Caught red-shifted

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
Although I think Nick is the only person who can warp his own reality enough to turn a thread about the dishonesty and deception of his sources into a claim I was deceitful.

Well, so far, all I've got is an unreferenced quote from "Ask the Space Scientist." And you didn't even provide it. So until you fork over a link to the study to which you refer, I will consider the claim worthless, whether it's deceitful or just ignorance.

 

[Jerry Smith]

That's an unreferenced quote from "Ask the Space Scientist."

What do you call this?

reported in 'The Space Density of Quasars' ASP vol. 21, p. 264

 

[Jerry Smith]

Um, hello?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Well, so far, all I've got is an unreferenced quote from "Ask the Space Scientist." And you didn't even provide it. So until you fork over a link to the study to which you refer, I will consider the claim worthless, whether it's deceitful or just ignorance.

In true npetreley fashion, I should respond with an insult about your reading comprehension.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

What do you call this?

Inadequate.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Inadequate.

sour grapes.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

I would call it "Nick is too lazy to go to a library and look it up".

After all we all know that any information worth knowing is on the internet.

 

[Morat]

  Looks like someone wants us to open his mouth, pre-chew the paper, and gently pour it down his throat.

  Here's a hint, Nick. You're not in grade school anymore. We assume you can use a library.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
Looks like someone wants us to open his mouth, pre-chew the paper, and gently pour it down his throat.

Here's a hint, Nick. You're not in grade school anymore. We assume you can use a library.

 

Thanks for that quote. I'm going to cut and paste it to a file so I can use it whenever you give me a hard time about providing references for any claims I make.

I take back calling the Spaced-Out Anwer Man's reference inadequate, though. I found the article to which he was referring, and it was extremely lacking in detail. It makes perfect sense that you'd love this article, though, since its conclusions are based entirely on lack of detail and speculation. Like you, it references the Large Bright Quasar Survey but doesn't give the reader enough information to know if there is a reason why this survey would bias the information or clarify it. The problem may be evident in the title -- LARGE BRIGHT QUASAR Survey. But without the actual survey and the details on how the study was done, there's no way to tell if this presents a problem or not.

(By the way, that's the study link you used to make your point, and I'm still waiting for that link. Have you had enough time to find it yet?)

But here's the part of the article I enjoyed the most, since it takes a page right out of the evolutionist notebook. To quote:

The sample contains 835 sources, of which 804 have been identified, 427 of which are AGN. The redshift distribution of these AGN shows the 'periodicity' at the 99.9% level (using the V test), as can be seen clearly in Figure 4. The currently unidentified objects are enough, if they lie in the redshift 'troughs', to decrease the significance to below 95%.

Wow! Let me translate: The periodicity will fall from 99.9% to 95% if the unidentified objects cause the periodicity to fall from 99.9% to 95%. That's right! This guy doesn't know what these objects are or where they fall in the plot. He's just saying that if they were identified, and if their identity placed them into the plot, and if by placing them in the plot they decreased the periodicity, THEREFORE, they would decrease the periodicity --- and from what to what? From 99.9% to 95%.

That's almost as scientific as evolution.

 

[Morat]

Thanks for that quote. I'm going to cut and paste it to a file so I can use it whenever you give me a hard time about providing references for any claims I make.

  I predict, based on your past behavior, that you will be unable to differentiate between "providing a reference" (IE, giving the name of your source and the specific details of it) and "spoon-feeding it line by line".

  To be blunt, and I know you love bluntness, I fully expect you to use this in an attempt to not give a reference.

  We gave you a reference. We simply refused to read the paper for you.

 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat


  I predict, based on your past behavior, that you will be unable to differentiate between "providing a reference" (IE, giving the name of your source and the specific details of it) and "spoon-feeding it line by line".

  To be blunt, and I know you love bluntness, I fully expect you to use this in an attempt to not give a reference.

  We gave you a reference. We simply refused to read the paper for you.

 

No, you still have not given me a reference to the Large Bright Quasar Survey, and that's the reference you used to back your conclusion.

 

[Morat]

reported in 'The Space Density of Quasars' ASP vol. 21, p. 264

  Someone else already gave it, Nick. Does remembering back that far make your brain hurt?   If that's not enough, you can try the following  papers which also note no redshift:


"Double Galaxy Redshifts and the Statistics of Small Numbers"
        W. I. Newman, M. P. Haynes, and Y. Terzian
        Astrophysical Journal 344: 111-114, 1989 September 1

 "Redshift data and
Statistical Inference" (1994 ApJ 431, 147-155)

 D.W. Scott (1991 A&A, 242,1) 

 J. Chengalur (1993 ApJ volume 419, page 30)  

  The first two of which discuss the statistical flaws in Tifft's work.





 

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat

Someone else already gave it, Nick.

I see - you mean the link to the Spaced-out Answer Man's summary of an article that ends with the brilliant insight that if the unknown data supports his conclusion, then the unknown data would support his conclusion. Yeah, that was a real kick. But what I was looking for was a link to the Large Bright Quasar Survey, which is what you used as your evidence. I wasn't looking for a link to a quote by some guy who references another article that references the LBQS without any details on how it was done.

Never mind, I can see that a request for direct information is taxing you too much, so I'll see if I can find it on my own.

 

[Morat]

 References to scientific literature mention information that appears in scientific literature.

   We pointed out what literature the work appears in. As best I can tell, no abstracts of those work exist on the net. *shrug*. Go to the library and pull up any one of the. I suggest these two:


 D.W. Scott (1991 A&A, 242,1)

 "Redshift data and
Statistical Inference" (1994 ApJ 431, 147-155)

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
References to scientific literature mention information that appears in scientific literature.

Of course it does. But the only link anyone provided at that point was not to scientific literature. And when I looked up the article the answer-man used as his source, it referred to scientific literature, all right, but his methodology was so bogus that the ONLY good thing about the article was that it referred the reader elsewhere.

I still can't get over his so-called analysis -- if the unidentified data was identified, and if it was identified as data that should go into the plot, and if ALL of that data went into the plot in such a was as to reduce the periodicity instead of any or all of it confirming the periodicity, it would reduce the periodicity from 99.9% to 95%.

Oh, gosh, that really cracks me up! I haven't laughed that hard since I read the responses to my challenge on transitionals from 99.9875% of the fossil record.

Really, now -- fess up -- was this an april fools issue of ASP, or is this really what passes for science these days?

 

[Morat]

  Let's see. He stated: All the unidentified objects, should they work "against" our conclusion, are enough to drop our confidance from 99% to 95%

   Heaven's forbid he acknowledge the worst case for his paper, assuming all the unidentified objects worked against his conclusion.

  I'm not seeing the stupidity here, Nick. Assuming the worst for the unidentified plot points (instead of assuming they fit the distribution of the other plot points) is stupid?

   I suppose the smart thing to do would to have been Creationist in his approach, and either pretended there were no unresolved objects, or lied and stated they supported the paper.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Morat
He stated: All the unidentified objects, should they work "against" our conclusion, are enough to drop our confidance from 99% to 95%

Did you read the article as carefully as you listened to the Ken Ham radio spot?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Did you read the article as carefully as you listened to the Ken Ham radio spot?

I read the part you quoted about 5 times. I would be happy to read the full paper, but it isn't worth a trip to the Library for me & I can't find it on the internet.

I don't see anything particularly funny about the part you quoted. 'There is a potential for a decrease to 95% periodicity if these unidentified data turned out to give opposite results from the rest of the data.' - if that isn't a fair paraphrase, could you please condescend to explain why, or is it going to be one of your special secrets?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley
Really, now -- fess up -- was this an april fools issue of ASP, or is this really what passes for science these days?

Wow. Not only are the biologists stupid liars, but now the astronomers are, too.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith

I read the part you quoted about 5 times. I would be happy to read the full paper, but it isn't worth a trip to the Library for me & I can't find it on the internet.

Your summary is close, but it really misses the jewels in the actual text:

The sample contains 835 sources, of which 804 have been identified, 427 of which are AGN. The redshift distribution of these AGN shows the 'periodicity' at the 99.9% level (using the V test), as can be seen clearly in Figure 4.

Okay, let's see what he's saying here. There are 835 sources in the sample, 31 of which are unidentified. Of the remaining identified 804, 427 (a little more than half of the sources) are AGN, which is where you get the data for the plot. That data gives you periodicity.

The currently unidentified objects are enough, if they lie in the redshift 'troughs', to decrease the significance to below 95%.

He's actually leaving out an important bit of information here. He's saying that the unidentified objects [31], if they fall in the troughs are enough -- but that isn't strictly true. What he should be saying is that the currently unidentified objects -- if they ALL belong in the plot and lie in the troughs.

So he's suggesting that if you take the 31 sources, which are unidentified, and assume they ALL belong in the plot (as opposed to 427/804 of the original sources which WERE identified), and also assume that NONE of the 31 fall into the peaks but ALL of the fall into the troughs, which means they not only ALL belong in the plot but ALL contradict the periodicity...and if you aren't laughing your keister off by now, then that explains how you can fall for evolution!

It's a real kick, and you really should take the trouble to read it yourself. I'd make it easy for you to read the whole article, but I'm sure mr. morat is already hard at work finding it for you, just like he found the Quasar Survey link for me...here, I'll even help him out:

Looks like someone wants us to open his mouth, pre-chew the paper, and gently pour it down his throat.

Here's a hint, Jerry. You're not in grade school anymore. We assume you can use a library.