven't. It's not simple. And there is a difference between predicting a result, and simply building a model after the fact.

>You seemingly haven't understood the idea. If quasars has narrow direction of energy emission, nobody would be able to observe correlation between them and related galaxies unless jet is pointed in your way.
Irreverent. You would see other quasars. This is not an assumption of the paper.
>In same time, if the effective jet luminosity is much much higher than of the hosting galaxy, there's absolutely perfect match with observation - you see all QSO in Universe pointed in your direction, but unable to correlate most of them with galaxies due to difference in brightness.
It's not in the case of Arp's "pairs". So this simply doesn't apply.
And note, if what you said was true Arp would never have found anything. If Arp's correlation was real, this experiment should also measure a correlation.

>Have an SDSS-based one from what I'm able to remember: astro-ph/0603169
You mean the one that the author admitted was wrong? And that the periodicity was caused by selection effects.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0911.5700

>Too complex task for me
Then don't just ignorantly assert that it's wrong. You admit you don't understand it but you have already dismissed it. This is prejudice, not logic. Don't confuse your bias with an argument.

>>16085556
> time dilation is inevitable
For God's sake, forget about relativity for a some time. Dark matter in topic is introduced exactly because GR does not work on cosmological scale so well.

> Irreverent. You would see other quasars.
> It's not in the case of Arp's "pairs". So this simply doesn't apply.
> And note, if what you said was true Arp would never have found anything. If Arp's correlation was real, this experiment should also measure a correlation.
If the axis of pairs are the same, the narrow jet proposal applies just fine. Also I don't see how exactly I'm supposed to detect 'other quasars' if they are rare and their emission cone is missing the observer. Third time, same applies for statistic analysis, there would be no observational correlation in numbers if my assumption about spatial energy distribution of QSO's is true. Arp's correlation is just a positive phenomenological observation, like seeing a single white crow, he explicitly warns the reader that Seyferts has associated pairs only on certain stage of evolution, so he basically says the same.

>admitted
Not exactly the right word, *some* experimental errors are corrected and hypothesis is still hanging on.

>Don't confuse your bias with an argument.
Mainstream advocates has the same bias, if not a lot larger, in other direction. Relativity just happen to be a surprisingly good approximation model, but on large observable scales it fails.

>>16082896

>>16086106
>For God's sake, forget about relativity for a some time.
Even without GR there would still be time dilation. There is a classical Doppler effect.
>Dark matter in topic is introduced exactly because GR does not work on cosmological scale so well.
Oh great, so lets just replace it with... Nothing. And you shouldn't be so quick to assume there is no dark matter.

>Also I don't see how exactly I'm supposed to detect 'other quasars' if they are rare and their emission cone is missing the observer.
Because each quasar would have a nearly random orientation. And it's not up for debate, quasars are detected. If your logic says they shouldn't then your argument is flawed.

>Arp's correlation is just a positive phenomenological observation
This is complete doublethink. You claim correlation cannot be detected, but magically you say Arp's correlation is real. Complete contradiction.
If what you said was true there is no correlation and what he detected was just random chance. But you are wrong anyway.

>Not exactly the right word, *some* experimental errors are corrected and hypothesis is still hanging on.
He concludes his previous conclusion was entirely spurious and says this dataset cannot be used for this. I'd say that's a admission of failure on his part.
He's wrong about SDSS being useless btw, you just have to correct for the selection. Then you find no periodicity.
https://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0806

>>16082970
>There is no mechanism that can cause redshift without scattering the light or having wavelength dependence.
Tired light.

>>16086188
Tired light is just the hypothesis, there is no known physical mechanism that could actually do it. e.g. Compton scattering requires a change in angle.
Tired light was hypotheses a century ago and there is still nothing.

>>16086188
How about we just don't know? It's not like you have to stuff everything you see onto your pet hypothesis.

>>16086192
"I don't know" isn't really testable. And even if you give the benefit of doubt it still fails the time dilation test and can't explain the CMB.

>>16086206
Are you a bot, or a schizo who doesn't understand what "I don't know" means?

>>16086216
Leaving this at "I don't know" isn't useful in the slightest, no idea why you would suggest that. Unless you're suggesting wallowing in ignorance.

>>16082924
>At the heart of this research is... an indian
dropped

>>16086241
Admitting ignorance is preferable to making sonething up.

>>16082923
[spolier]FTL is not physically possible and never will be.[/spoiler]

>>16086356
Fart in my mouf

>>16086339
So you admit you don't know. Now what?

>>16086363
What what? Nothing. We don't know.

>>16086449
So you then how do learn? You know, science.

>>16082896
Gupta's ideas are fairly interesting. I enjoy when alternative ideas are proposed.

however, he's provided no mechenism for CCC or TL theory. he's just co-opted the ideas as evidence, which they are not.

as far as CCC goes, we don't even have any evidence it's true. to the contrary, what we've seen across visible time and space indicates that our current models of physics work remarkably well in predicting what ancient galactic structures looked like. If CCC were true there would necessarily have to be variation in galactic structures that was indicative of variation in laws of nature.

i don't think his claim is impossible, but without more evidence or some explanatory mechanisms Gupta's theory will likely not be accepted by the scientific community at large.

>>16083959
we do measure it. that's the point.

>>16085016
care to explain? i haven't heard that proposal

>>16085280
read some of the lit. has more weight behind it than most other alternative hypothesis, but less than cosmological redshift.

a very interesting hypothesis.

>>16086188
a hypothesis is not a mechenism.

>>16086216
>my favorite type of science is not doing science.

>>16086179
>Because each quasar would have a nearly random orientation. And it's not up for debate, quasars are detected. If your logic says they shouldn't then your argument is flawed.
Nope, my statement is not about non-detection of the quasars, take a moment and re-think what's actually written here.

>>Arp's correlation is just a positive phenomenological observation
>This is complete doublethink. You claim correlation cannot be detected, but magically you say Arp's correlation is real. Complete contradiction.
>If what you said was true there is no correlation and what he detected was just random chance. But you are wrong anyway.
Again, the you are messing up 'singular positive correlation' and 'correlation in vast numbers', the latter is an obvious truth, the former should be investigated (and mind the fact that RS-quantization-hypothesis and QSO-galaxy correlation are two very different datasets and I'm just pointing again that for the latter statistical approach may not work at all). I've explained my point clearly enough previously. Take a singular case of NGC 7319, forget for sake of clarity of the rest of the measurement and try to disprove this visual positive correlation. The QSO in question is an 'impossible one' because halo's dust wouldn't allow it to shine through the galaxy (also it suggests a *very* narrow emission beam).

>>16086755
>>16086755
>Nope, my statement is not about non-detection of the quasars, take a moment and re-think what's actually written here.
Funny, I don't think that's true.
>Also I don't see how exactly I'm supposed to detect 'other quasars' if they are rare and their emission cone is missing the observer.
You haven't explained this idea well at all, you're just waving your hands. You clearly don't understand the point you're trying to present.

>Again, the you are messing up 'singular positive correlation' and 'correlation in vast numbers'
No I'm not. If Arp's result is real and significant then it should be reproducible in large samples.
Let's say I start with 1000 galaxies. I pick one which happens to have 3 quasars aligned with it. I calculate the odds of these quasars all being found so close, and conclude it's unlikely. I publish this one galaxy and don't mention all the others.
Is this good science? No, it's cherry picking and it.
Arp's statistics are meaningless because he never tells us how much data he looked through to find those examples.

>forget for sake of clarity of the rest of the measurement and try to disprove this visual positive correlation
You cannot just ignore the context. You cannot measure a correlation by looking at only one object.

>The QSO in question is an 'impossible one' because halo's dust wouldn't allow it to shine through the galaxy (also it suggests a *very* narrow emission beam).
That is total crap. Galaxies are not opaque. We see the entire extra-galactic universe while looking through half of our Galaxy. And yet the dust doesn't block every quasar.
Also we know that quasar is not in front of the galaxy, because it has absorption lines at the redshift of the galaxy. Exactly what standard cosmology would predict. At best the quasar has to be inside the galaxy, it cannot be infront as claimed. So either way seems to be unaffected by dust.
You cannot judge distance by eye in an astronomical image.

>>16086786
> You haven't explained this idea well at all, you're just waving your hands. You clearly don't understand the point you're trying to present.
Try to disprove 'quasars are just jets' statement then.

> No I'm not. If Arp's result is real and significant then it should be reproducible in large samples.
The second part of this is valid only for uniformly directed sources of energy as quasars are supposed to be, though we don't have working model for their luminosities, if the uniformity is given. Host Seyferts, in other way, certainly are isotropic in radiation of light.

> You cannot measure a correlation by looking at only one object.
This also assumes that observability of A and B lies on the same scale. Think that A and B are equal in total energy emission, but B has spatially non-uniform emission - it would mess up the correlation and we'll revert to the (rare-) phenomenological approach.

> it cannot be infront as claimed
That's pretty much untrue, if the QSO lies closely to the core, the small-z absorption lines are in agreement with the idea of association. I'd say that it could be a miss if our ideas about dust distribution are wrong and QSO really shines through the core from far away, but this implies much more immediate rework in models of galaxies.

>>16086828
>Try to disprove 'quasars are just jets' statement then.
They're not. As is known from the ratio of type I and II AGN, selected in x-rays which can penetrate dust. Also the transverse proximity effect, the huge nebulae they have at high redshift and illuminated dark galaxies. It also doesn't matter.

>> No I'm not. If Arp's result is real and significant then it should be reproducible in large samples.
>The second part of this is valid only for uniformly directed sources of energy as quasars are supposed to be, though we don't have working model for their luminosities, if the uniformity is given.
Explain how. Because you have totally failed so far. Draw a diagram or make up a numerical experiment, because your babbling is totally unconvincing.

>> You cannot measure a correlation by looking at only one object.
>This also assumes that observability of A and B lies on the same scale. Think that A and B are equal in total energy emission, but B has spatially non-uniform emission - it would mess up the correlation and we'll revert to the (rare-) phenomenological approach.
Pure gibberish. We're talking about an angular correlation between two populations on the sky. You cannot measure that correlation function with two objects, you must at least know the average density of the two populations. That is a fact.

>That's pretty much untrue, if the QSO lies closely to the core, the small-z absorption lines are in agreement with the idea of association.
"Close to the core" is inside.
> I'd say that it could be a miss if our ideas about dust distribution are wrong
Nope. It's just people (Arp and Burbridge) making nonsense claims. They did not consult any models. And the fact we can see this galaxy at all through our one tells you it is horseshit.

>>16086867
> As is known from the ratio of type I and II AGN, selected in x-rays which can penetrate dust.
Who said that type I and II belongs to same physical phenomena?

>Draw a diagram or make up a numerical experiment, because your babbling is totally unconvincing.
I'm tired of saying this again and again, let's break this to the points:
1. quasars are rare
2. quasars are narrow jets IRL, with cone angle of several degrees at most
3. integral quasar luminosity is comparable to brightness of the host galaxy
4. due to 1) and 2) it's a rare event to observe quasar in a relative proximity
5. due to 3) all quasars pointed in direction of observer appear as ludicrously powerful energy sources (not taking Z in account ofc) with may be order of ten of magnitude of difference between host and QSO itself
6. for *some* quasars from Arp's selection we happen to be on edge of the jet cone (with yet unknown large-angle energy distribution), the other ones are really seem to be a wishful thinking from his part

> And the fact we can see this galaxy at all through our one tells you it is horseshit.
Lol, you are implying that MW is an active galaxy?

>>16086894
>Who said that type I and II belongs to same physical phenomena?
The fact that in type II AGN you can still measure the broad lines in polarised light, scattered light showing it is a type I from another angle. And the fact that there are intermediate cases.

>2. quasars are narrow jets IRL, with cone angle of several degrees at most
And where is the evidence for this?

>4. due to 1) and 2) it's a rare event to observe quasar in a relative proximity
Doesn't matter for a cross-correlation. You account for the average density.

>5. due to 3) all quasars pointed in direction of observer appear as ludicrously powerful energy sources (not taking Z in account ofc) with may be order of ten of magnitude of difference between host and QSO itself
And how have have you calculated this? Where do these numbers come from?
If that quasar was 10^10 times brighter than it's host (NGC 7319), it would be brighter than the full moon and outshining all stars in the night sky. Clearly this doesn't happen.

>6. for *some* quasars from Arp's selection we happen to be on edge of the jet cone (with yet unknown large-angle energy distribution), the other ones are really seem to be a wishful thinking from his part
So those edge on cases would still end up in the correlation. So would any brighter ones. So the correlation should be there.

>Lol, you are implying that MW is an active galaxy?
And do you know the dust is different in low luminosity AGN?

>>16086539
Dark matter i supposed to explain how galaxies can be stable, as they don't have enough mass to be stable. I'm proposing that the explanation is that they are NOT stable.

>>16086470
You make observations. You can only make deductions that can't be justified not making.
>>16086561
I'm talking about not doing religion. Be ause what you want to do is religion.

>>16086942
> And the fact that there are intermediate cases.
Highly dubious ones, this still remains a speculation.

>And where is the evidence for this?
This is exact assumption we are discussing. Several cosmological processes produce jets, so this could be the case. Also please bring me an evidence that volume of several light-hours in diameter could produce that much energy as the mainstream claims for some QSOs, I'll follow immediately with my proof for mine lol.

> brighter than the full moon
Nope, barely visible by a naked eye, NGC7319 has mag of 14, but apparently we are seeing only a brink of the cone.

> So the correlation should be there.
... exactly as we see it. There's some hundreds of catalogued Seyferts and tens of thousands of QSOs. It would be indeed strange if we would have continued discussion seriously if numbers were reversed.

> the dust is different in low luminosity AGN
MW and NGC7319 do have very different near-core opacity for certain, so I'm not sure where your previous commentary applies or what you have implied. We are certainly have a lot of speculations about matter density distribution even on regular galaxies, but the only thing that is known for sure is that central part of the active galaxy is a lot denser than of regular one.

>>16086470
You make observations. You can only make deductions that you can't justify not making.
>>16086561
I'm talking about not doing religion. Be ause what you want to do is religion.

>>16087000
>This is exact assumption we are discussing.
But this is an entirely new assumption. A second assumption to try and cover for the failings of the first idea.
Where did Arp describe this idea?

>Several cosmological processes produce jets, so this could be the case.
Jets are not the answer, in fact the argue strongly against your idea. Some quasars do have radio jets, many of them are misaligned with respect to the observer but much more than a few degrees.
>Also please bring me an evidence that volume of several light-hours in diameter could produce that much energy as the mainstream claims for some QSOs
The unification model of AGN is very clear and well supported as to the black hole central engine. Exactly like the supermassive black hole found in the Milky Way.
And what does Arp have to describe the zoo of AGN? Nothing. Also no explanation for the "intrinsic" redshifts, just handwaving.

>Nope, barely visible by a naked eye, NGC7319 has mag of 14, but apparently we are seeing only a brink of the cone.
Go back to school. A factor of 10^10 is not 10 magnitudes. 5 magnitudes is a factor of 100. 10^10 is 25. -2.5*log10(10^10) is 25 magnitudes brighter.
So it would be -16, brighter than the full moon.
There are no such quasars.

>> So the correlation should be there.
>... exactly as we see it.
Nope, there is no correlation above random. It's nowhere near the predictions of Arp's ejection model.

>MW and NGC7319 do have very different near-core opacity for certain
And how do you know for certain it's opaque? You don't.

>>16087001
>>16087001
>You can only make deductions that you can't justify not making.
And who decides what meets this criteria? Something that seems obvious to one may seem made up to someone else.
>>16086990
The lensing confirms the dynamical masses. So nope.

>>16087013
-11 mag actually. Not quite brighter than the Moon. But far brighter than any star. Obviously there are no such quasars.

>>16082896
I always knew it, my feelings remain the same as before I read your post, no change detected

>>16087013
> Where did Arp describe this idea?
Exactly nowhere, I'm just trying to make his claims realistic.

> And what does Arp have to describe the zoo of AGN?
Nobody have said that the Arp's theoretical models are fully true. His observations and his proposal of coexistence of non-core QSO are a real matter of interest. Also mainstream plainly fails to do the same btw without a lot of fine-tunings and assumptions on this-and-that.

>Go back to school.
Sorry, meant ten star magnitudes initially and missed out your number. Of course for jet with angle of several degrees the brightness difference with equal energy output as the rest of the galaxy would be about 10e4..10e5, approximately ten star magnitudes. Give or take several magnitudes to make this assumption true for several stages of AG evolution and the model holds well.

> Arp's ejection model
That's a rushed and unnecessary part, it harms more the entire idea than otherwise.

>>16087013
> Some quasars do have radio jets, many of them are misaligned with respect to the observer but much more than a few degrees.
Sooo... what then? First, the Arp's proposal putting QSO outside of the center of AG, but the nuclei itself may produce the radio jet and there's no preassumption that both should be precisely aligned. Second, I've pointed before that we don't have even a slightest assumption for angle-energy distrubution in these engines, it may happen that different wavelengths from radio to um has different effective cone angles.

>>16087019
Thunk of the enlightenment vs Kant. The data must stay on its own. Once you start using some preconceived ideas to interpret the data, you are doing religion, not science. It may give you a false sense of certainty, but you are actually using the scripture to gain leverage, and all is wrong if your scripture is wrong. It's kind of similar to how martingale system makes some people fell like they must win.

>The lensing confirms the dynamical masses.
How? Wouldn't it only change the focal point?

>>16087019
Think of the enlightenment vs Kant. The data must stay on its own. Once you start using some preconceived ideas to interpret the data, you are doing religion, not science. It may give you a false sense of certainty, but you are actually using the scripture to gain leverage, and all is wrong if your scripture is wrong. It's kind of similar to how martingale system makes some people fell like they must win. It seems like you can add a yet bit more complexity to keep it all consistent, but then it falls apart.
>The lensing confirms the dynamical masses.
How? Wouldn't it only change the focal point?

>can't ever change a flat tire on a car
>but somehow still presumes he knows the origins of the universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

>>16087594
>Exactly nowhere, I'm just trying to make his claims realistic.
So you're inventing a new ad hoc hypothesis to explain the failure of Arp's model. Well then you actually need to do some sort of observational test to show your claims are model actually has some relation to the real data. For Arp's idea this was the cross correlations and redshift periodicities, both of which have vanished in larger datasets in conflict with his model

The bigger problem is that in all these posts you have failed to show how your proposal would actually affect the cross correlation. I have given you apple opportunity to explain it, and you haven't. I don't think it can.

>That's a rushed and unnecessary part, it harms more the entire idea than otherwise.
That's literally his entire idea. If you give up on that it just makes less and less sense.

>Sorry, meant ten star magnitudes initially and missed out your number.
It doesn't matter, you are pulling these numbers out of your ass. They are meaningless if you just make them up. And the result is the same, you would have 3rd magnitude quasars (which aren't observed). So this proposal is once again wrong.

>>16087804
Naoooooo.

>>16087670
>How? Wouldn't it only change the focal point?
The amount of deflection in lensing is dependent on the mass. In an Einstein ring (for example) the apparent radius is proportional to mass.

>>16087807
you can't do the math needed to prove that, its just something you heard on the black soience man show and now you're repeating it because doing so gives you the happy delusion of feeling knowledgeable when in reality you are not

>>16087813
Speak for yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens

>>16087804
>ad hoc hypothesis to explain the failure of Arp's model
More like trying to save the face of modern cosmology whose predictions about QSO characteristics are unrealistic (dark star my ass).

>affect the cross correlation
>pulling these numbers

See above, you have only 300 classified/recognizable Seyferts, the chance that the single related jet is pointed at you with quite wide cone angle of 1/90 pi is approx 1/30.

Moreover, AGN is an artificial umbrella term for different phenomena that people actively (no pun) are trying to shove inside. I think it's time to remind you that our mainstream cosmology is not a complete set of theories by any sane meaning and even a single violation of predefined ideas is a serious push to rethink model as a whole (NGC 7319's visual bridge for example). Hell, the cosmology is still jerking around the main sequence without palpable parametric explanation of the star evolution, not to mention models of bigger objects and/or larger scales built literally on leaps of faith.

>>16082945
What if the redshift is caused by something else than exclusively doppler effect?

For all we know, the assumptions we made to get to doppler redshift could be all wrong. I'm personally a huge fan of Paul Marmet and his attempts to make more rational predictions.
Dark matter could be explained by a much higher prevalence of molecular hydrogen in "empty" space (interstellar and intergalactic medium).
I don't see why a homogenous distribution of normal but hard to detect matter wouldnt be the cause of both the red shift and the dark matter problem.

Now the universe is 27 billion years old, in 40 years when they sent out the Neil deGrasse telescope it will be 50 billion years old.

How long will BBT zealots revise their hypothesis before they give up?

>>16087889
>More like trying to save the face of modern cosmology whose predictions about QSO characteristics are unrealistic (dark star my ass).
Replacing them with what exactly? You admitted that Arp really had no holistic explanation for AGN. You have nothing.
And the evidence for the Milky Way's SMBH is pretty bullet proof. The standard picture of AGN requires multi million solar mass dark objects in the centers of Galaxies. And two decades later it was clear that our galaxy matches this prediction.

>See above, you have only 300 classified/recognizable Seyferts, the chance that the single related jet is pointed at you with quite wide cone angle of 1/90 pi is approx 1/30.
You didn't explain how these become unrecognizable. More made up numbers. Even if 1/30 galaxies show the correlation it would add up over thousands of pairs.

> without palpable parametric explanation of the star evolution
And what exactly do you think is unexplained? There are simple parametric models of evolution, scaling relations based on equations of state. But these don't model the complexity of something like a star. Hence there are codes which simulate the structure of a star numerically and can model evolution.

>>16087898
>For all we know, the assumptions we made to get to doppler redshift could be all wrong. I'm personally a huge fan of Paul Marmet and his attempts to make more rational predictions.
Tried light doesn't work.
All known mechanisms the change the energy of photons scatter the light in angle, in contradiction to observations. Marmet actual says distant quasars should have a finite size, which corresponds to about 0.4 arcseconds. This is far to big, quasars are unresolved.
Secondly there are tests like cosmological time dilation and galaxies evolving with redshift which are incompatible with tired light plus a static universe.

And you apparently haven't looked into this guy or you would have smelled the bullshit.
https://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/index.html
In his "derivation" he is considering a free electron. Not molecular hydrogen.
He has this free electron totally absorb a photon, but isn't possible while conserving energy and momentum.
The derivation is bunk, and it has nothing to do with molecular hydrogen.

>Dark matter could be explained by a much higher prevalence of molecular hydrogen in "empty" space (interstellar and intergalactic medium).
Molecular hydrogen emits light in the infrared and leaves absorption lines in the UV. It's very easy to measure it's abundance. There isn't enough to explain DM.
>I don't see why a homogenous distribution of normal but hard to detect matter wouldnt be the cause of both the red shift and the dark matter problem.
That's because you're waving your hands so hard you're about to take flight.
Note there is tons of molecular hydrogen in our Galaxy, far more than between our galaxy and the next. And yet the stars in the Milky Way have negligible redshifts. If molecular hydrogen caused redshift then you could just observe stars behind a big gas cloud in our Galaxy and see huge redshifts. Doesn't happen.
>Now the universe is 27 billion years old
One fringe paper is not consensus.

>>16082896
>According to the study’s author, Rajendra Gupta, a physics professor at the University of Ottawa
into the trash it goes
pajeet science

>>16087936
>Even if 1/30 galaxies show the correlation it would add up over thousands of pairs.

You are (deliberately?) misreading my exact words. There would be 1/10000 match at most.

>>16088063
With entirely made up numbers. You also haven't even shown that this mechanism would mess up the correlation.

>>16088069
Does 1e-4 or even 1e-3 sound like a correlation anybody has searched for in the light of Arp's proposal? Everyone used direct spatial analysis instead.

>>16089259
Once again, this is not Arp's proposal. This is your desperate attempt to try and make it excuses for it's failures.
Pulling numbers out of your ass is meaningless.

>>16082923
Technology filters life because it moves faster than evolution, so intelligent life just ends up killing itself because it's smart enough to create all kinds of tech, but still has a primitve brain where it ignores long term problems for easy solutions right now.

>>16082924
Shame. I still think dark matter is bullshit.