It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Perhaps Halton Arp was right after all! A few decades ago he argued that quasars were local objects, within our galaxy. His theory was much to the displeasure of conventional scientists.
Originally posted by Aliensun
Perhaps Halton Arp was right after all! A few decades ago he argued that quasars were local objects, within our galaxy. His theory was much to the displeasure of conventional scientists.
Maybe some day, some bright, maverick phyicist will theorize that quasars are actually much smaller than what we have assumed, besides being billions of light years closer, and will concluded that they are interstellar spaceships moving--to our senses--at the velocity of SOL toward our sun and have, in fact, arrived millions of years ago ahead of those light signatures. Naw! Too crazy even for sci-fi!
Originally posted by XPLodER
reply to post by drakus
ok so after re reading the article
i realise that the pulses are evenly spaced regardless of distence to object
so this means this light is not being streached and the pulses are not further away apart from pulse like they should be if doppler shift or universal expansion is ocouring
this means one of three things
first the quasars are not at the distence indicated by there red shift
added by alfa1 "pulsars of varying distence may have different properties"
xploderedit on 10-5-2011 by XPLodER because: add reason
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Why make a model that fits the evidence, when we can make more money making the evidence fit our model.
Why? Because new models lead to winning the Nobel Prize.
Fudging the evidence to fit a preestablished idea doesnt really lead to much at all except the end of your career, since anyone else around the world will be looking at the same evidence (from the freely available sky) and call you out on it.
Originally posted by Dashdragon
It's not just money...people are just stupid in general.
PplVSNWO - EU/PU proponents are the only ones I've seen twisting evidence to try and make it fit thier models. It's enjoyable watching hard scientists shoot them down on UniverseToday in the comments section.
A true scientist looks at an anomoly like this, notes that it does not fit the currently held theory or model, and then tries to figure out why this is different than that. Once this is resolved, the model is altered as needed to accomodate. If the new find dictates that a different model is required that fits the data better, then this is what would happen.
If the Electric Universe idea and it's assortment of theories fits the data better, then all those scientists need to do is show it. Publish the math, get it peer reviewed, and if it stands up it then congratulations. The same goes for the Plasma Universe believers.
Pet theories are all well and fine, but they are just that. Unless and until there is peer reviewed proof, that's all they will be. So far the only mention I've ever seen is people from the EU/PU side of the fence decrying about the evil GR scientists and then throwing in a bit of gibberish that can fool laymen into thinking it's science. No one is holding them back...no one is repressing them...they simply refuse to adequately attempt to prove thier theories. When a holes are pointed out and documented, they whine like children who just had thier lollypop stolen about how the big bad bully will never let them win.
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
And, there are peer reviewed papers on plasma cosmology and electric universe.edit on 11-5-2011 by PplVSNWO because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
How do you get a paper peer reviewed by scientists that are not your peers? It would be easy for papers to be evaluated by other plasma and eu scientists, but are you suggesting that scientists whos entire life work is based upon GR and SR will give that up by admitting they were wrong?
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Except this is not what happens. All that ever happens is another adjustment is made and on and on until you end up inventing things like "dark matter" and "black holes" to make your failed models work.
I have no knowledge to judge what you say here, but the June 2011 issue of Discovery magazine has an article titled "Beyond the Event Horizen" written by Steve Nadis. It covers the black hole research of Andrew Hamilton. Interestingly, it's brought up that black holes might create universes and for a time they're connected to the black hole before being complete separated. I can't comment further on it. It's way beyond me. But if you can get a copy of that issue, you might gather more from it than me.
Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by XPLodER
Quasars are one of the most mysterious things in the universe. They're basically at the edge of the universe, yet we can see the light from them all the way over here in the Milky Way galaxy. Can you imagine how much energy that takes? There is more energy in a single quasar than there is in an entire average galaxy! I'm not surprised that they don't show time dilation, something that energetic and massive would be expected to alter space and time, much like a black hole. I've actually heard a theory that quasars are the other end of a black hole, what is called a "white hole". All of the matter inside of a black hole may pop up on the other end of the universe, or it could even be from a black hole in another parallel universe which leads to our universe.
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Originally posted by alfa1
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
Why make a model that fits the evidence, when we can make more money making the evidence fit our model.
Why? Because new models lead to winning the Nobel Prize.
Fudging the evidence to fit a preestablished idea doesnt really lead to much at all except the end of your career, since anyone else around the world will be looking at the same evidence (from the freely available sky) and call you out on it.
Would you rather have a Nobel prize, or an endless supply financing?
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by john_bmth
I guess you are right. It's the goal of every GR/SR scientist to get a Nobel prize. Nobody is in it for the money, it's all about the prize that you have about as good a chance at winning as the lottery. This is not even a real argument.
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by Dashdragon
How about a link to a list of peer reviewed papers?
Link
Those are on electricity in space.
Plasma Cosmology
That one has peer reviewed papers on Plasma Cosmology in the references section.
These were just with a quick google search. I'm sure if you really practice hard, you can develop the skills to seek out more papers.
There are many peer reviewed papers on electricity (electric fields and electric currents) in space. They do not necessarily cover aspects of the "Electric Universe" theories.
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
These were just with a quick google search. I'm sure if you really practice hard, you can develop the skills to seek out more papers.
Originally posted by PplVSNWO
reply to post by john_bmth
I guess you are right. It's the goal of every GR/SR scientist to get a Nobel prize. Nobody is in it for the money, it's all about the prize that you have about as good a chance at winning as the lottery. This is not even a real argument.