Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics

[Reality Check]

No. The redshift of the objects as one moves away from NGC 7603 are z = 0.391, 0,243 and 0.057. That is what Narlikar's theory would predict. When the object is first created, it isn't very massive and has a high redshift. As it ages, it increases mass and the redshift drops. The objects farther from NGC 7603 would be older so one would expect them to have progressively lower redshifts ... which they do.

You are right - NGC 7603 is at the bottom of Fig 8 in the 2004 M. L´opez-Corredoira and C. M. Guti´errez paper (not the top as I remembered it). BTW this figure definitely shows the minor axis at right angles to the quasar objects so this observation is against Arp's conjecture that quasars are ejected along the minor axis of their parent galaxies.

However this is getting off the topic of statistics. There is new thread for Hoyle-Narlikar Theory that is on topic.

 

[BeAChooser]

BTW this figure definitely shows the minor axis at right angles to the quasar objects so this observation is against Arp's conjecture that quasars are ejected along the minor axis of their parent galaxies.

Actually, Arp doesn't claim they are only ejected along the minor axis ... just that there is a tendency for them to be ejected in that direction. He's also noted cases where objects seem to be aligned with other features coming from the galaxies (x-ray plumes, optical plumes, filaments) and sometimes in the major axis direction. Like I said, the density conditions posited by Narlikar for creation of matter might conceivably exist in pinches that form in filaments (assuming Peratt is right).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(first part omitted)

Nor have you addressed you mistaken use of probability after the fact

I think I'll let M. López-Corredoira and C. M. Gutiérrez address that one for me. From http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ies+NGC+"minor+axis"&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us _ : "Some clarifications concerning the typical rebuff 'it is just an a posteriori calculation'. ... snip ... we would like to address the question of “a
posteriori probabilities”. It is said that one should not carry out a calculation of the probability for an a priori known configuration of objects (for instance, that they form a certain geometrical figure) because, in some way, all possible configurations are peculiar and unique. We agree while we speak about random configurations which do not indicate anything special. For example, if the Orion constellation is observed and we want to calculate the chance of their stars being projected in that exact configuration, we will get a null probability (tending towards zero as the allowed error in the position of the stars with respect the given configuration goes to zero), but the calculation of this probability is worthless because we have selected a particular configuration observed a priori. Therefore, the statistics to be carried out should not be about the geometrical figure drawn by the sources, unless that geometrical configuration is representative of a physical process in an alternative theory (for instance, aligned sources might be representative of the ejection of sources by a parent source). In this last sense, we think that much of the statistics already published is valid and indicates the reality of some kind of statistical anomaly. It would be useful to look out for physical representations indicating peculiarities beyond mere uniqueness. We disagree with the claim that all attempts to calculate probabilities of unexpected anomalies are a posteriori whose validity may therefore be rejected. Some astrophysicists, when looking at our images, argue along the lines that it is curious that some of our objects fall on the filament, but that since they do the probability is 1 and there is therefore nothing special about our galaxies. According to this argument, everything is possible in a Poissonian distribution and nothing should surprise us. But we believe that statistics is something more serious than the postmodern rebuff that anything is possible. We think that this anti-statistical position, this way of rejecting the validity of the calculated probabilities, is equivalent to the scepticism that those unfamiliar with mathematics express when we discuss the low probability of winning the lottery. ... snip ... imagine that a person wins the lottery four consecutive times with only one bet each time. If we did not believe in miracles, we might think that this person had cheated. We might carry out some statistical calculations and show how improbable it was that he/she could have won by chance. What might somebody say about these calculations, that they are not valid because they were carried out a posteriori (after the person won the lottery four consecutive times)? We would not agree because there is an alternative explanation (he/she is cheating; and this explanation could be thought of before the facts) and the event of winning the lottery four consecutive times, apart from being unique among the random possibilities, would be an indication to support this hypothesis. ... snip ... The question is as follows: what is the probability, P, that the apparent fact be the fruit of a
random projection of sources at different distances? In other words, what is the probability, P, that the standard theory can explain the observed facts without aiming at alternative scenarios?"

That, David, is essentially what I'm doing in my calculations too. Asking what is the probability that the standard theory of random redshifts and random quasar location can explain the observed facts. The calculations made are a perfectly valid answer to that question. Which I suspect is why they are giving you so much trouble.

.
Ah ha! I think we are getting to the point of identifying an irreconcilable difference! Yay!!

BeAChooser, to what extent do your substantive posts, in this thread, rely upon the approach L-C&G describe, in the paper you cite (and the section you quote from it)?

Specifically, where do you go beyond L-C&G? Where do L-C&G go beyond what you propose?

In advance of getting answers to these questions, if I may tee up the follow up: using the 'L-C&G approach', how, in principle, do you propose that ideas, models, theories, etc be tested? Astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics ideas, models, theories, etc (not biology or economics or ... ones).

And specifically, what observations could be done, on NGC 3516, NGC 7319, and NGC 5985 and their respective environs, that have the potential to definitively falsify or verify non-cosmological redshifts?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(part omitted)

But like I said, what quasars are is not really important in the calculations I did above. All that is important is that the objects are high redshift, seemingly quantized and curiously aligned with certain features of the low redshift galaxies they are near.

.
On this we differ, and differ very considerably.

For example, does the z = 0.089 object count as a quasar? If so, then it becomes a data point, along with the fact that its redshift does not correspond to a Karlsson peak. If not, then the range of redshifts to be examined needs to start somewhere other than 0, or the absence of a quasar with a redshift near the first Karlsson peak (0.06) included into the analysis.

Further, as I have said several times, the L-C&G paper on minor axis alignments of quasars in the fields of some 70 SDSS galaxies knocks the 'curiously aligned with certain features of the low redshift galaxies they are near' idea for six (pending your response concerning the legitimacy of, and place within, a posterori analyses in astronomy).

Finally, a consistent definition of 'quasar' is vital for any unbiased analysis of high-z objects in the environs of NGC 3516 that were not known at the time Chu et al. wrote their paper.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I think you continue to demonstrate that you don't actually understand the calculations I've made. There is no bigger dataset than what I assumed in my calculation, DRD. I used what the mainstream itself has concluded are all the available/observable quasars in the sky and very conservative assumptions as to the distribution of the quasars near galaxies. And I still end up with probabilities that are exceedingly low for finding the 2 specific observations for which I did calculations.



No, but I think it's safe to say he didn't look at them all or even a large fraction of them. Wouldn't you agree? Or are you so caught up in dismissing this, that you've lost the ability to reason?



It's not moot at all. If Arp only looked at half the possible galaxy/quasar cases, then the likelihood of him finding the 2 observations would be half of what I calculated. And we both know that he probably didn't come even close to looking at half the possible data points. Did he.



No, my calculation is quite valid. It has nothing to do with what Arp did or what objects were known when Arp started looking. I'm looking only at what we know NOW. And those FACTS plus the mainstream's own conclusions regarding quasar densities and redshift distribution suggest it's very unlikely that we'd even see those cases if we examined every single quasar/galaxy combination there is. And your desperate hand-waving to make what the calculation suggests go away is quite obvious.



It doesn't matter. If I use your model to calculate the probability of certain events occurring and I find those probabilities are very very small even though those events have indeed occurred, that might be an indication that your model is wrong. That's what the Bayes' Theorem calculations suggest. That your model is wrong.



But the alternative model is not suggesting that high redshift objects are aligned with stars. As L-C&G indicated above, that would be an improper use of posterior analsysis.



Like I said, I don't think you actually understand the calculation.



Time, for one thing. It's takes a lot of time to locate these cases. And for another, when he started looking we only knew of a fraction of the quasars that have now been identified. Yet he found these 2 case right away. Is that logic hard to fathom?




You keep making these vague assertions. Don't be coy. If you think something SPECIFIC in the L-C&G paper requires I redo my calculation then spit it out. Tell us what it is. Because I frankly don't think it contains anything that changes my results. What I think is that you are throwing that reference out in the hope someone who hasn't taken the time to understand my calculation (like you) will dismiss the results and my conclusions out of hand.



You are throwing out a red herring. There is no reason to think there are quasars in the vicinity of NGC 3516 that Arp, Chu, Burbidge, et. al., didn't identify when they studied the area around it in detail. I think we can trust that Chu, Arp, etc did a very good job of locating the ones near that object once they realized there might be an anomoly in that case. It is up to you to demonstrate that there are quasars that haven't been considered around NGC 3516. Until such time as you do that, we perhaps would be wisest to trust the scientists who actually have studied this galaxy region in detail and have published papers on what they found.



You are doing it right now.



You haven't done that at all. Every single objection that you raised with respect to factors not considered in my calculation, I have shown actually lower the probabilities from that which I initially calculated. You threw Keel at me and I showed you hadn't actually read or understood what they concluded. I've shown that bad use of statistics is not the problem ... its your inability to understand the basis of the calculation. And you keep alluding to the Chu et al paper but you don't ever get specific. What you do is wave it around instead of waving your hands.

.
As I said in an earlier post today, it seems that an irreconcilable difference may soon be identified - the legitimacy, or otherwise, of a particular approach to certain kinds of a posterori analyses, in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

Also, if this difference is clearly identified and agreed, then it leads, possibly, to something very interesting indeed - a discussion of methods that can, and cannot, in principle, be used to falsify (or verify) ideas, model, theories, etc in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(continued)

(first part omitted)

and the range you chose is both arbitrary and too large (the highest peak you can consider is 2.1 ... otherwise you have to consider that two other predicted peaks in the range [0,3] were not observed

That's an interesting comment but I don't think it's correct because the theory has it that z is a function of the age of the quasar. There is no requirement in any given case that the galaxy have been producing quasars the entire time, including up till recently. There is therefore no requirement that there be quasars corresponding to each Karlsson value that is possible. Values can be skipped because for some reason the galaxy stopped producing quasars for a time. Or there may be more than one value at a given z because the galaxy was producing more for a time. Or there may not be any high ones because the galaxy stopped producing them at some point. Or perhaps we don't see any higher z quasars because they tend to be much closer to the site where they were produced and are therefore lost in the glare or opacity of the parent galaxy.

.
Let's see if I understand this correctly ...

Using the above test of the idea that quasars are ejected, preferentially, along the minor axes of active galaxies, with redshifts that are consistent with the Karlsson formula, all of the following are fully explainable by this idea:

* an active galaxy that has 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... or 10 quasars more or less along its major axis

* an active galaxy that has 1 quasar more or less along its minor axis, with a redshift that is 0.2 away from a Karlsson peak

* an active galaxy that has 4 quasars more or less along its minor axis, with redshifts that differ from Karlsson peaks by 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3

* an active galaxy that has 3 quasars more or less along its minor axis, with redshifts that are within 0.1 of Karlsson peaks 2, 4, and 29 (the last one is a slight exaggeration)

* only a 'background' number of quasars around one active galaxy

* only a 'background' number of quasars around 1,000 active galaxies.

I'm pretty sure I didn't get it right; would you mind fixing it up please BAC?
.

I think the logic was clear enough in what I wrote earlier but see the revised calculation above. I tried to make it even clearer.

Based on Arpian ideas, what do you predict the redshifts of those 'newly discovered' quasars (and galaxies) will be BeAChooser? Where will they be, in relation to NGC 3516?

Obviously, I would predict they'd tend to be near Karlsson values. Do you have some data to suggest they are not? If not, I don't think this concern has much merit at all and just lengthens the thread further.

.
Can you quantify 'tend' in any way at all?

Or is it possible to assess how well these quasar redshifts match the idea being tested only after they have been discovered (and their redshifts measured)?
.

And what would you predict for the next ten years, and the ten years after that, and ...?

There is apparently a limit to the total number of quasars. The methodology used in SDSS was designed to produce a relatively complete list of the surveyed region and one of the papers I found concluded that it had succeeded ... with well above 90% completeness in that region. So I don't anticipate new observations that will increase the estimated total quasar count much higher than it already is ... provided the regions that were already surveyed are representative of the whole. Sure, individual quasars will be found in those regions of the sky that weren't previously surveyed but that shouldn't increase total quasar counts.

.
This has been covered, to some extent, by a later set of posts; I'm not sure if you introduced the relevant SDSS paper(s) later, but in any case, it's pretty clear that you misunderstood it/them ... SDSS's 'completeness' is quite different than how you've characterised it here - it refers to a very carefully defined meaning of 'quasar', one that is incompatible with Chu et al.'s use of the term.
.

And for the record, I have no idea whether NGC 3516 lies in an already surveyed region or not. Do you? If so, then by all means tell us the latest data. No need to be coy. That can only serve to make the thread longer and we know how you dislike that.

.
Covered by a later post; it's not in SDSS DR6.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

much of the substantive content here has been addressed subsequently; here's a short note on what hasn't

(part omitted)

Of course, every 'association' between any set of quasars and any set of galaxies (whether bright or not) is unique! What I think you may have intended to say is something about a general pattern, a relationship between a tightly defined subset of quasars and galaxies.

You are wrong. In the calculation I did, I did not limit myself to a "tightly defined subset of quasars". On the contrary, I used mainstream science's own observations and studies (extensive ones, btw) to estimate the TOTAL number of quasars that might be seen in the sky. I calculated the probability of seeing those two specific cases identified by Arp if one were to examine the ENTIRE population of quasars and galaxies. Furthermore, I made some highly conservative assumptions (from the standpoint of maximizing the likelihood of the observations) regarding the distribution of these quasars around galaxies and quite reasonably treated the probability of finding quasars near specific Karlsson redshifts together in one location. Finally, I did the same thing in calculating the probability of quasars aligning themselves in such numbers along the minor axis of galaxies too. I looked at the probability assuming one could examine the entire population of quasars and galaxies.

Those calculations show that finding either of the two observed cases (and Arp found additional others like them) was exceedingly unlikely even if Arp had (and he did not) examine every single quasar in the sky. The fact that he found so many highly improbable cases after examining only a small fraction of the total quasar/galaxy population only increases the improbability of the mainstream's assumption that high redshift quasars have no relation to low redshift galaxies being correct.

.
With some comments on what a 'quasar' is now in this thread, it might be appropriate to revisit this ... of course, I hope it's now obvious to all readers that BAC is way off base here, if only because of the inconsistent use of 'quasar' in his analyses.
.

This pattern could be something derived from a theory, such as the non-existent one BAC refers to

Regardless of whether you accept the Narlikar/Arp notion that quasars are ejected from galaxies and increase in mass over time while decreasing in redshift, the Bayes' Theorem calculation I did mathematically proves there is probably another explanation than the mainstream's for these observations. Right now the mainstream isn't even looking at the possibility that quasars have a relationship of some sort to low redshift galaxies. They are doing what you are demonstrating here ... waving their hands ... or worse, simply refusing to discuss calculations and observations like the ones I've presented.

(bolding added)

This rather nicely illustrates another aspect of the approach BAC used: a certain imprecision over what the objective of the test employed actually is.

One reason why science, in general, has been so successful is that a great deal of attention is paid to what may look like pedantic details.

In this case, the thing missing from BAC's posts on this topic (so far) is a clear statement, preferably quantitative, of just what the hypothesis he is testing is, and what the null hypothesis is.

A good example of how imprecision may lead you astray is the bold part: the Scranton et al. 2005 paper is certainly mainstream, and it certainly looked 'at the possibility that quasars have a relationship of some sort to low redshift galaxies'! However, in that case the relationship looked at was weak lensing.
.

However, the whole chain (above) can be short-circuited by asking two, very simple, questions:

a) what is a 'quasar'?

b) are 'quasars' a homogeneous class of objects?

You are wrong again. In the calculation I did, it doesn't matter what a quasar "is" ... as long as it has a high redshift and is near a low redshift galaxy. It could physically be anything and STILL the probability of finding large groupings of them aligned along the minor axes of low redshift galaxies and with redshifts near specific Karlsson values would be astronomically small under the mainstream theory that they can have no connection whatsoever to those low redshift galaxies. The reason you (and the mainstream) don't want to honestly consider that possibility is that if redshift can be shown not to always equate to distance, then most of Big Bang cosmology's theories regarding the meaning of observations are going to need careful reexamination.

(bolding added)

As we shall see, "as long as it has a high redshift and is near a low redshift galaxy" is one place where it matters a very great deal just what the object is.

If, for example, AGN have a continuous distribution of intrinsic luminosity from that of the weakest Seyfert nucleus to that of the most luminous high-z object, and if, for example, well over half z < 3 AGNs are 'obscured' (i.e. essentially invisible in the UV, optical, and NIR, with today's telescopes), then the population of objects with a high redshift and near a low redshift galaxy would be expected, 'under the mainstream theory', to be very large.

But that's getting ahead ... let's wait for BAC to comment on what a quasar is ...

 

[BeAChooser]

BeAChooser, to what extent do your substantive posts, in this thread, rely upon the approach L-C&G describe, in the paper you cite (and the section you quote from it)?

I don't rely on L-C&G at all. Why do you ask this if you supposedly understand my calculation and what L-C&G did? Is this more coyness on your part? I specifically asked you to tell us what you think in L-C&G's paper invalidates what I did in my calculation ... necessitating a recalculation. And I note that in this and your posts this morning you didn't do that. Instead, we get more coyness. I suggest that's because you can't really identify some specific item in the L-C&G paper that does that. You are just hand-waving.

 

[BeAChooser]

Originally Posted by BeAChooser
But like I said, what quasars are is not really important in the calculations I did above. All that is important is that the objects are high redshift, seemingly quantized and curiously aligned with certain features of the low redshift galaxies they are near.
.
On this we differ, and differ very considerably.

For example, does the z = 0.089 object count as a quasar?

Do you have problem reading? The source very clearly states that the object has a Seyfert spectrum and appears to be "allied to BL Lac objects". So no, I see no reason to count it as a "quasar", per se. And that was pointed out earlier in this thread.

However, it might have evolved from a quasar, according to Arp's theory of galaxy evolution. Whether it evolved from a process in this particular galaxy is unknown although it is located suspiciously rather close (within 20 degrees) to the minor axis.

along with the fact that its redshift does not correspond to a Karlsson peak.

You are wrong again (this is getting to be a habit with you, DRD). A redshift of 0.089 is not far from a Karlsson peak at all since the first such peak is identified over and over in the literature as being 0.060. In fact, even the Chu paper states that the Karlsson values start with a peak at 0.06. Didn't you read it? And since the next Karlsson peak is at 0.30, 0.89 is actually within 13% of a Karlsson peak in that interval. Were I to add that fact into my calculation, the probabilities would drop even further. Shall I?

the absence of a quasar with a redshift near the first Karlsson peak (0.06) included into the analysis.

Well this is curious. It appears you did know that there is a peak near 0.06 yet missed the obvious fact that 0.089 is quite close to that value in the interval 0.06 - 0.30.

Further, as I have said several times, the L-C&G paper on minor axis alignments of quasars in the fields of some 70 SDSS galaxies knocks the 'curiously aligned with certain features of the low redshift galaxies they are near' idea

You keep coyly waving L-C&G in front of us without actually stating anything specific from their paper, DRD. Let me quote from the abstract of this 2006 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609514 ) : "RESULTS. There is a clear excess of QSOs near the minor axis with respect to the major axis of nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, significant at a level 3.5-sigma up to angular distances of 3 deg. (or ~1.7 Mpc) from the centre of each galaxy. The significance is increased to 3.9-sigma with the z>0.5 QSOs, and it reaches 4.8-sigma if we include galaxies whose circles of radius 3 degrees are covered by the SDSS in more than 98% (instead of 100%) of the area. ... snip ... Could the detected anisotrophy be a statistical fluctuation? It might be, but it is a very low probability one: for instance 3.5-sigma means a probability of 5 x 10^-4 ...". So did we read the same paper, DRD? Or is this just another example, as in the case of the Keel papers, where you didn't actually read what you wave in our faces?

 

[BeAChooser]

As I said in an earlier post today, it seems that an irreconcilable difference may soon be identified - the legitimacy, or otherwise, of a particular approach to certain kinds of a posterori analyses, in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

Another coy, hand-waving response ... and one where you pointedly avoid any of the points I made. Don't think others haven't notice this, DRD.

Also, if this difference is clearly identified and agreed, then it leads, possibly, to something very interesting indeed - a discussion of methods that can, and cannot, in principle, be used to falsify (or verify) ideas, model, theories, etc in astronomy, astrophysics, and cosmology.

ROTFLOL! When it comes to your responses on this thread, DRD, nothing has been clearly identified or agreed. And don't think others aren't noticing that. All you are doing now is throwing out smoke and hoping that no one will notice.

 

[BeAChooser]

Using the above test of the idea that quasars are ejected, preferentially, along the minor axes of active galaxies, with redshifts that are consistent with the Karlsson formula, all of the following are fully explainable by this idea:

* an active galaxy that has 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... or 10 quasars more or less along its major axis

Arp only states there is a tendency for quasars to be along the minor axis. But points out examples where they are aligned with other features as well, including the major axis, filaments erupting from galaxies, and x-ray plumes. And by the way, if you can identify a case that has 10 quasars (or even 5) more or less aligned aligned along the major axis, I'll be happy to show that observation is likewise highly unlikely given the mainstream's theory about quasars and thus another datum suggesting there is something seriously wrong with the mainstream's theory.

* an active galaxy that has 1 quasar more or less along its minor axis, with a redshift that is 0.2 away from a Karlsson peak

Well first of all, it isn't the absolute value of the distance to the nearest Karlsson peak that is important. It's the percent difference from that peak relative to the percent difference from the next peak. Would you care to offer a specific case for us to study?

* an active galaxy that has 4 quasars more or less along its minor axis, with redshifts that differ from Karlsson peaks by 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, and 0.3

Again, show us the specific case. Don't be coy. Don't hand-wave. Because that's what you are doing now.

* an active galaxy that has 3 quasars more or less along its minor axis, with redshifts that are within 0.1 of Karlsson peaks 2, 4, and 29 (the last one is a slight exaggeration)

Ditto my previous comment.

* only a 'background' number of quasars around one active galaxy

Ditto my previous comment.

By the way, my calculations for NGC 3516 and NGC 5985 aren't arguing that Arp's theory is correct (although it may be). Only that the mainstream's theory is wrong or incomplete.

BeAChooser wrote:
Obviously, I would predict they'd tend to be near Karlsson values. Do you have some data to suggest they are not? If not, I don't think this concern has much merit at all and just lengthens the thread further.
.
Can you quantify 'tend' in any way at all?

Well the fact that one can easily find so many examples of cases where the accidental probabilities are so very, very low is what I mean by "tend". By the way, are you going to offer any data that indicates any additional quasars that might be discovered in the NGC 3516 case (assuming any will) would not be near Karlsson values, like the other 5 examples? Or are you just doing more hand-waving because there's nothing else you can do at this point in the discussion? I rather suspect it's the latter, DRD.

DeiRenDopa wrote:
And what would you predict for the next ten years, and the ten years after that, and ...?

BeAChooser wrote:
There is apparently a limit to the total number of quasars. The methodology used in SDSS was designed to produce a relatively complete list of the surveyed region and one of the papers I found concluded that it had succeeded ... with well above 90% completeness in that region. ... snip ...
.
... snip ... I'm not sure if you introduced the relevant SDSS paper(s) later, but in any case, it's pretty clear that you misunderstood it/them ... SDSS's 'completeness' is quite different than how you've characterised it here - it refers to a very carefully defined meaning of 'quasar', one that is incompatible with Chu et al.'s use of the term.

More handwaving. I guess I get to demonstrate yet another instance where you do not understand the subject as well as you claim to or are (deliberately?) misrepresenting the facts. And by the way, you coyly still haven't defined "quasar" either.

http://www.sdss.org/dr5/start/dr5.pdf " The Fifth Data Release of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, 2006, ... snip ... The 95% completeness limit for detection of point sources in the r band is 22.2 mag, estimated from comparison to deeper surveys (COMBO-17 and CNOC-2)."

http://www.sdss.org/dr5/instruments/technicalPaper/index.html "Based on early spectroscopy, we estimate that roughly 65% of our quasar candidates are genuine quasars; comparison with samples of known quasars indicates that our completeness is of order 90%."

Now do you really understand the last statement, DRD ... and it's implications? Because it's saying that many of the items identified in the SDSS results as quasars, are not in fact quasars. Which means that using the SDSS study results to derive an average number of quasars per square degree overestimates that number. Which means that the probabilities I calculated for NGC 3516 and NGC 5985 based on that SDSS derived average density of quasars are too high. So once again, you've helped me show that the probability of those cases just being a matter of accident is smaller than what I calculated.

 

[BeAChooser]

much of the substantive content here has been addressed subsequently

No, DRD, I think that readers can see that you've actually ignored most of the content and specific points in my posts. Instead, you've done a lot of hand-waving. And your last post in this series is no exception.

In this case, the thing missing from BAC's posts on this topic (so far) is a clear statement, preferably quantitative, of just what the hypothesis he is testing is, and what the null hypothesis is.

I'm beginning to think you actually do have a reading problem. I've stated my hypothesis very clearly ... that the calculations I made (including the Bayesian portion) strongly suggest that the mainstream's explanation for quasars is WRONG.

If, for example, AGN have a continuous distribution of intrinsic luminosity from that of the weakest Seyfert nucleus to that of the most luminous high-z object, and if, for example, well over half z < 3 AGNs are 'obscured' (i.e. essentially invisible in the UV, optical, and NIR, with today's telescopes), then the population of objects with a high redshift and near a low redshift galaxy would be expected, 'under the mainstream theory', to be very large.

More smoke and obfuscation. Even if we considered all these "obscured" objects to be quasars, you still haven't provided us with any reason to think their distribution (in terms of redshifts and locations) would be any different than the distributions of the objects we can see. Besides, a factor of 2 (or even a factor of 10) difference in any number in the calculations I did doesn't change the overall conclusion at all. The probabilities will remain very, very small, and hence an indication there's a problem in the mainstream's theory. You're just throwing out smoke, DRD.

But that's getting ahead ... let's wait for BAC to comment on what a quasar is ...

No, DRD, the ball is in your court. I think it is time for you to cease being coy and tell us all what a quasar is.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

BeAChooser, to what extent do your substantive posts, in this thread, rely upon the approach L-C&G describe, in the paper you cite (and the section you quote from it)?

I don't rely on L-C&G at all. Why do you ask this if you supposedly understand my calculation and what L-C&G did? Is this more coyness on your part? I specifically asked you to tell us what you think in L-C&G's paper invalidates what I did in my calculation ... necessitating a recalculation. And I note that in this and your posts this morning you didn't do that. Instead, we get more coyness. I suggest that's because you can't really identify some specific item in the L-C&G paper that does that. You are just hand-waving.

.
Poor choice of words, obviously.

To what extent does the method you have used, in the posts you have made on the Chu et al. paper (the Karlsson peak coincidences, the alignments, etc), overlap with/correspond to/contain similarities to/resemble/(add your own words here) the method in the L-C&G paper you cite, and in particular, to the part of it you quote?

Where does the method you have used differ from that of L-C&G, in your opinion?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Do you have problem reading? The source very clearly states that the object has a Seyfert spectrum and appears to be "allied to BL Lac objects". So no, I see no reason to count it as a "quasar", per se. And that was pointed out earlier in this thread.

However, it might have evolved from a quasar, according to Arp's theory of galaxy evolution. Whether it evolved from a process in this particular galaxy is unknown although it is located suspiciously rather close (within 20 degrees) to the minor axis.



You are wrong again (this is getting to be a habit with you, DRD). A redshift of 0.089 is not far from a Karlsson peak at all since the first such peak is identified over and over in the literature as being 0.060. In fact, even the Chu paper states that the Karlsson values start with a peak at 0.06. Didn't you read it? And since the next Karlsson peak is at 0.30, 0.89 is actually within 13% of a Karlsson peak in that interval. Were I to add that fact into my calculation, the probabilities would drop even further. Shall I?



Well this is curious. It appears you did know that there is a peak near 0.06 yet missed the obvious fact that 0.089 is quite close to that value in the interval 0.06 - 0.30.



You keep coyly waving L-C&G in front of us without actually stating anything specific from their paper, DRD. Let me quote from the abstract of this 2006 paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609514 ) : "RESULTS. There is a clear excess of QSOs near the minor axis with respect to the major axis of nearby edge-on spiral galaxies, significant at a level 3.5-sigma up to angular distances of 3 deg. (or ~1.7 Mpc) from the centre of each galaxy. The significance is increased to 3.9-sigma with the z>0.5 QSOs, and it reaches 4.8-sigma if we include galaxies whose circles of radius 3 degrees are covered by the SDSS in more than 98% (instead of 100%) of the area. ... snip ... Could the detected anisotrophy be a statistical fluctuation? It might be, but it is a very low probability one: for instance 3.5-sigma means a probability of 5 x 10^-4 ...". So did we read the same paper, DRD? Or is this just another example, as in the case of the Keel papers, where you didn't actually read what you wave in our faces?

.
Clearly we must be reading a different L-C&G paper .... the one that you cited clearly shows no minor axis anisotropy for objects ('quasars') in the magnitude range spanned by the 'quasars' in the Chu et al. paper. Further, it shows no minor axis anisotropy for objects less than ~1^o away from the putative parent. Either of these L-C&G findings would be enough to make the Chu et al. paper's conclusions a mere coincidence (with respect to alignments); together they really knock it for six.

So, are we reading the same L-C&G paper or not?

 

[BeAChooser]

Where does the method you have used differ from that of L-C&G, in your opinion?

I don't have an opinion other than to note that their overall conclusions are reasonably consistent with mine. If you think there's an important difference, then tell us ... and tell us how that would affect my results. You don't need to continue to be coy, DRD, unless you want this thread to be longer than need be.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

(part omitted)

But that's getting ahead ... let's wait for BAC to comment on what a quasar is ...

No, DRD, the ball is in your court. I think it is time for you to cease being coy and tell us all what a quasar is.

.
Oh, but I already wrote a post on that ... did you miss it? Would you like me to repeat what I said in it?
.

Astronomy, in a few hundred words ...

The sky has now been 'imaged' from ~TeV gammas to ~1 MHz radio waves.

The angular resolution is ~1" (or better) in the (soft) x-ray band, UV through to mid-IR, and also in parts of the radio spectrum. For most of the rest it's ~1' (or worse). Objects smaller, in angular size, than the resolution are 'point sources'.

A point source in one wave-band (the optical, say) can often be confidently matched to a point source in another (mm microwave, say), by astrometry - the estimated location of the 'point' on the sky (in RA and Dec) can usually be estimated with an uncertainty ~10 times smaller than the resolution. Of course, this doesn't always work ... within the 'point' in some gamma ray band there may be a dozen or a hundred x-ray or IR point sources, or even two or more extended sources.

Often a point source in one wave band has no matching point source in any other wave band; if the observations have been done carefully, this enables you to make estimates of the upper bound of the 'brightness' of that point source in the other wave band(s); later observations, made with more sensitive instruments, might detect something of course.

Leaving aside solar system objects (easy to categorise as such by their movement over time periods of seconds to hours) and transients (point sources, in any wave band, that were not there yesterday, here today, and not there again tomorrow), what are the billions of point sources that astronomers have catalogued?

A great many are 'stars'; many are 'quasars'; some are 'galaxies', 'BL Lac objects', 'supernova remnants', 'globular clusters', 'HII regions', and so on.

What is the basis for classification? Here's where it starts to get interesting!

When a new class of object in the sky is discovered it is classified strictly by what is directly observed - its brightness, its colours, its spectrum, it variability, its environment, and so on. GRB (Gamma Ray Bursts) are a good, recent example.

The race is then on, among astronomers, to understand what this new class of object 'is', 'in reality'. Before too long a consensus emerges, and the classification shifts to the underlying model; the many classes of variable stars show this very nicely - the class name (e.g. 'RCrB', or 'R Coronae Borealis' stars) reflects the name of an object that is regarded as the standard (often the first, historically, to be discovered) and the class is defined, observationally, by its light curves, colours, etc, but the term now refers ultimately to 'the reality' ('These are rare, luminous, hydrogen-poor, carbon-rich, variables that spend most of their time at maximum light, occasionally fading as much as nine magnitudes at irregular intervals. They then slowly recover to their maximum brightness after a few months to a year. Members of this group have F to K and R spectral types', in this case).

So too with 'quasars' ... or 'quasi-stellar radio source': the first objects to be observed were, indeed, 'quasi-stellar' (meaning they are point sources, in the optical wave band, as observed by telescopes of the time ... the HST hadn't been invented then), and 'radio sources' (meaning they had been detected as point sources by radio telescopes of the time). Soon, however, it was discovered that some 'quasars' were not quasi-stellar (there was some 'fuzz' around them, even in the Palomar Schmidt plates; at higher resolution in the radio, many turned out to be 'double-lobed'), nor 'radio sources' (they had spectra and colours and time variability that were similar to 'true' quasars but no radio source was detected, at the time). Later it was discovered that many quasars resembled the nuclei of certain galaxies (Seyferts).

And so on, through Lyman forests, x-ray sources, IR sources, jets, BL Lacs, and much, much more.

To distinguish the wide range of different kinds of objects, various sub-classes were defined, like QSOs (quasars without the radio), OVV quasars, type 2 quasars, RLQs, RQQs, ... Among astronomers, in the papers they wrote, this plethora of definitions and (sub) classes occasionally caused confusion, but as long as papers were written with the expected care, such confusion was quite limited.

Not so for the general public, and doubly not so for those not trained as astronomers (or almost any branch of science; the issues of classification and definition are pretty similar) ... and especially for BeAChooser (and some others)!

So, what about today? What's a 'quasar' today?

First, make sure you understand how the author(s) of a paper is/are using the term; that usage is primary.

Second, in general, a quasar is an AGN (active galactic nucleus; this Wiki page is a good start, provided you take on board all the usual caveats about Wiki pages), or is the accretion disk plus super-massive black hole at the centre of an AGN.

Questions?

.
The links have gone, but I think that's enough to get you started BAC.

Questions?

 

[BeAChooser]

So, are we reading the same L-C&G paper or not?

You tell me. Why don't you link us to the L-C&G paper you are referring to so everything is made clear. No need to be coy.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Where does the method you have used differ from that of L-C&G, in your opinion?

I don't have an opinion other than to note that their overall conclusions are reasonably consistent with mine. If you think there's an important difference, then tell us ... and tell us how that would affect my results. You don't need to continue to be coy, DRD, unless you want this thread to be longer than need be.

.
Well, we can't very well have much of a discussion, can we?

In any case, it's actually your opinion that is central, as you are the one posting here in the JREF forum, not L-C or G.

If you have no opinion on the method, then how about the other questions I asked?

Here they are again, re-phrased to suit your opinion:

1) Using the 'BAC approach', how, in principle, do you propose that ideas, models, theories, etc be tested? Astronomy, cosmology, and astrophysics ideas, models, theories, etc (not biology or economics or ... ones).

2) What observations could be done, on NGC 3516, NGC 7319, and NGC 5985 and their respective environs, that would have the potential to definitively falsify or verify non-cosmological redshifts?

 

[BeAChooser]

Questions?

No, other than to ask you how many quasars there are in the sky in the range of visibility covered by the SDSS survey. Care to offer an estimate ... or at least an average density number? Since you seem to deem this important.

 

[BeAChooser]

Well, we can't very well have much of a discussion, can we?

Well that's certainly true if you aren't willing to tell us the problem. Are you relying on us to tell you? We thought you were the "expert".