Arp objects, QSOs, Statistics

[Dancing David]

doppo

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Sorry about the mixup! Magnitudes are certainly backwards, and always have been!

The paper you post is interesting, but I don't have time for an in-depth look right now (at work, doing more mundane things!). I will look more this evening.

One thing that I think is interesting, is that Mountrichas and Shanks show correlation function graphs that seem to decline to beta=0 for separations of about 1-2 arcminutes.

Am I correct in taking this to mean that the correlation effects (=apparent increase in QSOs) are limited to 1-2 arcminutes from the lensing source?

Aren't a lot of Arp's "associated objects" and his constant writing about "densities of QSOs above background levels" considering areas up to 60 arcminutes from AGNs?

.
Yep, another one of those devils!

Scranton et al. select the SDSS galaxies for their analysis as those in the range 17 < r < 21, where r is the observed r-band magnitude (it's actually more complicated that this); Arp, as you have already noted, selects samples of one galaxy at a time, usually a very bright one, and goes out a long way, sometimes > 1^o.

While it would be possible to transform Arp's numbers to something like Scranton's, by 'moving' the bright galaxies Arp uses to the median redshift of Scranton's sample (for example), and working out how many of the 'ejected' quasars would still show up in the Scranton quasar sample, I doubt that this would tell you anything interesting.

Here's another devil which Arp (and many others, no doubt, in BAC's lists) don't seem to bother with: galaxies are known to cluster (groups, clusters, sheets, filaments, super-clusters, etc), and so are quasars.

This makes the use of 'overdensities' of quasars around very small samples of galaxies (like one, uno, un, ein) almost meaningless - how to tell if, by chance, the quasars 'near' your single chosen galaxies just happen to include a couple of rich clusters?

 

[BeAChooser]

If you don't mind BeAChooser, where are the original articles (that these are 'some more' to)?

Why don't you ask David for a complete list since he claims he's read everything I've posted.

would you mind if ask you whether you've done some work to estimate the average areal density of QSOs?

No, I haven't. Have you?

If you haven't done such work, would you mind if I ask why the papers you cite, and the ones they, in turn, quote, have such different values for this key parameter?

Could you be more specific? Which papers and how different are the values? What do you think the value is?

Further, to what extent would you say the Burbidges included an estimate of various lensing effects, in the work they did to come at their conclusion?

There are many instances where the Burbidges talk about lensing in their papers. For example, there is this from a 1997 paper by Burbidge, Hoyle and Schneider (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ge+lensing+redshift&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us ) titled "Very close pairs of quasi-stellar objects": It is pointed out that there are now known four very close pairs of QSOs with separations < 5 arcsec and very different redshifts. Several estimates indicates that the probability that they are accidental configurations are small; a conservative estimate of the probability to have four such pairs by random projection yields 3.5 × 10^-3. We conclude either that this is further evidence that QSOs have significant non-cosmological redshift components, or that the pairs must be explained by gravitational lensing. ... snip ... we turn to (3) and discuss what can be said in favor of a gravitational lensing scenario ... snip ... " And both Hoyle and Burbidge conclude that lensing doesn't explain it.

And here are quotes from a 2000 paper (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/121/1/21/200276.text.html ) by Burbidge: "To a first approximation, the QSOs in this list are simply the lensed fraction of the brightest QSOs in (say) the Hewitt & Burbidge (1993) catalog, modulated by some smooth function to take account of the lensing probability (which is a function of magnitude). ... snip ... The lensing probability varies smoothly with magnitude and so is unlikely to have much effect on the calculated significance ... snip ... Even among the gravitational lens candidates, there are only 12 in which it is claimed that the lensing galaxy has been identified and its redshift measured (Véron-Cetty & Véron 2000, Table*5)." So it looks like he was still considering lensing in 2000.

In fact, the 2000 book "A Different Approach to Cosmology" by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar has quite a lot to say about lensing ... including this: "The theory of gravitational lensing tells us that there is a small probability that the image of a background QSO at its redshift distance will be amplified by gravitational lensing due to a halo object so that it will appear much brighter than it actually is. If this mechanism is to explain the apparent associations of QSOs and galaxies, all of the spiral galaxies and also galaxies of other types must have these extended dark matter halos; but more important, a very large density of QSOs fainter than 20^m must be present so that there are always enough QSOs in the field to explain the number of close associations. Now we have a very good data on the density of QSOs on the sky. ... snip ... Using this, it has been shown by several authors ^35,36 that this mechanism will not explain the observed effect essentially because the density on the sky of QSOs begins to flatten off as the QSOs get fainter (>21^m)." Have you by chance read it?

So yes, I'd estimate that Burbidge has considered lensing effects in his work.

Finally, how consistent would you say the various authors have been in the definitions of "QSO" that they have used?

No idea. Again, do you have an example of inconsistency in the definition you'd like to highlight?

You are, no doubt, aware that there are many 'lensed quasars' - objects which have been (strongly) lensed by foreground galaxies.

How many? What percentage of the total? Has Burbidge misidentified or overlooked one in his work that you'd like to point out?

You are also, no doubt, aware that these are readily explained by assuming they are at distances implied by their redshifts and Hubble relationship (as well as mass models of the lensing galaxies that are just like local galaxies that have been studied in great detail).

Not everyone appears to agree with that. Are you aware of this?

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ge+lensing+redshift&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us "QSO-Galaxy Association and Gravitational Lensing, S. M. Tang and S. N. Zhang, 2005 ... snip ... NGC 3628 is a well-studied nearby edge-on Sbc peculiar galaxy, where QSOs are shown to be concentrated around the galaxy with a density much higher than background. We show that if present understanding of the luminosity function of QSOs is right, such concentration could not be caused by gravitational lensing."

'what's a quasar' (and, in this case, is it the same as a QSO)?

I'd hazard that the answer is yes. Why do you ask?

Care to take a stab at why the two referees were not convinced?

HINT: it's pretty obvious.

If you have something to say ... just say it. No need to be coy.

Seriously though, this paper is about as powerful and direct a refutation of Arp's original work as it is possible to imagine.

And in what way is it that? Again, if you have something to say ... then just say it, DRD. No need to be coy. Until you do, I'll just let what I quoted from Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez paper speak for itself.

Never mind; the key question here is the same as introduced for paper one: what is a 'quasar'?

Again, no need to be coy. If you think the definition that Arp, et al, have used is wrong or inconsistent, then just say so and tell us why.

For two gold stars, try correctly answering this question: in a volume-limited survey of quasars, how complete are the 2dF and SDSS surveys, by redshift?

And for three gold stars, tell us why this is important in relation to the various papers by Arp, Burbidge, etc.

BAC, this paper is garbage, it should never have been accepted by ApJ for publication ... and it's extremely easy to show why.

But it was accepted. So why don't you just spare us ALL your coyness and tell us why exactly that paper is garbage. And if you happen to be able to cite some letter to a journal or another peer reviewed paper to back up what you so, so much the better. No need to keep us in suspense.

Surely you jest BAC?!

No, I don't jest. That looks like a perfectly reasonable argument.

I mean, Tomes' material isn't even published

So what? One of the challenges I've repeatedly given your side of this debate is to provide published articles that challenge the many published articles I've provided. And the silence has been golden. To be quite frank, DRD, your side doesn't seem to think it matters whether a criticism of a theory is published or not.

 

[BeAChooser]

The Scranton paper http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0504510v1.pdf, which seems rock solid to me

How many times have we heard that.

One reason I'm skeptical that it's "rock solid" is that it doesn't even mention Arp, Burbidge or any of the other researchers that have been the primary critics of the mainstream on this issue. Don't you find that a little strange?

Perhaps their failure to mention Arp, et. al. is because they don't want to lead their readers to their opponents papers and books ... where they might learn there is more to this story than what this "rock solid" paper suggests.

You see, in particular, I guess I'd like an explanation how this explains the apparent over-density of quasars and high redshift galaxies along the minor axes of low redshift galaxies, as well as the over-density with relation to certain other features of galaxies like jets and x-ray lobes. The paper doesn't speak to that. At least, I couldn't find any mention of minor axes or jets.

You see, I'd have less problem with Scranton's explanation if the quasars near galaxies were distributed in a uniform manner ... in accordance with the supposed spherical halo distribution of dark matter. But that doesn't appear to be the case as paper after paper by Arp and others that I've cited clearly show. Also, surely you aren't suggesting "lensing" explains the highly unlikely alignment in NGC 7603 where we see galaxies of quite different redshifts precisely aligned along a low redshift filament and apparently interacting with that filament.

So do you care to comment?

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Why don't you ask David for a complete list since he claims he's read everything I've posted.

.
You were the one who mentioned them, so I thought you'd be the best source.

Fine, no papers, nothing to discuss.
.

No, I haven't. Have you?

.
Thanks, it's refreshing to see such honesty.

May an unbiased, objective reader infer that you haven't a clue about what a dog's breakfast you've spammed this thread with then?

Oh, and yes, I have and I did ... otherwise I wouldn't have had to guts to write anything ... may I conclude, from your remark, that you don't actually read, critically, these papers that you cite?
.

Could you be more specific? Which papers and how different are the values? What do you think the value is?

.
Now that's what I call chutzpah!

BAC, the papers you yourself cited!!!!

plus those that these papers themselves cite ...
.

There are many instances where the Burbidges talk about lensing in their papers. For example, there is this from a 1997 paper by Burbidge, Hoyle and Schneider (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ge+lensing+redshift&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us ) titled "Very close pairs of quasi-stellar objects": It is pointed out that there are now known four very close pairs of QSOs with separations < 5 arcsec and very different redshifts. Several estimates indicates that the probability that they are accidental configurations are small; a conservative estimate of the probability to have four such pairs by random projection yields 3.5 × 10^-3. We conclude either that this is further evidence that QSOs have significant non-cosmological redshift components, or that the pairs must be explained by gravitational lensing. ... snip ... we turn to (3) and discuss what can be said in favor of a gravitational lensing scenario ... snip ... " And both Hoyle and Burbidge conclude that lensing doesn't explain it.

.
Party time!

And are those estimates consistent with other Burbidge (and Arp) papers?

HINT: they are not.
.

And here are quotes from a 2000 paper (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/121/1/21/200276.text.html ) by Burbidge: "To a first approximation, the QSOs in this list are simply the lensed fraction of the brightest QSOs in (say) the Hewitt & Burbidge (1993) catalog, modulated by some smooth function to take account of the lensing probability (which is a function of magnitude). ... snip ... The lensing probability varies smoothly with magnitude and so is unlikely to have much effect on the calculated significance ... snip ... Even among the gravitational lens candidates, there are only 12 in which it is claimed that the lensing galaxy has been identified and its redshift measured (Véron-Cetty & Véron 2000, Table*5)." So it looks like he was still considering lensing in 2000.

.
That's nice ... however, my question was whether or not lensing had been considered in the B&B paper you cited, which you could have answered by actually reading it.

What's that? You didn't actually read it?!?
.

In fact, the 2000 book "A Different Approach to Cosmology" by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar has quite a lot to say about lensing ... including this: "The theory of gravitational lensing tells us that there is a small probability that the image of a background QSO at its redshift distance will be amplified by gravitational lensing due to a halo object so that it will appear much brighter than it actually is. If this mechanism is to explain the apparent associations of QSOs and galaxies, all of the spiral galaxies and also galaxies of other types must have these extended dark matter halos; but more important, a very large density of QSOs fainter than 20^m must be present so that there are always enough QSOs in the field to explain the number of close associations. Now we have a very good data on the density of QSOs on the sky. ... snip ... Using this, it has been shown by several authors ^35,36 that this mechanism will not explain the observed effect essentially because the density on the sky of QSOs begins to flatten off as the QSOs get fainter (>21^m)." Have you by chance read it?

So yes, I'd estimate that Burbidge has considered lensing effects in his work.

.
Right, so you didn't read the Scranton et al. 2005 paper, nor any that cited it (other than the Lopez-Corredoira and Gutierrez (2006) one)?

The only papers you read are those by your fave authors?
.

No idea. Again, do you have an example of inconsistency in the definition you'd like to highlight?

.
Omigod, omigod ... you've supposedly read all these papers on how QSOs/quasars may not (all) be at cosmological distances, published over a period of several decades, and not once, in all your reading, have you grokked that 'what is a quasar?' might, just might, be important to why there's so much fuss?
.

How many? What percentage of the total? Has Burbidge misidentified or overlooked one in his work that you'd like to point out?

.
Oh dear, you mean you don't actually know?!?

You might try CASTLES for starters (be sure to actually read, critically, the various papers on the publications page).

But the real killer is that strongly lensed quasars can be used as a direct, independent means to estimate H₀ (a term you know well, right?) ... and that estimate is consistent with that found in the HKP (within the estimated uncertainties).

So riddle me the probability of such a thing happening BAC.

(in a later post I'll cite a paper or two which reports some of these estimates; I do hope you're still around then, 'cause I will ask you - again - what the probability is of two such wildly different methods yielding the same value (within the uncertainties), if quasars are not at cosmological distances)
.

Not everyone appears to agree with that. Are you aware of this?

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ge+lensing+redshift&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us "QSO-Galaxy Association and Gravitational Lensing, S. M. Tang and S. N. Zhang, 2005 ... snip ... NGC 3628 is a well-studied nearby edge-on Sbc peculiar galaxy, where QSOs are shown to be concentrated around the galaxy with a density much higher than background. We show that if present understanding of the luminosity function of QSOs is right, such concentration could not be caused by gravitational lensing."

.
So, a battle of really cool abstracts, right?

Try this one for size then: "Based on the SDSS catalog, we have found new close quasar—galaxy pairs. We analyze the radial distribution of quasars from pairs around galaxies of different types. We show that the quasars from pairs follow the density profile of halo globular clusters. This is new observational evidence that the quasars projected onto the halos of galaxies are magnified by gravitational lensing by halo globular clusters."
.

I'd hazard that the answer is yes. Why do you ask?

.
Um, er, because consistent use of these two terms is central to the point you seem to be trying, rather in vain, to make?
.

If you have something to say ... just say it. No need to be coy.

.
If I have to buy a new monitor 'cause it got sprayed with coffee as I read this response, can I send you the bill?

Oh dear BAC, you really are priceless!

You cite a paper by a fave author (Arp, in this case), and include a note that it was rejected by two referees ... and you have no interest in trying to find out why they rejected it?

I've read several threads in which you have posted BAC, and if your responses here are typical, then I can well understand why others have called you a troll.

If you don't bother to actually read and understand what you post, why should anyone waste their time on replying to you?
.

And in what way is it that? Again, if you have something to say ... then just say it, DRD. No need to be coy. Until you do, I'll just let what I quoted from Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez paper speak for itself.

.
In other words, you haven't a clue about what either this paper or the 'landmark' Arp one(s) actually say.

Fine with me then.

For the benefit of others who read this thread, at a later date I'll go over some of the reasons L-C&G's paper does a wonderful job of demolishing Arp.
.

Again, no need to be coy. If you think the definition that Arp, et al, have used is wrong or inconsistent, then just say so and tell us why.



And for three gold stars, tell us why this is important in relation to the various papers by Arp, Burbidge, etc.

.
Oh wow, I haven't had so much fun in ages!!!

What, BAC, do you think the key thing in all (but one) of the materials you cited is?

It's the number of quasars (or QSOs) in each square degree (or 100 square degrees, or 100 square arc-minutes, or ...) ... by such other things as magnitude, redshift, and whether the traffic lights at the end of the street will turn green in the next 47.726345 seconds ...

If 'quasars' are imprecisely defined, if estimates are wrong, then the conclusions are not fit for human consumption.
.

But it was accepted. So why don't you just spare us ALL your coyness and tell us why exactly that paper is garbage. And if you happen to be able to cite some letter to a journal or another peer reviewed paper to back up what you so, so much the better. No need to keep us in suspense.

.
I said I'd give you two days, and I shall.

and yes, what I shall cite is nothing less than a quote from Bell's primary source .... (talk about a hint)
.

No, I don't jest. That looks like a perfectly reasonable argument.

.
Oh BAC, you are, once again, truly priceless ...

Shall I concoct what looks like a perfectly reasonable argument for your esteemed consideration? An argument that is, unfortunately, full of such nonsense that it would do Lear proud?

Whatever happened to critical thinking BAC? Independent verification? Checking of sources and logic? You mean to say all you did was read the words and conclude it "looks like a perfectly reasonable argument"?!?!?!
.

So what? One of the challenges I've repeatedly given your side of this debate is to provide published articles that challenge the many published articles I've provided. And the silence has been golden. To be quite frank, DRD, your side doesn't seem to think it matters whether a criticism of a theory is published or not.

.
Well, this is the first time I've actually responded to anything you wrote in direct response to what I wrote (I note that you have been totally silent in the thread that Zeuzzz and iantresman have been active in, despite many invitations from me to join), so I don't know quite what you mean by 'your side'.

Here's a clue for you BAC: few professional astronomers bother even reading papers by Arp et al. these days (unless they are asked to review them). There are many reasons why they don't; one of them is that these guys (and one gal) have such an appallingly bad record of even understanding the issues (such as statistics) much less writing anything of value (though some papers are good for teaching purposes - 'find a minimum of five fatal flaws in this paper', for example - and others worthy objects for derision over coffee).

 

[DeiRenDopa]

How many times have we heard that.

One reason I'm skeptical that it's "rock solid" is that it doesn't even mention Arp, Burbidge or any of the other researchers that have been the primary critics of the mainstream on this issue. Don't you find that a little strange?

.
Not at all; none of the papers you cited have anything more than trivial credibility.

Now if we were writing in the 1960s, or 1970s, or even the 1980s, it'd be an entirely different story (but we're not, so it isn't).

As should be at least somewhat clear to random readers of this thread, you don't even read, critically, what Arp, Burbidge and any of the other researchers that have been the primary critics of the mainstream on this issue.

Do you realise just how damaging that is to your own credibility?
.

Perhaps their failure to mention Arp, et. al. is because they don't want to lead their readers to their opponents papers and books ... where they might learn there is more to this story than what this "rock solid" paper suggests.

You see, in particular, I guess I'd like an explanation how this explains the apparent over-density of quasars and high redshift galaxies along the minor axes of low redshift galaxies, as well as the over-density with relation to certain other features of galaxies like jets and x-ray lobes. The paper doesn't speak to that. At least, I couldn't find any mention of minor axes or jets.

.
Well, considering that the best 'alternative' is, in fact, a powerful rebuttal of many of Arp's early papers, perhaps the explanation is a lot simpler than this fervid conspiracy theory based suggestion?
.

You see, I'd have less problem with Scranton's explanation if the quasars near galaxies were distributed in a uniform manner ... in accordance with the supposed spherical halo distribution of dark matter. But that doesn't appear to be the case as paper after paper by Arp and others that I've cited clearly show. Also, surely you aren't suggesting "lensing" explains the highly unlikely alignment in NGC 7603 where we see galaxies of quite different redshifts precisely aligned along a low redshift filament and apparently interacting with that filament.

.
Oh so now we shift from the main point of Scranton et al. (lensing of background quasars by foreground galaxies) to precise alignment of galaxies in a filament?

You want to cite the NGC 7603 paper now perhaps?

Oh, and precisely aligned? to within <0.0000000000001 arc-seconds??
.

So do you care to comment?

.
Yep; just did.

BAC, you seem to have no clue about what you're posting, much less have actually critically read any of the papers you cite ...

 

[Dancing David]

Why don't you ask David for a complete list since he claims he's read everything I've posted.

Talk about coy.

No, I haven't. Have you?



Could you be more specific? Which papers and how different are the values? What do you think the value is?

Your papers, old man.. would you like a cigarette? Perhaps this one?

Your papers, your values?

There are many instances where the Burbidges talk about lensing in their papers. For example, there is this from a 1997 paper by Burbidge, Hoyle and Schneider (http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ge+lensing+redshift&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us ) titled "Very close pairs of quasi-stellar objects": It is pointed out that there are now known four very close pairs of QSOs with separations < 5 arcsec and very different redshifts. Several estimates indicates that the probability that they are accidental configurations are small; a conservative estimate of the probability to have four such pairs by random projection yields 3.5 × 10^-3. We conclude either that this is further evidence that QSOs have significant non-cosmological redshift components, or that the pairs must be explained by gravitational lensing. ... snip ... we turn to (3) and discuss what can be said in favor of a gravitational lensing scenario ... snip ... " And both Hoyle and Burbidge conclude that lensing doesn't explain it.

And here are quotes from a 2000 paper (http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/1538-3881/121/1/21/200276.text.html ) by Burbidge: "To a first approximation, the QSOs in this list are simply the lensed fraction of the brightest QSOs in (say) the Hewitt & Burbidge (1993) catalog, modulated by some smooth function to take account of the lensing probability (which is a function of magnitude). ... snip ... The lensing probability varies smoothly with magnitude and so is unlikely to have much effect on the calculated significance ... snip ... Even among the gravitational lens candidates, there are only 12 in which it is claimed that the lensing galaxy has been identified and its redshift measured (Véron-Cetty & Véron 2000, Table*5)." So it looks like he was still considering lensing in 2000.

In fact, the 2000 book "A Different Approach to Cosmology" by Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar has quite a lot to say about lensing ... including this: "The theory of gravitational lensing tells us that there is a small probability that the image of a background QSO at its redshift distance will be amplified by gravitational lensing due to a halo object so that it will appear much brighter than it actually is. If this mechanism is to explain the apparent associations of QSOs and galaxies, all of the spiral galaxies and also galaxies of other types must have these extended dark matter halos; but more important, a very large density of QSOs fainter than 20^m must be present so that there are always enough QSOs in the field to explain the number of close associations. Now we have a very good data on the density of QSOs on the sky. ... snip ... Using this, it has been shown by several authors ^35,36 that this mechanism will not explain the observed effect essentially because the density on the sky of QSOs begins to flatten off as the QSOs get fainter (>21^m)." Have you by chance read it?

So yes, I'd estimate that Burbidge has considered lensing effects in his work.

Ah, yes but is it consistent with the more recent work?

How does it compare with the paper by
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701870

No idea. Again, do you have an example of inconsistency in the definition you'd like to highlight?

Ah, so what is an AGN and how theoretically does the alignment of the AGN perhaps correlate with QSOs?

How many? What percentage of the total? Has Burbidge misidentified or overlooked one in his work that you'd like to point out?

Oh, oh, you ar egtting flustered, the same probing questions that you supposedly ask of the standard model and you get flustered.

Quick wave your arms and change the topic.

Not everyone appears to agree with that. Are you aware of this?

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...ge+lensing+redshift&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=15&gl=us "QSO-Galaxy Association and Gravitational Lensing, S. M. Tang and S. N. Zhang, 2005 ... snip ... NGC 3628 is a well-studied nearby edge-on Sbc peculiar galaxy, where QSOs are shown to be concentrated around the galaxy with a density much higher than background. We show that if present understanding of the luminosity function of QSOs is right, such concentration could not be caused by gravitational lensing."

Now tie them together BAC, how does the weak lensing, the angle effect and clutering of galaxies and QSOs all have a relation to the paper you cite?

You do know that people are really studying this, not just stove piping data.

I'd hazard that the answer is yes. Why do you ask?



If you have something to say ... just say it. No need to be coy.

Ah, that is classic BAC, you are coy and obtuse, vague and opaque, you deny what you have said and then you ask someone to come right out with an answer.

1. What about the potential for sampling error in Arp's QSO associations?
2. What size field is needed for Perrat's model to explain galaxy rotation curves?
3. What keeps a Lerner plasmoid from collapsing? (say one that is 40,000 solar masses in an area with 43 AU diameter)
4. What causes halo star clusters to orbit galaxies faster than gravity minus dar matter would allow.
"If you have something to say ... just say it. No need to be coy.
"


Again, if you have something to say ... then just say it, BAC. No need to be coy.


Again, no need to be coy.

 

[Wangler]

BAC, I'm still on the fence!

One reason I'm skeptical that it's "rock solid" is that it doesn't even mention Arp, Burbidge or any of the other researchers that have been the primary critics of the mainstream on this issue. Don't you find that a little strange?

I think that the main purpose of the Scranton paper was too look at the overall distribution of a new, larger sample of QSOs with regards to lensing effects. I don't think he was necessarily trying to directly refute Arp.

You see, in particular, I guess I'd like an explanation how this explains the apparent over-density of quasars and high redshift galaxies along the minor axes of low redshift galaxies, as well as the over-density with relation to certain other features of galaxies like jets and x-ray lobes. The paper doesn't speak to that. At least, I couldn't find any mention of minor axes or jets.

I would love to see an explanation of any apparent over-density of QSOs along minor axes of low redshift galaxies. Again, I don't think Scranton was speaking to the morphology of any galaxy groups, or QSO/galaxy associations.

You see, I'd have less problem with Scranton's explanation if the quasars near galaxies were distributed in a uniform manner ... in accordance with the supposed spherical halo distribution of dark matter. But that doesn't appear to be the case as paper after paper by Arp and others that I've cited clearly show. Also, surely you aren't suggesting "lensing" explains the highly unlikely alignment in NGC 7603 where we see galaxies of quite different redshifts precisely aligned along a low redshift filament and apparently interacting with that filament.

BAC, I don't suggest that lensing is the explanation for alignments like NGC 7603 (notice that the objects of interest in the NGC 7603 case are NOT situated on the minor axis of the galaxy, but rather trailing along one of the spiral arms, apparently).

I am rather of the camp that believes that most QSO's at high redshift are probably very luminous, very distant objects. However, I am willing to entertain that some QSO-like objects, in the vicinity of AGNs, might be something different.

Did you notice in my previous post, I mentioned:

One thing that I think is interesting, is that Mountrichas and Shanks show correlation function graphs that seem to decline to beta=0 for separations of about 1-2 arcminutes.

Am I correct in taking this to mean that the correlation effects (=apparent increase in QSOs) are limited to 1-2 arcminutes from the lensing source?

Aren't a lot of Arp's "associated objects" and his constant writing about "densities of QSOs above background levels" considering areas up to 60 arcminutes from AGNs?

You see, I am trying to point out that Arp claims associations on the scale of one degree radial separations, but the Mountricahs and Shanks paper shows lensing-related "magnification" effects dropping out at a radial distance of much less than that! This seems like some ammo for Arp to proceed with!

As an amateur astronomer, I find this all fascinating, and my mind is still open.

So do you care to comment?

I hope this reply was useful.

Does anyone else have comments about the radial distance issue? I don't understand the lensing aspects, so I need to do more reading.

 

[Wangler]

More Shanks

What do you think of this Mountrichas and Shanks paper?

I noticed another Shanks paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609339v2

Seems like he might be investigating the need for dark energy by looking at these lensing issues.

 

[Wangler]

Gravitational Lensing Primer

Hey, all, I found a nice introductory paper:

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-1998-12/download/lrr-1998-12BW.pdf

Looks interesting!

 

[DeiRenDopa]

I noticed another Shanks paper here: http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0609339v2

Seems like he might be investigating the need for dark energy by looking at these lensing issues.

.
There are several recent papers on evaluating the nature of 'dark energy' using strong lenses; it's a powerful technique, not least because it's (largely) independent of other techniques and pretty direct.

Here is an example:

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Lens Search. III. Constraints on Dark Energy from the Third Data Release Quasar Lens Catalog

We present cosmological results from the statistics of lensed quasars in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) Quasar Lens Search. By taking proper account of the selection function, we compute the expected number of quasars lensed by early-type galaxies and their image separation distribution assuming a flat universe, which is then compared with seven lenses found in the SDSS Data Release 3 to derive constraints on dark energy under strictly controlled criteria. For a cosmological constant model (w = -1) we obtain ΩΛ = 0.74+0.11 -0.15(stat.)+0.13 -0.06(syst.). Allowing w to be a free parameter we find ΩM = 0.26+0.07 -0.06(stat.)+0.03 -0.05(syst.) and w = -1.1 ± 0.6(stat.)+0.3 -0.5(syst.) when combined with the constraint from the measurement of baryon acoustic oscillations in the SDSS luminous red galaxy sample. Our results are in good agreement with earlier lensing constraints obtained using radio lenses, and provide additional confirmation of the presence of dark energy consistent with a cosmological constant, derived independently of type Ia supernovae.

 

[BeAChooser]

You were the one who mentioned them, so I thought you'd be the best source.

Like I said, David should have no trouble linking you to them. Or you could use your browser and check the few threads I've posted on here at JREF where the Big Bang or modern astrophysics has been discussed. I just don't care to repeat everything for the Nth time.

Oh, and yes, I have and I did ... otherwise I wouldn't have had to guts to write anything

Well again, don't be coy. I don't see anywhere on this thread where you've offered that data yet. Waiting...

BAC, the papers you yourself cited!!!!

I've cited lots of papers. So which exact papers and which exact numbers are you worried about? Don't be coy. If you have problem with a specific number cited in one of the papers then identify it and tell us what you think it should be.

And are those estimates consistent with other Burbidge (and Arp) papers?

What estimate? What precise number? Don't be coy. Just tell us specifically what numbers you think are inconsistent in which two papers. Then we can discuss it.

however, my question was whether or not lensing had been considered in the B&B paper you cited

There is no mention of lensing in the paper. B&B just note that there are 20 QSOs in a 16 deg² region centered on NGC 5548 and that 13 of those 20 are to located in about a 1 deg² region centered on NGC 5528. Now, go ahead and explain that away with your lensing statistics. Don't be coy.

Omigod, omigod ... you've supposedly read all these papers on how QSOs/quasars may not (all) be at cosmological distances, published over a period of several decades, and not once, in all your reading, have you grokked that 'what is a quasar?' might, just might, be important to why there's so much fuss?

You're still being coy. And I notice you haven't yet been anything but coy so far in this thread.

Quote:
How many? What percentage of the total? Has Burbidge misidentified or overlooked one in his work that you'd like to point out?

Oh dear, you mean you don't actually know?!?

Coy. You do know what that word means, don't you? Keep it up and I may ignore you like I do David.

You might try CASTLES for starters (be sure to actually read, critically, the various papers on the publications page).

Before I go to all that trouble, why don't you just stop being coy and tell us exactly where Arp, Burbidge, etc have gone wrong in their definition of quasar (or QSO, if you like).

in a later post I'll cite a paper or two which reports some of these estimates; I do hope you're still around then,

No need to be coy. Just do it now. We are all waiting.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache...nk&cd=15&gl=us "QSO-Galaxy Association and Gravitational Lensing, S. M. Tang and S. N. Zhang, 2005 ... snip ... NGC 3628 is a well-studied nearby edge-on Sbc peculiar galaxy, where QSOs are shown to be concentrated around the galaxy with a density much higher than background. We show that if present understanding of the luminosity function of QSOs is right, such concentration could not be caused by gravitational lensing."

So, a battle of really cool abstracts, right?

Not quite. I actually linked you to the article so you can see the details in how they arrived at that conclusion.

Try this one for size then

That's just an abstract. Here's the full article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.0446 . I note they based that conclusion on a sample of only 64 quasar-galaxy pairs out of all they had available.

Um, er, because consistent use of these two terms is central to the point you seem to be trying, rather in vain, to make?

Yeah, but we still don't know what you find inconsistent due to your coyness.

You cite a paper by a fave author (Arp, in this case), and include a note that it was rejected by two referees ... and you have no interest in trying to find out why they rejected it?

I didn't say I wasn't interested. In fact, I ASKED YOU to tell us why. Instead, all we get is more coyness.

I can well understand why others have called you a troll.

At least I'm not a coy troll.

why should anyone waste their time on replying to you?

So why are you? Because you saw the rest of them were floundering in this discussion? Did you think you'd clear it up with coyness?

Quote:
Again, if you have something to say ... then just say it, DRD. No need to be coy. Until you do, I'll just let what I quoted from Lopez-Corredoira and C. M. Gutierrez paper speak for itself.
.
In other words, you haven't a clue about what either this paper or the 'landmark' Arp one(s) actually say.

In other words, you'd rather be coy than actually state your concern. Like I said, until you do, I'll let what I quoted from L-C&G's paper speak for itself.

For the benefit of others who read this thread, at a later date I'll go over some of the reasons L-C&G's paper does a wonderful job of demolishing Arp.

Why be so coy? Why not just do it now? ... If you really are interested in clearing up any confusion my posting L-C&G's paper might have caused.

.
Quote:
Again, no need to be coy. If you think the definition that Arp, et al, have used is wrong or inconsistent, then just say so and tell us why.

And for three gold stars, tell us why this is important in relation to the various papers by Arp, Burbidge, etc.
.
Oh wow, I haven't had so much fun in ages!!!

What, BAC, do you think the key thing in all (but one) of the materials you cited is?

What? Is coyness all we will get from you?

It's the number of quasars (or QSOs) in each square degree

And will you ever get around to giving us that number and show us why Arp, et al, are wrong? Or just go on being coy?

I said I'd give you two days, and I shall.

Guess you'll go on being coy.

Whatever happened to critical thinking BAC? Independent verification? Checking of sources and logic? You mean to say all you did was read the words and conclude it "looks like a perfectly reasonable argument"?!?!?!

Coyness? Is that all we'll every get out of you?

Well, this is the first time I've actually responded to anything you wrote in direct response to what I wrote

Gee ... that sounds like another coy response.

Here's a clue for you BAC: few professional astronomers bother even reading papers by Arp et al. these days (unless they are asked to review them). There are many reasons why they don't; one of them is that these guys (and one gal) have such an appallingly bad record of even understanding the issues (such as statistics) much less writing anything of value (though some papers are good for teaching purposes - 'find a minimum of five fatal flaws in this paper', for example - and others worthy objects for derision over coffee).

More coyness. We still haven't actually heard what these flaws are, DRD.

 

[BeAChooser]

.
Quote
You see, in particular, I guess I'd like an explanation how this explains the apparent over-density of quasars and high redshift galaxies along the minor axes of low redshift galaxies, as well as the over-density with relation to certain other features of galaxies like jets and x-ray lobes. The paper doesn't speak to that. At least, I couldn't find any mention of minor axes or jets.
.
Well, considering that the best 'alternative' is, in fact, a powerful rebuttal of many of Arp's early papers, perhaps the explanation is a lot simpler than this fervid conspiracy theory based suggestion?

I see you are going to be coy about this issue too.

Oh so now we shift from the main point of Scranton et al. (lensing of background quasars by foreground galaxies) to precise alignment of galaxies in a filament?

No, I'm still quite interested in why the Scranton paper makes no mention of galaxy minor axes or jets and the assertion (backed by numerous examples from Arp, et. al.) that quasars seem to be positionally associated with them. But the issue of non-cosmological redshift appears related to some galaxies as well. If lensing is the answer to all coincidental associations, why isn't it the answer in the case of NGC 7603? Or do you have another explanation you'd like to offer?

You want to cite the NGC 7603 paper now perhaps?

I believe I did earlier in this thread or if not you should have no trouble finding mention of it in the other threads I've contributed to on Big Bang in the past several months. Or just browse the web.

Oh, and precisely aligned? to within <0.0000000000001 arc-seconds??

Why don't you just look at the picture?

.
Quote:
So do you care to comment?
.
Yep; just did.

Indeed you did ... coyly.

 

[Dancing David]

Like I said, David should have no trouble linking you to them. Or you could use your browser and check the few threads I've posted on here at JREF where the Big Bang or modern astrophysics has been discussed. I just don't care to repeat everything for the Nth time.



Well again, don't be coy. I don't see anywhere on this thread where you've offered that data yet. Waiting...



I've cited lots of papers. So which exact papers and which exact numbers are you worried about? Don't be coy. If you have problem with a specific number cited in one of the papers then identify it and tell us what you think it should be.



What estimate? What precise number? Don't be coy. Just tell us specifically what numbers you think are inconsistent in which two papers. Then we can discuss it.



There is no mention of lensing in the paper. B&B just note that there are 20 QSOs in a 16 deg² region centered on NGC 5548 and that 13 of those 20 are to located in about a 1 deg² region centered on NGC 5528. Now, go ahead and explain that away with your lensing statistics. Don't be coy.



You're still being coy. And I notice you haven't yet been anything but coy so far in this thread.



Coy. You do know what that word means, don't you? Keep it up and I may ignore you like I do David.



Before I go to all that trouble, why don't you just stop being coy and tell us exactly where Arp, Burbidge, etc have gone wrong in their definition of quasar (or QSO, if you like).



No need to be coy. Just do it now. We are all waiting.



Not quite. I actually linked you to the article so you can see the details in how they arrived at that conclusion.



That's just an abstract. Here's the full article: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0705.0446 . I note they based that conclusion on a sample of only 64 quasar-galaxy pairs out of all they had available.



Yeah, but we still don't know what you find inconsistent due to your coyness.



I didn't say I wasn't interested. In fact, I ASKED YOU to tell us why. Instead, all we get is more coyness.



At least I'm not a coy troll.



So why are you? Because you saw the rest of them were floundering in this discussion? Did you think you'd clear it up with coyness?



In other words, you'd rather be coy than actually state your concern. Like I said, until you do, I'll let what I quoted from L-C&G's paper speak for itself.



Why be so coy? Why not just do it now? ... If you really are interested in clearing up any confusion my posting L-C&G's paper might have caused.



What? Is coyness all we will get from you?



And will you ever get around to giving us that number and show us why Arp, et al, are wrong? Or just go on being coy?



Guess you'll go on being coy.



Coyness? Is that all we'll every get out of you?



Gee ... that sounds like another coy response.



More coyness. We still haven't actually heard what these flaws are, DRD.

You used the word coy 20 out of 541 words.

for 3.69% so at least in this post there seems to be an abnormally high occurance of the word coy.


Then there is the usual arm waving, evasions and outright bullpoop.

If you can't undertsand what DRD is asking you, don't just retreat into your Karl Jr. mode, it is very obvious that you aren't able to answer questions.

It is very disturbing to see you refer DRD to you early threads considering the amount of argumentation by spam you did in them.

This one is only nine pages and your behavior was a whole lot more reasonable then
:http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=90595

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2913550&postcount=90

you do show a pretty picture here

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2916730&postcount=99

and I think you mention some papers here, along with the obligatory conspiracy whining

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2920893&postcount=151

here you say they number in the hundreds but don’t cite them, and some more conspiracy whining

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2923410&postcount=179

here is one


Now unfortunately around page 4 your behavior degrades and you ar getting rude for sure by page seven.

I just searched the thread for the word Arp page by page and I notice something, you wave Arp’s name a lot but you don’t cite data very often, so I begin to suspect more Karl Jr. here, you claim to have linked to Arp’s data but maybe you haven’t you just assert that you have and now you whine about it.

My favorite is at the top of page three however

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2912272&postcount=81

Yes. Which they've built into complex particle in cell computer codes that model the effects of gravity, electric and magnetic effects on matter with great precision. And then they've run those codes on very big computers and proven that the electro-magnetic effects dominate and produce observed rotation curves without introducing vast additional amounts of undetectable, untestable, bizarrely propertied dark matter. You might want to look up Dr Anthony Peratt at LANL.

So they ‘produce observed rotation curves’ but require EM fields that you can’t name, label of give a size to, although giga-ampere seems to come to mind.

So here we have happy Gnone Number Two, sitting pretty in the garden.

What evidence is there to show that the fields suggested by Perrat exist?

Have you put a size to the EM force yet?

 

[Wangler]

Sigh!!!!!!!!!

Another promising thread caught in a train-wreck of egos and accusations!

Anyone have any constructive comments about the radial distance issue I mentioned before?

 

[Wangler]

Mountrichas and Shanks

There is at least one paper which looks at both the SDSS and 2dF surveys: "QSO lensing magnification: a comparison of 2QZ and Sloan Digital Sky Survey results" (arXiv link - note that there are two versions, dated Jan 2007 and Feb 2008).

What do you think of this Mountrichas and Shanks paper?

I have had a further look at this paper; they seem to be saying that the excess shown my Scranton is a little high; and overall the anti-correlation at dimmer magnitudes seems to hold for both Scranton and Myers' collections of work.

Also, they looked at galaxy clusters as well.

My conclusion from this paper: QSO/galaxy lensing correlations are similar for Scranton and Myers' papers, and the correlations appear to be minimal for brighter QSOs, and anti-correlations appear to be minimal for dimmer. The correlations all drop to zero (meaning no excess of QSOs over average background) within just a few arc-minutes of the lensing objects (galaxies or galaxy groups).

Again, this seems like a good paper for people in the Arp camp to consider, and build upon.



Keith

 

[BeAChooser]

I hope this reply was useful.

It's fine.

 

[Dancing David]

Another promising thread caught in a train-wreck of egos and accusations!

Anyone have any constructive comments about the radial distance issue I mentioned before?

Okay, in your honor I will say 'cease fire' and hold my fire.

I think that the correlations are very interesting, but until we get a grip on the possible influence of dark matter, if it exists and if it is not always associated with galactic halos, it will be very hard to decide what is going on. DRD also points out that the clustering of stuff is another confounding issue. The other problem is that the farther we look the more stuff we see, so i really wonder about alignments in general, but I will state that is my bias.

So I am not sure what to make of the radial distance effect, yet the math used by the people in the paper by Mountrichas and Shanks seems to provide a chance to recorrelate the current material. I know that it causes an increase in some things and a decrease in others. So again one more filter to run the data through.

I think the best is to call it a scrub and go for it all new. I would be thrilled if the current theories were shaken to thier core by something like the ejection of QSOs and thier evolution into galaxies, but so far it doesn't look likely.

 

[BeAChooser]

Keith, here are a couple of points concerning the Scranton paper that I found elsewhere on the web ... by a poster named dgruss23 in a thread that Scranton was actually participating in (http://www.bautforum.com/astronomy/17911-200-000-quasars-cant-wrong-2.html ):

While the paper is a perfectly valid test of cosmic magnification, the assumptions of the paper (through some of the cuts made) simply do not allow for a comparison with Arp’s empirical model.

First, you have to recognize that Arp’s examples involve associations between specific galaxies and specific QSO’s. The vast majority of identified QSO parent galaxies are very low redshift. When a QSO parent is above z=0.1, there is likely a larger, lower redshift AGN nearby that is the parent of the QSO’s parent. For example, the NEQ3 system has a z=0.12 galaxy as the parent of several z=0.19-0.22 objects. But NEQ3 is near the much lower redshift Seyfert (again) NGC 4151.

So immediately a problem with using the magnification study as a test of Arp’s hypothesis is that the study does not attempt to find associations between AGN and the QSO’s.

A second point is that if you look at figure 1 of the paper you’ll see that the lower redshift galaxies peak around z=0.3. That is not a suitable redshift for finding QSO parent galaxies in Arp’s model. You want to focus on galaxies with z<0.1 and really galaxies with z<.05. So regardless of the correlations the study found, the galaxies used were not constrained to the appropriate redshift range for QSO parents.

A third point is that the assumption that quasars are at cosmological distances does have an impact on the validity of the analysis as a test of Arp’s model. The quasars were assumed to be background objects in order to test for the magnification signal. The first sentence of the paper:

We expect the large-scale structure seen in the low redshift Universe to gravitationally lens background objects such as high redshift galaxies and quasars.

This is the whole underlying premise of the test for magnification and it directly affects the sample selection (page 5):

In addition to finding quasars, we applied photometric redshift techniques (Weinstein et al 2004) to filter out lower redshift quasars which might be physically associated with our foreground sample. … To prevent redshift overlap with the galaxies, we required that the upper and lower bounds were within the range 1 < z < 2.2 …

So I find myself mystified as to why there is an objection to my statement that the QSO’s were assumed to be background. The paper clearly spells out that there was such an assumption for the magnification test. The quasars are described as background and redshift ranges are set such that lower redshift QSO’s are eliminated because they might be associated with the galaxies that are interpreted to be foreground.

Now don’t misunderstand. The technique and cuts were perfectly appropriate for a cosmic lensing test, but they were not appropriate for testing the local QSO’s hypothesis.

Comments? And note that neither Scranton nor anyone else responded to the above.

And for those who are interested, here's an analysis of the NGC 7603 case by M. López-Corredoira and C. M. Gutiérrez that dgruss23 mentioned in that thread: http://www.aanda.org/index.php?opti...cles/aa/full/2004/26/aa0260/aa0260.right.html .

Plus here's another fine example of problematic redshifts L-C&G have studied which is also mentioned by dgruss23 on that thread and in the above excerpt by him: http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/resolve?ApJL17859PDF "QSO + galaxy association and discrepant redshifts in NEQ3, C. M. Gutierrez, M. Lopez-Corredoira, (Submitted on 28 Jan 2004) Spectroscopy and deep imaging of the group NEQ3 are presented. This system is formed by three compact objects with relative separations of ~2.6 and ~2.8 arcsec, and a lenticular galaxy at ~17 arcsec from the geometric centre of the group. A diffuse filament is located on a line joining the three compact objects and the main galaxy. Analysis of these observations confirms the redshift previously known for three of the objects (z=0.1239 for the main galaxy, and z=0.1935 and 0.1939 for two of the compact objects). We have also determined the previously unknown redshift of the third compact object as z=0.2229. Using the relative strength and width of the main spectral lines, we have classified the compact objects as two HII galaxies and one QSO (the object at z=0.1935). With cross-correlation techniques, we have tentatively estimated the redshift of the filament as z=0.19 (although a weaker component also appears at z=0.12) so that it is probably associated with the halo of the two compact objects at this redshift. The two objects at redshift ~0.19 represent possibly one of the more clear examples of starburst (and perhaps QSO activity) driven by interaction. These, and the relation between these two objects and the other two at (~0.12 and ~0.22) make the nature of this system intriguing, being difficult to explain the whole association on conventional scenarios." (BAC - Note there is a good image of the relative location of the objects to one another in the paper.)

Comments?