Hoyle-Narlikar Theory

sol invictus said:
This is an excellent resource. You might start with "CMB introduction". His Ph.D. thesis (available here) is an almost (from what I recall) complete exposition of the computation.
Click to expand...

Sol,

thanks for the answers, and the links to the CMB stuff....pretty cool, and one of the few on-line pubs. that I will print out for my library.

It seems like the calculations for the CMB spectrum are grounded in reality, as opposed to being some mathematical construct.

Why can't the QSSC folks come up with an exposition like this?

I mean, it would be impossible for me to do it, but what about those guys who should know this stuff?

Does everyone think that the reason that we have a detailed CMB spectrum calculation from the "standard model" proponents is because there are so many more of them then the few "alternate model" theorists?

If someone was to attempt to provide a detailed CMB spectrum calcuation based upon QSSC, that wasn't "ad hoc", and assuming that the appropriate physics exist in the QSSC theory, how long would it take to provide a thorough analysis like this thesis that Sol links to?

A year? A decade? A century?

I always enjoy looking at, and considering, these alternate theories.

But, they always seem to be lacking when the rubber hits the road.
 
Wangler said:
Does everyone think that the reason that we have a detailed CMB spectrum calculation from the "standard model" proponents is because there are so many more of them then the few "alternate model" theorists?
Click to expand...

That is part of the reason, but you may be confusing cause and effect.

It's like asking why we have such sophisticated gasoline-powered internal combustion engines rather than wood-fueled steam engines? Is it because so many more engineers are working on gas engines? Part of the answer is yes, but the underlying cause is that gasoline is superior to wood as an engine fuel.

Same thing here - no young researcher in their right mind would work on this nonsense, because the odds that it's correct are essentially zero. It will survive as a theory until its last proponents die (which may not be long), and then it will go the way of the luminiferous aether, earth-centered solar system, and viscous humors.
 
sol invictus said:
...........and then it will go the way of the luminiferous aether, earth-centered solar system, and viscous humors.
Click to expand...

Uh,

I was almost done with my CMB anisotropy model, with the luminiferous aether and viscous humors as my only variables.

Back to the drawing board.......:o
 
Say Wrangler ... ask Sol to come comment on my calculations regarding the probability of seeing certain quasar/galaxy associations. :D
 
Has anyone noticed that one of the tags on this thread is "bib bang"?

Standard model cosmologists are such babies!

:D
 
Oh, and by the way - I was in the mood for some wholesome family entertainment, so I took a look at BAC's post:

BeAChooser said:
To find the probability of a set of r specific values picked randomly from a distribution of n different values, we actually need to ratio the number of ways one can pick those r values from the distribution by the number of ways one can pick any r values from the distribution. Right?

For example, if we have a distribution with 5 possible values (call them a,b,c,d,e) and we want the probability of seeing c and d show up in a random draw of 2 values from that pool of 5 possibilities, we first need to find the number of ways we can draw c and d. Well that turns out to be r!, so the answer is 2 in that case.

Next, we need to divide by the number of ways one can draw ANY 2 values from the 5 possibilities. Note that drawing that value does not eliminate it from the pool. The formula to use here is nr. So there are 52 = 25 ways of drawing 2 values from a pool containing 5 different values.

So the probability of seeing c and d in a single observation in the above example is 2/25 = 0.08 = 8 percent.

So the formula I should have used in my calculation for the probability of seeing r specific values of z picked randomly from a distribution of n different values of z is

P = r!/nr.
Click to expand...

As anyone with even basic mathematical competence (that bothers to read this trash carefully enough) can see immediately, this formula is totally wrong. r! grows much faster with r than n^r, so for large r, these "probabilities" become larger than 1. For a simple example, suppose there were only 2 possible values, heads and tails, and we wanted to know the odds of getting HHTT. According to BAC, that's 4!/2^4=1.5. Oops!*

Of course it's much worse than that - as I keep pointing out, BAC is using false a posteori reasoning from the very beginning. His way of applying his wrong formula is a good example - he asks what the odds are of getting quasar redshifts close to some particular set of values, and finds that it's small. But he doesn't ask for the odds of finding some other set of redshifts which are close to some other set of those values - and yet, had that other set been the data, he would have claimed it to be equally unlikely and hence equally as significant.

*This formula is correct for something - namely, the odds of drawing r distinct values out of n - but that is not what BAC needs, nor is it how he uses it. There is no reason why two quasars can't have the same redshift, and in fact there is a case where they do in this same post.
 
Last edited:
Ah but you missed BAC's post where he actually did take a different set of inputs, and calculated the 'probability' (per his method); the result was a (small) number higher than the result from 'his' method ... from this he confidently concluded that 'his' (a posterori) configuration is enough to disprove a key aspect of LCDM cosmology (or at least provided sufficient grounds for justifying his claims that all but a tiny handful of astronomers, astrophysicists, etc are essentially blind dolts).
 
DeiRenDopa said:
Ah but you missed BAC's post where he actually did take a different set of inputs, and calculated the 'probability' (per his method); the result was a (small) number higher than the result from 'his' method ...
Click to expand...

His formula is just wrong, so there's not much point in reading any other of his posts. I've had enough entertainment for now.

In any case, the correct way to do this would be to take every possible data set, calculate the "significance" of each (using whatever formula you choose - BAC's wrong one, for example), and then ask what fraction of those possible data sets are as significant or more than the actual data. That fraction is the true significance of the data with respect to that formula. (Of course there are much simpler approximations to that procedure one almost always can use in cases where the formula is correct and actually means something.)

In this case that wold have to be done for the full sample of all quasars, not just those near a few cherry-picked galaxies. And even then, one must have a theory to compare to, and one must be extremely careful with systematic biases in the data sets.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Say Wrangler ... ask Sol to come comment on my calculations regarding the probability of seeing certain quasar/galaxy associations. :D
Click to expand...

BAC please don't split this thread, just post a link to the post and leave it at that.

Thank you.

Others please do the same, thank you!
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
BeAChooser wrote: So the formula I should have used in my calculation for the probability of seeing r specific values of z picked randomly from a distribution of n different values of z is P = r!/nr.

As anyone with even basic mathematical competence (that bothers to read this trash carefully enough) can see immediately, this formula is totally wrong.
Click to expand...

ROTFLOL! Wrong, sol. That is, in fact, the correct formula for the calculation I described.

sol invictus said:
r! grows much faster with r than n^r, so for large r, these "probabilities" become larger than 1.
Click to expand...

Except you overlooked one thing ... r<=n . So this formula is ALWAYS less than 1 for any combination of r and n that fit that constraint ... a constraint which clearly applies to the calculation I set forth on the other thread. So all you've done here, sol, is demonstrate that you didn't even bother to read the methodology I described and you don't have a clue what you are talking about. :)

I would ask that if you have further comments about my calculation ... like this one, you post them on the thread where the calculation is presented and discussed so foolish criticism like this can be seen in the proper context. And not disrupt this thread. And by the way, your comment regarding my "use" of a posteriori reasoning is equally bogus as has been explained on that other thread as well. No need to do it here. :D
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
ROTFLOL! Wrong, sol. That is, in fact, the correct formula for the calculation I described.
Click to expand...

Nope. That's not how you used it.

Except you overlooked one thing ... r<=n .
Click to expand...

Nope. Go re-read your own post. In your second example, you put two redshifts into the same "bin" (i.e. two are closest to the same reference value). The moment you do that, the formula is wrong. (Moreover, in Arp's "model" there is no reason why r cannot be greater than n, or why two quasars cannot correspond to the same peak. So your formula is wrong both for the "model" you wanted to study and given the way you applied it.)

Here it is:
In this case, observed z = 0.69, 0.81, 1.90, 1.97, 2.13 according to http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//...00006.000.html . With Karlsson z = 0.06, 0.3, 0.6, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, 2.64 , the spacing to the nearest Karlson values are +0.09, -0.15, -0.06, +0.01 and +0.17.
Click to expand...

Both z=1.90 and z=1.97 are assigned to the Karlsson z=1.96 slot. So you're simply picking r values out of n, not r distinct values out of n.

Of course as I said, this is also wrong for a much more basic reason - the probability you get from this is NOT the significance. To get that you must calculate the probability of every possible data set you'd consider equally or more significant, and normalize with respect to that.
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
Quote:
Except you overlooked one thing ... r<=n .

Nope.
Click to expand...

Wrong. r is ALWAYS <= n in the methodology used in my calcualtions so that formula will NEVER be > 1. You are simply wrong, sol.

sol invictus said:
In your second example, you put two redshifts into the same "bin" (i.e. two are closest to the same reference value). The moment you do that, the formula is wrong.
Click to expand...

Wrong again, sol. The formula nr specifically applies in problems where the samples are returned to the population from which they are taken before drawing the next one. That part of the formula allows multiple draws of the same number. And the numerator has nothing to do with what the values of the samples are, only the total number of sample drawn. And the methodology (which you clearly didn't bother to understand) is such that r is ALWAYS <= n ... so you are simply wrong, and not wise enough to know when to quit before embarrassing yourself further.
 
Sigh BAC, i will ask you again to keep the statitistics to the other thread. I will post Sol's responses as they occur, but please this is the thread for Hoyle-Nrlikar, not your use of statistics. I would rather not have this thread moderated.

If you wish to post here please keep your comments to Hoyle-Narliakar theory and not your statistics.
 
sol invictus said:
Nope. That's not how you used it.



Nope. Go re-read your own post. In your second example, you put two redshifts into the same "bin" (i.e. two are closest to the same reference value). The moment you do that, the formula is wrong. (Moreover, in Arp's "model" there is no reason why r cannot be greater than n, or why two quasars cannot correspond to the same peak. So your formula is wrong both for the "model" you wanted to study and given the way you applied it.)

Here it is:

Both z=1.90 and z=1.97 are assigned to the Karlsson z=1.96 slot. So you're simply picking r values out of n, not r distinct values out of n.

Of course as I said, this is also wrong for a much more basic reason - the probability you get from this is NOT the significance. To get that you must calculate the probability of every possible data set you'd consider equally or more significant, and normalize with respect to that.
Click to expand...

Sol, please take these responses to http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107779

i aprreciate your comments as you agree with me, but one of BAC's tactics is flipping threads.

Please. :)
 
Dancing David said:
Sigh BAC, i will ask you again to keep the statitistics to the other thread.
Click to expand...

I asked sol to respond to the other thread. For some reason he couldn't grasp that I wanted him to respond on that thread. I'm more than willing to keep that debate there ... if sol keeps it there. :)
 
BeAChooser said:
I asked sol to respond to the other thread. For some reason he couldn't grasp that I wanted him to respond on that thread. I'm more than willing to keep that debate there ... if sol keeps it there. :)
Click to expand...


Thanks, like I said I will move the posts, so we don't get the same conversation on two threads.

:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom