Re: Reconsidering Halton Arp

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 10:48:18 -0800, "greywolf42"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>> Now you want me to provide the actual information so you
>> can try to find a place to claim your silliness applies.
>
>I figured you couldn't provide any.

You're wrong. I found more than enough detail in online sources to
provide a technical explanation. Bookmarked a bunch in preparation to
composing my reply. But I won't address the "use the Big Bang
indirectly" question till I understand what the question is.

>> >I simpy won't bother answering an open-ended question, from someone who
>> >snips and ignores all prior evidence in the thread.  No matter how  many
>> >methods I describe that do use the BB directly or for calibration, you
>> >can always complain that I missed one.
>>
>> What does "use the Big Bang for calibration" even mean?
>
>Every "standard candle" distance method requires a calibration step.  There
>are methods used for distance estimation that are used beyond the range of
>cepheids.  Look up the section entitled "secondary distance indicators" in
>the book "The Cosmological Distance Ladder".

Don't have it. I'll be replying from online sources, which include
NASA pages, published papers, Hubble pages, and various sites attached
to various astronomy and physics departments in the US and UK.

But just one point of logic: If you are trying to plot a bunch of
points to measure H0 (slope of the redshift vs. distance best-fit
line), how can you possibly use a value of H0 to get your x-axis
distance values? Won't you find kind of a perfect fit, whose slope is
exactly the value of H0 you used? Think about that in connection with
papers that have new values of H0, with error bars.

>   These are defined as " ...
>indicators which depend for their calibration on our knowing the distance to
>some representative nearby galaxies through primary distance indicators."
>
>Taking the first method in that section -- for no other reason than it's
>first in the book -- we have the "HII regions" method.  It is based on the
>assumption that one can estimate the dimensions of core and halo diameters
>within the HII regions of a galaxy (and that these surround new O and B
>stars).  A 'correlation' was found between the HII region diameter and the
>galaxy luminosity class.  There are several problems with this method
>(including the fact that the relationship was not the one that was first
>identied, but was 'forced' as a secondary method when the first was found to
>be nearly useless), which are listed in the book.  The primary one being
>that the method of core and halo diameters on the plates are subjective and
>liable to systematic errors.  But this method was created by first ensuring
>(via extinction and selection of the 'proper' definitions for intensity)
>that the correlation (which has no theoretical justification) would be both
>linear and consistent with the hubble law.

OK, stop right there. Since you're claiming scientific fraud, I'm
going to ask for details. What is meant by "extinction and selection
of the proper definitions for intensity". What method did they use,
and did the authors say "we want to ensure compliance with the Hubble
law so we fudged the data"? Or what did they say? Surely they had a
justification for whatever this procedure is you are alluding to. What
is it?
>> Tell me that
>> and I'll describe distance measurement via Cepheid variables. Found
>> several good links.
>
>I'm not interested in "links". 

I described what the links are. A number of them are papers. All of
them are written by astronomers. Saying you aren't interested in
"links" is saying you're going to dismiss out of hand all research I
lay my hands on. Isn't that a little prejudicial? Why should I bother?
I bookmarked at least 10 pages in the last 24 hours with plans to read
the calibration procedures in detail and summarize them here. Are you
saying that by virtue of being on a web page you're going to dismiss
anything I write sight unseen?

> And I don't need to know about estimating
>WITH cepheid variables.  I'm talking about distance measurments *beyond* the
>distance where cepheid variables are resolvable.

You are? What distance do you think that is? From what I read, the
Cepheids are the farthest thing we've got distance measurements on.
The Hubble paper involved Cepheids out to pretty extreme ranges.

                       - RAndy