Real Science Friday: A Horse is a Horse Of Course

[GuySmiley]

Nope. Even for the very closest ones, this is not true.

http://jersey.uoregon.edu/~dmason/gregsclass/blobs.gif

galaxies are in clusters, not concentric rings. Certainly not around the Earth.


Nope. At least none I ever read about. Can you show us someone who disputes the data to which I just linked?

Look at the link I gave Jukia and you can look up the studies.

And that is definitely a picture of blobs, can't argue with that. Some explanation to go with it would be nice though. For all we can tell from that picture, its a snapshot of his lava-lamp.

 

[GuySmiley]

Interesting wiki about the hypothesis that started all this, troublemaker! :chuckle:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization

 

[rainee]

And rainee, science can only talk about what's in the loaf. (if the loaf is an analogy for the universe) What's outside the loaf is beyond the reach of science, and as you know, there are perfectly good ways to learn about that, even if science can't do it.

Ok, my friend, I love that! HUG!

But just because someone like Richard Dawkins is restricted on what he is able to talk about scientifically - why is this disability used as if it is some kind of "evidence" that there is no reason to go one step further and suspect there is God? Who could answer that.
For in science, we do not know where the loaf is, or where its basic elements came from according to what you have said...

(Have a good one, Barbarian, taken any more great pictures lately?)

Sorry All and HI to YOU

( I Cannot PM yet, sigh, and I have felt an attachment to that Barbarian for a long time. Plz excuse)

 

[The Barbarian]

From Guy's source:
After Tifft made his proposal, discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology.[21] Nevertheless, it was nearly 20 years before other researchers tried to corroborate his findings. After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects. Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies. As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.

Did you actually read it, Guy?

 

[The Barbarian]

Ok, my friend, I love that! HUG!

But just because someone like Richard Dawkins is restricted on what he is able to talk about scientifically - why is this disability used as if it is some kind of "evidence" that there is no reason to go one step further and suspect there is God?

That's not what science says about it. Science just says that it can't say anything about that. Doesn't say there's no reason to seek God.

Who could answer that.
For in science, we do not know where the loaf is, or where its basic elements came from according to what you have said...

Science can't answer that. Fortunately, there are other ways to do it.

(Have a good one, Barbarian, taken any more great pictures lately?)

I kinda like these...

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2682/4351619466_9ebe6b1628_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4040/4400545426_a4f54aa38d_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4009/4432129759_968ee08ebf_b.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4037/4446625731_6e9f69aff8_b.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3493/3891870026_d0576bec44_b.jpg

( I Cannot PM yet, sigh, and I have felt an attachment to that Barbarian for a long time. Plz excuse)

Tonight, I'll drop you a PM. Enjoyed your comments, as always.

 

[GuySmiley]

From Guy's source:
After Tifft made his proposal, discussion of it was generally confined to detractors of standard cosmology.[21] Nevertheless, it was nearly 20 years before other researchers tried to corroborate his findings. After a brief flurry of interest, the consensus in the astronomical community became that any quantization was either coincidental or due to so-called geometrical effects. Current observations and models of large-scale structure models trace filamentary superclusters and voids that cause most galaxies in a rough statistical sense to have correlated positions, but such groupings would not allow for a strength of periodicity required if it were a hallmark characteristic of the redshifts of galaxies. As such with exceedingly few exceptions, modern cosmology researchers have suggested that redshift quantizations are manifestations of well-understood phenomena, or not present at all.

Did you actually read it, Guy?

Yes I read it you dork. :chuckle: Its not my hypothesis, Im just pointing out what Enyart was talking about, since you criticized it without having a clue what he was talking about. Call Tifft and tell him that other people criticize his hypothesis.

 

[Stripe]

Isn't Barbarian's sock puppet so much nicer than Barbarian?

 

[The Barbarian]

Yes I read it you dork.

I'm above average, but do you have any idea how big a dork is? Actually, I'm wondering if you even know what a dork is.

Its not my hypothesis, Im just pointing out what Enyart was talking about, since you criticized it without having a clue what he was talking about.

So your argument is that a discredited theory fits the Bible? You can see from the actual data I provided that there are no "concentric shells." And astronomers don't see any evidence for any of them, farther out. In fact, if you pick another galaxy, the redshifts will be pretty much what you see from our vantage point.

 

[The Barbarian]

Isn't Barbarian's sock puppet so much nicer than Barbarian?

Rainee, Stipe thinks you're a figment of my imagination.

 

[Stripe]

Rainee, Stipe thinks you're a figment of my imagination.

You have an imagination!?! :noway:

 

[GuySmiley]

I'm above average, but do you have any idea how big a dork is? Actually, I'm wondering if you even know what a dork is.

Yes I know what a dork is. Do you know how it is used in modern society? It isn't the technical definition. Lots of words are used that way. Just so you know, "gay" doesn't mean happy these days. I can share more of them if you are interested.

So your argument is that a discredited theory fits the Bible? You can see from the actual data I provided that there are no "concentric shells." And astronomers don't see any evidence for any of them, farther out. In fact, if you pick another galaxy, the redshifts will be pretty much what you see from our vantage point.

So a quote on wiki makes it discredited? :chuckle: And a picture of someone's lava lamp with labels you can't even read is "data" You should be a comedian.

Here's another secret, this isn't my argument. Maybe it is discredited, maybe not. I don't know. But I'm not going to get all excited about a statement on wiki.

EDIT: Just for fun I found a bunch of websites saying it is discredited from reliable sources like yahoo answers and another one from the same guy who wrote the wiki article. What happened to peer review here? Tifft and several other studies confirming his results passed peer review.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
I'm above average, but do you have any idea how big a dork is? Actually, I'm wondering if you even know what a dork is.

Guy displays his Google skills:

Yes I know what a dork is. Do you know how it is used in modern society? It isn't the technical definition.

There isn't a "technical definition." It's slang.

Barbarian observes:
So your argument is that a discredited theory fits the Bible? You can see from the actual data I provided that there are no "concentric shells." And astronomers don't see any evidence for any of them, farther out. In fact, if you pick another galaxy, the redshifts will be pretty much what you see from our vantage point.

So a quote on wiki makes it discredited?

No, the data make it discredited. As you saw, even the closest galaxy clusters don't form concentric circles around the Earth.

And a picture of someone's lava lamp with labels you can't even read is "data"

That's what the data show. Turns out that the actual distribution of galaxies around ours looks more like two bears fighting, than "concentric circles." Reality counts.

Even if you really, really want to believe something else.

You should be a comedian.

I was. But not a very good one. Turns out, I was a much better scientist.

Here's another secret, this isn't my argument.

So you're touting it here, because...?

Just for fun I found a bunch of websites saying it is discredited from reliable sources like yahoo answers and another one from the same guy who wrote the wiki article. What happened to peer review here? Tifft and several other studies confirming his results passed peer review.

You got tripped up by history. A lot of things pass peer review, and subsequent data show that they weren't right after all. Large-scale surveys of galactic clustering show no sign of concentric circles. Here's another discussion, with a diagram of the ways Galaxies cluster:


Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains about 100 billion stars and belongs to a cluster of similar galaxies we call the Local Group. The Local Group is an outlying part of a huge cluster of galactic groups called the Virgo Supercluster. On a larger scale still, the universe seems to consist of billions of superclusters strung out through space in huge filaments, with immense voids between them as depicted in Figure 33.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/1306/M150_1_033i.jpg
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=187502

 

[rainee]

Rainee, Stipe thinks you're a figment of my imagination.

Master:
Chatbot unable to define sock puppet or figment of imagination.
Please download more software.

Will continue autonomous simulation till specified to stop.

 

[The Barbarian]

You're not helping.

 

[Stripe]

:rotfl:

 

[rainee]

You're not helping.

Apologies, master.

Bot identified as: Helpful Hannah is elsewhere.

this is rainee.

 

[GuySmiley]

Barbarian observes:
So your argument is that a discredited theory fits the Bible? You can see from the actual data I provided that there are no "concentric shells." And astronomers don't see any evidence for any of them, farther out. In fact, if you pick another galaxy, the redshifts will be pretty much what you see from our vantage point.

You are clueless.

No, the data make it discredited. As you saw, even the closest galaxy clusters don't form concentric circles around the Earth.

You don't understand english. Is english your first language? I can get you help if you need.

That's what the data show. Turns out that the actual distribution of galaxies around ours looks more like two bears fighting, than "concentric circles." Reality counts.

Even if you really, really want to believe something else.

It like I'm talking and you are deaf. Words mean things. Pay attention.

I was. But not a very good one. Turns out, I was a much better scientist.

I think scientists cringe when they see you say this.

So you're touting it here, because...?

Pay attention to what I actually say. If you could answer this question for yourself, you'd be someone worthwhile to discuss things with. But those people are rare.

You got tripped up by history. A lot of things pass peer review, and subsequent data show that they weren't right after all.

No, pay attention. Who got tripped up by history? Answer that honestly and things will be more clear to you. I actually don't think you are capable however. You are like an anti-creationist robot, designed to argue regardless of wether an argument exists.

Large-scale surveys of galactic clustering show no sign of concentric circles. Here's another discussion, with a diagram of the ways Galaxies cluster:

Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains about 100 billion stars and belongs to a cluster of similar galaxies we call the Local Group. The Local Group is an outlying part of a huge cluster of galactic groups called the Virgo Supercluster. On a larger scale still, the universe seems to consist of billions of superclusters strung out through space in huge filaments, with immense voids between them as depicted in Figure 33.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/1306/M150_1_033i.jpg
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=187502

Thats neat. I can read too.

 

[Jukia]

Pastor Bob and his science advisors claim it is true. Ergo, it is true

 

[fool]

We're not even at the center of our own galaxy, how could we be at the center of the universe?

 

[The Barbarian]

Because... Well, because.

Why do you hate God? (WFTH-I)

Barbarian observes:
So your argument is that a discredited theory fits the Bible? You can see from the actual data I provided that there are no "concentric shells." And astronomers don't see any evidence for any of them, farther out. In fact, if you pick another galaxy, the redshifts will be pretty much what you see from our vantage point.

Guy retorts:
You are clueless.

What's got you riled is that I'm not evidenceless. And the evidence is what trashed your "concentric circles" story.

Barbarian observes:
No, the data make it discredited. As you saw, even the closest galaxy clusters don't form concentric circles around the Earth.

You don't understand english. Is english your first language? I can get you help if you need.

I don't think generic insults will help you, either. Get some facts, if you want to save your argument.

Barbarian chuckles:
That's what the data show. Turns out that the actual distribution of galaxies around ours looks more like two bears fighting, than "concentric circles." Reality counts.

Even if you really, really want to believe something else.

It like I'm talking and you are deaf. Words mean things. Pay attention.

It's the "E" word that's taking you down. No evidence, you lose.

Barbarian, regarding his comedy career:
I was. But not a very good one. Turns out, I was a much better scientist.

I think scientists cringe when they see you say this.

That's a testable belief. There are a number of actual scientists here besides me. Ask them.

Guy backs away from the concentric story, and Barbarian asks:
So you're touting it here, because...?

Pay attention to what I actually say. If you could answer this question for yourself, you'd be someone worthwhile to discuss things with. But those people are rare.

It's actually useful to talk to anyone in such discussions. You, for example, are doing great as a bad example.

Barbarian observes:
You got tripped up by history. A lot of things pass peer review, and subsequent data show that they weren't right after all.

Who got tripped up by history?

You did. Science is constantly re-checking old theories, and revising them. It must seem like cheating to creationists, sometimes. They find decades-old stuff, and are flummoxed to find out that scientists continue to learn new things.

Barbarian observes:
Large-scale surveys of galactic clustering show no sign of concentric circles. Here's another discussion, with a diagram of the ways Galaxies cluster:

Our galaxy, the Milky Way, contains about 100 billion stars and belongs to a cluster of similar galaxies we call the Local Group. The Local Group is an outlying part of a huge cluster of galactic groups called the Virgo Supercluster. On a larger scale still, the universe seems to consist of billions of superclusters strung out through space in huge filaments, with immense voids between them as depicted in Figure 33.
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/file.php/1306/M150_1_033i.jpg
http://openlearn.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=187502

I can read too.

So far, you've given us no reason to believe you can read the literature and understand it.