Re: Reconsidering Halton Arp

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

> >> >> >We can't measure distances directly beyond parallax range (about
> >> >> >300 parsecs).  The 'measurements' that we use beyond the nearest
> >> >> >few dozen galaxies (based mostly on cepheids) are all based
> >> >> >squarely on assuming the big bang.
> >> >>
> >> >> Describe those methods and tell me where this assumption comes into
> >> >> the method, or stop repeating this ridiculous bit of nonsense.
> >> >
> >> >You can easily show me my error by describing (i.e. not just naming)
> >> >one method that does NOT use the big-bang assumption -- either
> >> >directly or indirectly (i.e. for calibration).
> >>
> >> Noted, for the record, that you made a blanket statement without any
> >> knowledge.
> >
> >I have knowledge of several different methods of estimating distance.
> >But they are all based directly or indirectly on assuming the hubble
> >constant.  Obviously, you think you know one.  All it takes is one,
> >to show me (and the rest of the newsgroup) my error.  Go on!  Don't
> >you want to provide education?

I guess not.

> >> 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.

Then you should have replied.  For I have now provided the definition for
you.  It still exists, below.  Yet you still refuse to identify a single
method beyond cepheid range.....

> >> >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.

You are needlessly limiting your education.  Web pages are notoriously
unreliable.  If you don't want to look up the reference I gave you, find any
method you like, that claims to measure the distance to galaxies (and/or
galaxy clusters) at around 10 Mpc or beyond.

> 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?

You don't.  We're not talking about determining H0.

> 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.

No one said or implied that you used H0 to determine H0.

> >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.

Excuse me?  Who mentioned scientific fraud?  There's nothing fraudulent
about anything in the method I described, above.

For more details, read the (several pages) of the section in the book that
describes this method and it's history.  I know you don't want to be
bothered to learn, but that's your problem.

> What is meant by "extinction and selection of the proper definitions for
> intensity".

The determination of the amount of extinction is subjective.  As is the
"definition" of the brightness cutoff point for caluculating the diameter of
the core and halo regions.  (See the reference for details.)

> 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?

The procedure is called calibration.

> >> 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?

I simply noted that I am not interested in reading "links", because of
the following sentences.  Perhaps you should pause to read an entire
paragraph, before launching into a silly attack at phantoms.

> > 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?

Yes, and always have been.

> What distance do you think that is?

Approximately 10 Mpc.

> From what I read, the
> Cepheids are the farthest thing we've got distance measurements on.

You are apparently ignorant.  And apparently incapable of reading (or
comprehending) your own post from 2 weeks ago (noted below).

> The Hubble paper involved Cepheids out to pretty extreme ranges.

Well, 2 megaparsecs may have been considered "extreme" in 1929, but not
these days.  Your own post of Nov 23rd
(news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) provides a link to
1996 data to 500 Mpc (after first deleting the 1996 data beyond 500 Mpc that
disproves the hubble constant on the order of billions of parsecs).

Now, I've defined everything for you, and yet you still refuse to identify a
method.  I'm done with you in the thread, unless you care to proffer a
single counterexample.

--
greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas
{remove planet for return e-mail}