 Quote by ratfink
If you don’t mind me saying so, we seem to have a problem here Nereid. We have a conflict of interest on your part. As a participator in the discussion you are clearly in error with your evolution explanation. However when this is pointed out, instead of accepting this you seem to be using the power of your position to ask me to stop posting.
This is something the board administrators need to address. Should a person taking part in a discussion be allowed to moderate it as well?
|
This appeared in a post* in the
quasar anomalies thread, which due to my clumsy thread surgery, seems to have temporarily disappeared (it'll be back soon).
The extract, however, belongs here.
*
the content is as follows:
Quote by ratfink
Quote by Nereid
As has already been pointed out to you, your analysis here is far too simplistic - quasars have several components (which contribute to the observed light), and quasars evolve.
Or perhaps I've misunderstood - do you have a study which you can provide a link to which shows that no 4-component model of quasars can possibly reproduce the observed (Hawkins) power spectra? Or you've done this (quantitative) work yourself, and are considering submitting it to ApJ (or PF's IR section)?
If you've got nothing better than this simplistic handwaving, please stop posting such.And your references for this are (I assume they are papers published in peer-reviewed journals)?
|
Quote by Nereid
As has already been pointed out to you, your analysis here is far too simplistic - quasars have several components (which contribute to the observed light), and quasars evolve.
Or perhaps I've misunderstood - do you have a study which you can provide a link to which shows that no 4-component model of quasars can possibly reproduce the observed (Hawkins) power spectra? Or you've done this (quantitative) work yourself, and are considering submitting it to ApJ (or PF's IR section)?
|
To reproduce the Hawking results with evolution one has to assume that all quasars were produced in the Big Bang itself – otherwise you wouldn’t get this ‘nice’ relationship with the greater the redshift the older the quasar. If quasars were to be formed after this point and at different eras, some of the older ones could have larger redshifts than the younger ones and hence ruin the Hawkins result. The assumption you make is not valid.
|
If you've got nothing better than this simplistic handwaving, please stop posting such.And your references for this are (I assume they are papers published in peer-reviewed journals)?
|
No problem. Will the ApJ do you?
|
SN 1996bj aged 3.35 +/- 3.2 days, consistent with the 6.38 days of aging expected in an expanding Universe and inconsistent with no time dilation at the 96.4 % confidence level
|
If you don’t mind me saying so, we seem to have a problem here Nereid. We have a conflict of interest on your part. As a participator in the discussion you are clearly in error with your evolution explanation. However when this is pointed out, instead of accepting this you seem to be using the power of your position to ask me to stop posting.
This is something the board administrators need to address. Should a person taking part in a discussion be allowed to moderate it as well? |
Similar Threads for: Feedback from ratfink
