Astronomers baffled by discovery of rare quasar quartet

May 14, 2015
Image of the region of the space occupied by the rare quasar quartet. The four quasars are indicated by arrows. The quasars are embedded in a giant nebula of cool dense gas visible in the image as a blue haze. The nebula has an extent of one million light-years across, and these objects are so distant that their light has taken nearly 10 billion years to reach telescopes on Earth. This false color image is based on observations with the Keck 10m telescope on the summit of Maunakea in Hawaii. Credit: MPIA

Using the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, a group of astronomers led by Joseph Hennawi of the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy have discovered the first quadruple quasar: four rare active black holes situated in close proximity to one another. The quartet resides in one of the most massive structures ever discovered in the distant universe, and is surrounded by a giant nebula of cool dense gas. Because the discovery comes with one-in-ten-million odds, perhaps cosmologists need to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive cosmic structures. The results are being published in the May 15, 2015 edition of the journal Science.

Hitting the jackpot is one thing, but if you hit the jackpot four times in a row you might wonder if the odds were somehow stacked in your favor.

Quasars constitute a brief phase of galaxy evolution, powered by the in-fall of matter onto a at the center of a galaxy. During this phase, they are the most luminous objects in the Universe, shining hundreds of times brighter than their host galaxies, which themselves contain hundreds of billions of stars. But these hyper-luminous episodes last only a tiny fraction of a galaxy's lifetime, which is why astronomers need to be very lucky to catch any given galaxy in the act. As a result, quasars are exceedingly rare on the sky, and are typically separated by hundreds of millions of light years from one another. The researchers estimate that the odds of discovering a quadruple quasar by chance is one in ten million. How on Earth did they get so lucky?

Clues come from peculiar properties of the quartet's environment. The four quasars are surrounded by a giant nebula of cool dense hydrogen gas, which emits light because it is irradiated by the intense glare of the quasars. In addition, both the quartet and the surrounding nebula reside in a rare corner of the universe with a surprisingly large amount of matter. "There are several hundred times more galaxies in this region than you would expect to see at these distances," said J. Xavier Prochaska, professor at the University of California Santa Cruz and the principal investigator of the Keck Observatory observations.

Given the exceptionally large number of galaxies, this system resembles the massive agglomerations of galaxies, known as galaxy clusters, that astronomers observe in the present-day universe. But because the light from this cosmic metropolis has been travelling for 10 billion years before reaching Earth, the images show the region as it was 10 billion years ago, less than 4 billion years after the big bang. It is thus an example of a progenitor or ancestor of a present-day galaxy cluster, or proto-cluster for short.

Piecing all of these anomalies together, the researchers tried to understand what appears to be their incredible stroke of luck. "If you discover something which, according to current scientific wisdom should be extremely improbable, you can come to one of two conclusions: either you just got very lucky, or you need to modify your theory," Hennawi said.

The researchers speculate that some physical process might make quasar activity much more likely in specific environments. One possibility is that quasar episodes are triggered when galaxies collide or merge, because these violent interactions efficiently funnel gas onto the central black hole. Such encounters are much more likely to occur in a dense proto-cluster filled with galaxies, just as one is more likely to encounter traffic when driving through a big city.

"The giant emission nebula is an important piece of the puzzle since it signifies a tremendous amount of dense cool gas," said Fabrizio Arrigoni-Battaia, a PhD student at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy who was involved in the discovery.

Supermassive black holes can only shine as quasars if there is gas for them to swallow, and an environment that is gas rich could provide favorable conditions for fueling quasars.

On the other hand, given the current understanding of how massive structures in the universe form, the presence of the giant nebula in the proto-cluster is totally unexpected. "Our current models of cosmic structure formation based on supercomputer simulations predict that massive objects in the early universe should be filled with rarefied gas that is about ten million degrees, whereas this giant nebula requires gas thousands of times denser and colder," said Sebastiano Cantalupo, currently at ETH Zurich, that led the imaging observations a the Keck Observatory during his previous research appointment at UCSC. "It is really amazing that this discovery was made the same night of the Slug Nebula while we were hunting for giant Lyman alpha nebulae illuminated by quasars – my first night at Keck Observatory and definitely the most exciting observing night I have ever had!" 

"Extremely rare events have the power to overturn long-standing theories" Hennawi said.

As such, the discovery of the first quadruple quasar may force cosmologists to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive structures in the universe.

The authors wish to recognize and acknowledge the very significant cultural role and reverence that the summit of Mauna Kea has always had within the indigenous Hawaiian community. We are most fortunate to have the opportunity to conduct observations from this mountain.

The W. M. Keck Observatory operates the largest, most scientifically productive telescopes on Earth. The two, 10-meter optical/infrared telescopes near the summit of Mauna Kea on the Island of Hawaii feature a suite of advanced instruments including imagers, multi-object spectrographs, high-resolution spectrographs, integral-field spectrographs and world-leading laser guide star adaptive optics systems.

The Low Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (LRIS) is a very versatile visible-wavelength imaging and spectroscopy instrument commissioned in 1993 and operating at the Cassegrain focus of Keck I. Since it has been commissioned it has seen two major upgrades to further enhance its capabilities: addition of a second, blue arm optimized for shorter wavelengths of light; and the installation of detectors that are much more sensitive at the longest (red) wavelengths. Each arm is optimized for the wavelengths it covers. This large range of wavelength coverage, combined with the instrument's high sensitivity, allows the study of everything from comets (which have interesting features in the ultraviolet part of the spectrum), to the blue light from star formation, to the red light of very distant objects. LRIS also records the spectra of up to 50 objects simultaneously, especially useful for studies of clusters of galaxies in the most distant reaches, and earliest times, of the universe.

Explore further: Distant quasar illuminates a filament of the cosmic web

More information: "Quasar Quartet Embedded in Giant Nebula Reveals Rare Massive Structure in Distant Universe," Joseph F. Hennawi et al., Science, 2015 May 15, Vol. 348, No. 6236, pp. 779-783. DOI: 10.1126/science.aaa5397

Related Stories

Distant quasar illuminates a filament of the cosmic web

January 19, 2014

Astronomers have discovered a distant quasar illuminating a vast nebula of diffuse gas, revealing for the first time part of the network of filaments thought to connect galaxies in a cosmic web. Researchers at the University ...

Scientists build first map of hidden universe

October 16, 2014

A team led by astronomers from the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy has created the first three-dimensional map of the 'adolescent' Universe, just 3 billion years after the Big Bang. This map, built from data collected ...

Galactic 'hailstorm' in the early universe

January 16, 2015

Two teams of astronomers led by researchers at the University of Cambridge have looked back nearly 13 billion years, when the Universe was less than 10 percent its present age, to determine how quasars - extremely luminous ...

Monster black hole discovered at cosmic dawn

February 25, 2015

Scientists have discovered the brightest quasar in the early universe, powered by the most massive black hole yet known at that time. The international team led by astronomers from Peking University in China and from the ...

Astronomers unveil the farthest galaxy

May 5, 2015

An international team of astronomers led by Yale University and the University of California-Santa Cruz have pushed back the cosmic frontier of galaxy exploration to a time when the universe was only 5% of its present age.

Hubble Finds Giant Halo Around the Andromeda Galaxy

May 7, 2015

Scientists using NASA's Hubble Space Telescope have discovered that the immense halo of gas enveloping the Andromeda galaxy, our nearest massive galactic neighbor, is about six times larger and 1,000 times more massive than ...

Recommended for you

NASA team probes peculiar age-defying star

August 29, 2016

For years, astronomers have puzzled over a massive star lodged deep in the Milky Way that shows conflicting signs of being extremely old and extremely young.

Milky way had a blowout bash six million years ago

August 29, 2016

The center of the Milky Way galaxy is currently a quiet place where a supermassive black hole slumbers, only occasionally slurping small sips of hydrogen gas. But it wasn't always this way. A new study shows that 6 million ...

NASA's Juno successfully completes Jupiter flyby

August 29, 2016

NASA's Juno mission successfully executed its first of 36 orbital flybys of Jupiter today. The time of closest approach with the gas-giant world was 6:44 a.m. PDT (9:44 a.m. EDT, 13:44 UTC) when Juno passed about 2,600 miles ...

50 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

RealityCheck
2.4 / 5 (17) May 14, 2015
From the article...
both the quartet and the surrounding nebula reside in a rare corner of the universe with a surprisingly large amount of matter. "There are several hundred times more galaxies in this region than you would expect to see at these distances,"
The standard Big Bang Hypothesis involves early Inflation and ongoing expansion, which expansion is supposed to be accelerating still. If that Big Bang scenario were correct, then such "rare corner of the universe" containing such "surprisingly large amount of matter" and "several hundred times more galaxies than expected at these distances" would not be possible, given that inflation/expansion was supposed to have 'smoothed out' any initial extreme clumpiness. The whole basis of BBang fantasies was that inflation/expansion produced the unusually 'flat' and 'similar in every direction matter density at large scale distances'.

Face it, Big Banger Inflation/Expansion folks; even you cannot want it both ways.
DeliriousNeuron
2.3 / 5 (9) May 14, 2015
Well of course they're baffled. LOL!
Tuxford
2.5 / 5 (13) May 15, 2015
Ah, but they have nothing to replace the fantasy. Merger mania is pervasive. An early massive galactic cluster. Say it ain't so!
theon
1 / 5 (4) May 15, 2015
Gravitational Hydrodynamics speaks about very early vortex lines, breaking up in chains of galaxies. So they can have a chain of quasars. Have a look at their spin. Are the spins aligned? Should be. See also Hutsemekers papers for aligned spins at cosmic scales.
WritersPerHour
2.7 / 5 (6) May 15, 2015
"As such, the discovery of the first quadruple quasar may force cosmologists to rethink their models of quasar evolution and the formation of the most massive structures in the universe" - when I read this I was like how many more discoveires will be made that cosmologists going to have to rethink their models and not just those of quasar evolution. Wonders of cosmos. There are some good quotes posted about that: I don't want to be the embarrassment of the galaxy to have had the power to deflect an asteroid, and then not and end up going extinct. We'd be the laughingstock of the aliens of the cosmos if that were the case.
denglish
4 / 5 (4) May 15, 2015
It sure is a good thing we have so many wonderful minds frequenting these forums.

I rated Olivia's post 5 because its the most credible one here.
Surly
5 / 5 (2) May 15, 2015
Could this be an illusion caused by gravitational lensing, analogous to the Einstein Cross quasar?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) May 15, 2015
@denglish. Do you have any scientific perspective/opinion to offer regarding the astronomical observation described in the article, and its obvious falsifying implications for the currently accepted Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion hypotheses, as I pointed out? If so, I would be very interested to read it. Thanks. :)
nevermark
4.6 / 5 (11) May 15, 2015
...and its obvious falsifying implications for the currently accepted Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion hypotheses...


You compare overwhelming quantities of evidence for the Big Bang on one hand with a new curiosity on the other. Your assertion that the former is in trouble because something interesting isn't immediately understood is premature, imbalanced, specious.

I will add to denglish's compliment. This site attracts the highest quality unintended Dunning–Kruger performance art.
Returners
1.8 / 5 (5) May 15, 2015
Could this be an illusion caused by gravitational lensing, analogous to the Einstein Cross quasar?


I don't think so, they'd likely be able to detect it, though in principle if it were an illusion there could be complications because the apparent positions are very far apart, so some of the illusion(s) could be 100k older than the others.

I don't think it's an illusion because the extra quasars are too spherical. We usually see smearing in the case of heavy gravitational lensing, especially something that is likely to produce multiple images.

I'd say at most 1 of them is an illusion, but I don't think any of them are illusions.
Bob Osaka
3.7 / 5 (3) May 16, 2015
If one were to hit a jackpot four times in a row the odds would be astronomical as they always are in astronomy. The numbers are so huge that anomalies are more likely than less probable. Of course, the house will check the calibration of the machines to ensure no tampering has occurred as they must. There are hundreds of billions of possibilities in the 4% we can see, the odds are ten million to one. It is more of a case of being mind-boggled rather than baffled.
The thing to do now is look for five in a row.
denglish
3 / 5 (6) May 16, 2015
RealityCheck
@denglish. Do you have any scientific perspective/opinion to offer regarding the astronomical observation described in the article, and its obvious falsifying implications for the currently accepted Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion hypotheses, as I pointed out? If so, I would be very interested to read it. Thanks. :)

No, other than your opinion is little more than speculation, and misleading at that.

It ain't what you don't know; it's what you know that ain't so.

By your logic, nothing of any appreciable mass could conjugate. This is not true, as we observe over and over in the universe.

That said, I will be happy to hear your explanation of what we observe, re: what has led us to a Big Bang theory.
denglish
4 / 5 (8) May 16, 2015
Ren82:

For a start give at least one evidence in favor of the big bang theory.

Here's two:

1. Galaxy Red Shift
2. Cosmic Microwave Background
Tuxford
2 / 5 (8) May 16, 2015

Here's two:

1. Galaxy Red Shift
2. Cosmic Microwave Background


Just short-sighted misinterpretation bias. Kind of like the convenient interpretation bias of not explaining the actual mechanics of the fundamental forces or of a field. Just accept math bias as the explanation. Nonsense. Sloppy technical thinking.

Anyway, it is time to stop honoring the cosmic fantasy model with the word 'theory'. Better named as the Huge Bang Fantasy. It's simply a fairy tale for overly-rational fanciful math intellectuals. It never made any real sense anyway. Quite likely it is simply a convenient component of the government disinformation campaign, with national security implications. The real physics needs to remain classified.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) May 16, 2015
Hi nevermark.

If you've kept abreast of recent mainstream developments/observations you would've seen that the opposite situation now obtains; it's Occam's Razor-defying Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion Hypotheses in trouble on many fronts:

- Supernovae used as 'standard candles' for distance, red-shit correlations, expansion interpretations have been found to be NOT so 'standard', hence misleading;

- last year's BICEP2 fiasco was example of Confirmation Bias 'built into' mainstream BB etc assumptions/interpretations to date, hence no support BB etc Hypotheses;

- this year's Plank-Bicep2 joint exanination/report/results confirm what I have been pointing out for years now, based on known science, regarding the 'mixmaster' of near/deep/vast space processes which make CMB etc info suspect as BB etc 'evidence';

- this latest observation is one of many that falsifies BB etc Hypotheses.

NB: Scientific Method Rules...just ONE counterfactual observation sufficient to falsify. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) May 16, 2015
Hi denglish. Please see my above post in reply to nevermark. That answers the 'certainty' you and he profess for the BBang/Inflation/Expansion claims as to its alleged 'supporting evidence' to date, I trust? Thanks for your polite response. Cheers. :)
ab3a
3.6 / 5 (5) May 17, 2015
I do not want hypotheses but scientific evidence. This observed effects have another scientific explanation.


Astronomy is mostly an observational study, not exactly a science. It is extremely difficult to perform a controlled experiment in Astronomy, particularly when discussing subjects such as the Big Bang. The only thing anyone can do is to suggest hypothesis for large scale phenomena and find reasons why they're false or true. There are few controlled experiments that might tell you exactly what's going on.

Thus, I humbly suggest that what you want is quite unreasonable.

denglish
3.5 / 5 (8) May 17, 2015
Ren:

I do not want hypotheses but scientific evidence. This observed effects have another scientific explanation.


It is evidence. Those two things are directly observed.

What is this other explanation?
omatwankr
2.4 / 5 (8) May 17, 2015
Despair not "Big Bangers" just sing this little song

Mister Troublesome observations never hangs around
When he hears this mighty sound
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Dark Matter is on the way!

Yessir, when there is wrong evidence to right
Mighty Dark Matter will join the fight
In the night sky or on the deep underground
He gets the computer simulations well in hand!

So, though we are in danger, we never despair
'Cause we know that where there's dangerous results he is there
He is there, deep underground, in the night sky, in the Aether!

We're not worryin' at all
We're just listenin' for his call
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Dark Matter is on the way!
denglish
3 / 5 (8) May 17, 2015
RealityCheck

Hi denglish. Please see my above post in reply to nevermark. That answers the 'certainty' you and he profess for the BBang/Inflation/Expansion claims as to its alleged 'supporting evidence' to date, I trust? Thanks for your polite response. Cheers. :)


Ok, but first, please tell me where you're coming from. Are you a Christian Apologist, or a steady-stater, or..?
denglish
4.1 / 5 (7) May 17, 2015
Despair not "Big Bangers" just sing this little song

Mister Troublesome observations never hangs around
When he hears this mighty sound
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Dark Matter is on the way!

Yessir, when there is wrong evidence to right
Mighty Dark Matter will join the fight
In the night sky or on the deep underground
He gets the computer simulations well in hand!

So, though we are in danger, we never despair
'Cause we know that where there's dangerous results he is there
He is there, deep underground, in the night sky, in the Aether!

We're not worryin' at all
We're just listenin' for his call
"Here I come to save the day!"
That means that Mighty Dark Matter is on the way!

You're a religious freak and a poor poet.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) May 17, 2015
Hi denglish.
...please tell me where you're coming from.
For the sake of your own better understanding in our dialog, I will comply with your request; thus: All regulars on Phy.org know I am 65 years old, and atheist since age 9; at which age I became disillusioned with 'answers from authority' of any and all kinds. So I made a conscious decision then to answer all the big questions in science and reality for myself, instead of depending on 'prophets' and 'scientists' who in some cases/instances proved not as trustworthy or correct as assumed. Hence my many-decades-long strictly objective practice/application of Scientific Method, making sure of remaining at all times a scrupulously lone, independent researcher into the physical phenomena set that constitutes the directly observable and indirectly logically deducible Universal Physical Reality.

In any case, I remind you/all that, in proper practice of Scientific Method, the man is nothing, the objective work everything. :)
denglish
3 / 5 (6) May 18, 2015
RealityCheck:

For the sake of your own better understanding in our dialog, I will comply with your request; thus:


You didn't answer my question. I suspect that is because you have none, other than a desire to be contrary to whatever is presented to you.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) May 18, 2015
Hi denglish.
RealityCheck:
For the sake of your own better understanding in our dialog, I will comply with your request
You didn't answer my question.
Excuse me? I just answered your question: "..please tell me where you're coming from." Did you read it? As for scientific factual observational/evidentiary basis of my observations/comments on this so far, I provided a sample of such for nevermark, and then directed your attention to same. Please know this: I have no personal likes/dislikes in this. I only apply the objective scientific method and follow the implications to their logical conclusions tested against the extant reality and the Occam's Razor approach to interpretations/conclusions without any confirmation bias or personal subjectivity. Hence my username: "RealityCheck". Your seeming personal 'certainties' and 'confirmation bias' makes mutual understanding between us doubtful. You operate on personal/subjective insults; I operate on objectivity. Bye. :)
denglish
3.3 / 5 (7) May 19, 2015
Hi denglish.
RealityCheck:
For the sake of your own better understanding in our dialog, I will comply with your request
You didn't answer my question.
Excuse me? I just answered your question: "...

Word salad. You didn't answer my question.

Sorry, but saying someone else is full of it while not offering your own interpretation is intellectually dishonest, if not downright cowardly.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) May 19, 2015
Hi denglish.

Obvious implication of BB falsification: reconsider previous Occam's Razor alternatives improperly 'discarded' due to BB etc mistakes. My post to nevermark provided examples of how confirmation bias has UNscientifically skewed mainstream 'interpretation/conclusions' as 'supporting' Big Bang/Inflation/Expansion hypotheses. If you aware of the first BICEP2 'exercise' in confirmation-biased, publish-or-perish travesty against properly applied Scientific Method, then you should understand exactly where I am coming from as independent, objective scientific observer.

Your 'certainties' and 'attitude' not conducive to mutual understanding. If you were longtime regular here at phys, you would by now have a pretty good idea as to what my own strictly-objective, confirmation-unbiased, reality-based 'interpretations/conclusions' is from observational dataset available to all for proper application of Scientific Method as it was designed and intended.

Rethink, denglish. :)
charlimopps
3.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2015
"ignore user" is a wonderful button. But it's affect is woefully inadequate when everyone quotes RealityCheck in their attempts to argue with him. Crackpots don't base their beliefs on evidence or science, so stop trying to convince them. They don't have degrees or basic understanding of physics or science. Arguing with them just furthers their delusions of importance, so please, use the ignore button as well. If we all stop listening, maybe they'll stop talking.
denglish
3.7 / 5 (6) May 20, 2015
"ignore user" is a wonderful button. But it's affect is woefully inadequate when everyone quotes RealityCheck in their attempts to argue with him. Crackpots don't base their beliefs on evidence or science, so stop trying to convince them. They don't have degrees or basic understanding of physics or science. Arguing with them just furthers their delusions of importance, so please, use the ignore button as well. If we all stop listening, maybe they'll stop talking.

Totally understand. The problem is, if people are allowed to spout like that unopposed, then other people may think their views are credible.
denglish
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2015
RealityCheck:

Obvious implication of BB falsification: reconsider previous Occam's Razor alternatives improperly 'discarded' due to BB etc mistakes.


Actually, by the conditions of Ockham's Razor, the BB is the most likely explanation.

Additionally, the BICEP 2 findings were findings that could be, and in some cases were, falsified. That is as true to the scientific method as one can be.

You have no idea what you're talking about.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2015
Hi denglish.
Obvious implication of BB falsification: reconsider previous Occam's Razor alternatives improperly 'discarded' due to BB etc mistakes.
by the conditions of Ockham's Razor, the BB is the most likely explanation.
How so? BB/Inflation/Expansion is being falsified as we speak by observations already noted in my post to nevermark. Your ongoing 'certainty' is the result of ignoring falsifying observations. Not sound application of scientific method.

the BICEP 2 findings were findings that could be, and in some cases were, falsified. That is as true to the scientific method as one can be.
You are confused, mate. The BB etc Hypotheses which they claimed to have 'found' confirmation evidence FOR were what were being tested. Their own failure to follow strict scientific method because of obvious/proven confirmation bias and flawed methodology was the PROOF that BB etc Hypotheses cannot stand without such shonky claims of 'supporting evidence'.

Get it right. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) May 20, 2015
Hi charlimopps.
"ignore user" is a wonderful button. But it's affect is woefully inadequate when everyone quotes RealityCheck in their attempts to argue with him. Crackpots don't base their beliefs on evidence or science, so stop trying to convince them. They don't have degrees or basic understanding of physics or science. Arguing with them just furthers their delusions of importance, so please, use the ignore button as well. If we all stop listening, maybe they'll stop talking.
Have you learned nothing from that initial BICEP2 fiasco? It was just your sort of elitist arrogant dismissal of dissenting voices and logical/factual alternative arguments/evidence that led the BICEP2 'team' to UNscientific state of mind where they thought that in science the ends justified the means because THEY 'knew' BB/Inflation/Expansion Hypotheses were 'right' and 'only explanation'. WRONG.

Do drop that elitist attitude quick, mate; else you will go down the same path to ERROR. Bye.
denglish
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2015
RealityCheck:

Hi denglish Obvious implication of BB falsification: reconsider previous Occam's Razor alternatives improperly 'discarded' due to BB etc mistakes.


You are spewing nonsensical word salad.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2015
Hi denglish. Still namecalling while ignoring evidence/facts? Why? Here, read without your bias:

- BICEP2 was testing BB etc Hypotheses. Understand?

- Data Analysis and interpretations/conclusions were rife with confirmation biased assumptions and sloppy application of scientific method. Understand?

- It was BB etc Hypotheses, Assumptions etc that were found to be UNCONFIRMED; while it was their sloppy-science exercise, later combined with Planck results, which further highlighted the shaky basis for all BB etc 'interpretations/conclusions' from CMB data/observations which was found to be compromised by local/distant space features/processes not all of which have been taken into account. Understand?

- This article reports observations which would falsify BB 'Inflation/Expansion' claims to 'evidentiary support'; add to recent discoveries that Supernovae NOT 'standard candle' after all, and BB distance/expansion/shift claims/conclusions become worthless. Understand?

Bye.
Uncle Ira
4.6 / 5 (9) May 20, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am really good, and thanks for asking. Podna, why don't you stick with the environmental climates articles. You do really good on those ones. The astro-science stuff you are not so good with no.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) May 20, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am really good, and thanks for asking. Podna, why don't you stick with the environmental climates articles. You do really good on those ones. The astro-science stuff you are not so good with no.
I see village idiot Uncle Ira is still here. He can't see that the same level of independent scientific objectivity which I apply to Climate Science issues I also apply to Cosmological Physics issues.

This village idiot 'picks and chooses' what he will 'like/dislike' according to his own 'village idiot ego and biases' is typical of what happens to anyone who continues to be 'in denial' of counterfactual evidence while claiming to be qualified to judge anyone/anything requiring the application of objective science and independent thought processes/comprehension which is way beyond such village idiots (and arrogantly 'certain' elitists in denial).

I just informed denglish et al how 'objectivity deniers' hurt science.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (5) May 20, 2015
This village idiot 'picks and chooses' what he will 'like/dislike' according to his own 'village idiot ego and biases' is typical of what happens to anyone who continues to be 'in denial' of counterfactual evidence while claiming to be qualified to judge anyone/anything requiring the application of objective science and independent thought processes/comprehension which is way beyond such village idiots (and arrogantly 'certain' elitists in denial).


@ Really-Skippy. Exactimant. That is what I was trying to explain only with easier words. On the environment climatic science article you sound a whole lot smarter than you do on the astro-science article. This might be the very first time you ever agreed with ol Ira-Skippy on anything.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) May 20, 2015
Poor Uncle Ira, in denial of his hard earned 'village idiot' status. Funny. I apply objective scientific method in both areas, and comment accordingly; while poor Uncle Ira applies his village idiot's uncomprehending confirmation-baised 'like/dislike' subjective method, and makes idiotic comments accordingly. The poor idiot seems to believe that the two methods are identical. Sure, sure, "Exactimant"; poor, poor, silly troll.
Uncle Ira
3.4 / 5 (7) May 20, 2015
The poor idiot seems to believe that the two methods are identical. Sure, sure, "Exactimant"; poor, poor, silly troll.


Now look here Really-Skippy. I been trying to be nice with you and even give you some good karma votes to help you get up your rating.

But I am not the idiot, because you are wrong. I don't believe they are identical non Cher. I am the one who told you the environment climate stuffs you write was good and the astro-science stuffs was not good. How do you think I think that is identical. If they was identical they would both be bad or they would both be good. Are you having some kind of episode with your mental conditions again?

It seems to me that YOU think they are identical because you probably think they are both good. The environment climate stuffs AND the astro-science stuffs. But one is good and another one is not good.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (7) May 21, 2015
Are you really this thick and egotistical? What makes you think a SCIENCE site needs an idiot like you to post 'like/dislike' karma points at all? It's a poor scientist who looks to a village idiot's 'approval/disapproval' instead of applying the objective scientific method and follow its logic as tested against reality.

Can't you see the difference between us two is in the METHOD we are working under/applying? You follow your village idiot's guide to science and just cheerlead for what/who you think will be 'grateful' to you for your uncomprehending 'support'; while I follow strictly independent objective scientific method and make objectively tenable conclusions based on the science irrespective of personal 'likes/dislikes'.

Until you 'get' that difference in METHOD, and comprehend objectively, you remain one of these... https://www.psych...-sadists

So stuff your 'karma points'.
Uncle Ira
3.3 / 5 (7) May 21, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Well I can see how you are. You are back in your bad mood even though I was being nice with you. Okayeei, back on the list you go Skippy. And feel free to wear the silly looking pointy cap on the environment climatic articles AND the astro-science articles too.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) May 21, 2015
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? Well I can see how you are. You are back in your bad mood even though I was being nice with you. Okayeei, back on the list you go Skippy. And feel free to wear the silly looking pointy cap on the environment climatic articles AND the astro-science articles too.
And there it is, folks, the 'code of the uncomprehending psychopathic troll' who uses subjective threats and insults instead of objective comprehension as his modus operandi. His Internet activity was monitored, analyzed, and profiled as a sad psychological 'case study', and the resultant diagnosis can be found here...

https://www.psych...-sadists

Proven out of his own mindless mouth above, bringing spiteful ego and unreasoning rage into what should always be objective science practice and unbiased comprehension. Sad, sad case; c/w silly pointy hat and frothing at the mouth. QED.
EWH
2.3 / 5 (3) May 23, 2015
For a good list of the major objections to the big bang theory and its alleged evidence, see former Naval Observator astronomer Tom van Flandern's "BB Top 30 problems" http://metaresear...p-30.asp . (He is a bit of a flake on some other issues, but his arguments should be judged individually on their merits.)

One particularly relevant objection is the quantization of quasar redshifts discovered by Arp, and the discovery of high-redshift quasars linked by nebulas to nearby, farther-away low-redshift galaxies. There was an organized campaign among the gatekeepers in astronomy to prevent Arp from getting observing time, and later to also prevent time on the best telescopes -- time which had already been allocated for amateur use -- from being used to examine objects which were thought to potentially offer support to Arp's theories.

What are the redshifts of the nebula and the four quasars? I'll bet they vary wildly, and inconveniently for current theory.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) May 23, 2015
What are the redshifts of the nebula and the four quasars? I'll bet they vary wildly, and inconveniently for current theory.


Well now EWH-Skippy you might be on to something with that theory Cher. I wonder why the scientist-Skippys didn't think of that?

Oopsidaisy Skippy, they did think of that. That is what the whole article is about, how close together they are. How did they figure out close together they are? Well I will tell you since I took the time to read the whole article because I was not so busy yesterday and which you were in too busy to do.

The last half of the article tells you about the thing they used to work on these quasars with, it's a redshift measuring machine called a spectrographing camera or some such and it works because it measures up the redshifting.
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Word salad. You didn't answer my question
@dengklish
get used to it
he does a lot of baiting too just to irritate people

you can find out a lot about his historical tactics by going to the following site: http://www.sciforums.com/

he has posted under the moniker "Reality Check" as well as "Undefined" and has been subsequently banned for trolling/baiting tactics familiar to you above as well as elsewhere
http://www.sciforums.com/banlist/?page=68

http://www.sciforums.com/banlist/?page=246

he is also the supposed cavalry going to save us all from AGW here: http://phys.org/n...fic.html

(search for "cavalry")

this is therapy for him, i think
perhaps his only way of forming a type of interaction that gives him the feedback he craves (which is mostly negative but allows him to re-write it in his head into a delusional belief that he is a victim of some larger conspiracy -see mod gangs)
have fun with him
Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
You are spewing nonsensical word salad.
@Denglish
(sorry about the misspelling above... )

if you want to see a real word salad that will spin your head, go back to the BICEP results here on PO and ask RC to actually write out and present the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws that he "spotted" after only seconds of reading of the BICEP team's posted results

you can bet he will definitely be firing off a multitude of BS posts after me crying about that point, too (got him banned from sciforums too)

just ask for the science and the evidence*
(*and skip the politics and conspiracy theory)

to date, he has made almost 4,790 posts regarding BICEP and arguing to me about it
in all those posts, he has made ZERO posts with evidence supporting his assertions
you do the math
LOL
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) May 24, 2015
Poor Stumpy.
You are spewing nonsensical word salad.
@Denglish
(sorry about the misspelling above... )

if you want to see a real word salad that will spin your head, go back to the BICEP results here on PO and ask RC to actually write out and present the 4 fatal flaws and 4 other flaws that he "spotted" after only seconds of reading of the BICEP team's posted results

you can bet he will definitely be firing off a multitude of BS posts after me crying about that point, too (got him banned from sciforums too)

just ask for the science and the evidence*
(*and skip the politics and conspiracy theory)

to date, he has made almost 4,790 posts regarding BICEP and arguing to me about it
in all those posts, he has made ZERO posts with evidence supporting his assertions
you do the math
LOL
You're so desperate to curry favor with anyone at all, that you failed to notice I answered denglish's question and pointed out where he erred. You haven't learned, poor lying twat.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) May 24, 2015
You're so desperate to curry favor with anyone at all
@the idiot rc
and you are so desperate for any attention at all that you failed to notice that Denglish and i don't actually see eye to eye on AGW and climate change at all
(or have you not bothered to read the threads you post in, except to admire your own verbose pontifications?)
LMFAO

like i said: you are here for attention

that is obvious by your constant need to reach out and pretend that you have some background or that you are something special

You never did say where (specifically) you were going to show your AGW findings... nor which "major International Climate Change Conference " you meant even though people asked

This going to be a hush-hush top secret squirrel event and/or paper like your ToE jam paper?

you can't even solve the problems which got you banned
Therapy would help
LMFAO

bluehigh
2 / 5 (4) May 25, 2015
@CS - AGW and Quasars, you're kidding right!

Any chance that you might one day contribute something positive to the comments. You are starting to seem like a bullying bigot. Perhaps for a change you could focus on the content of the article rather than attacking dissent. You are becoming boring with the same old attacks. Chill a little, please.

RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) May 25, 2015
Hi CS.
@the idiot rc...and you are so desperate for any attention at all that you failed to notice that Denglish and i don't actually see eye to eye on AGW and climate change at all (or have you not bothered to read the threads you post in, except to admire your own verbose pontifications?)
LMFAO like i said: you are here for attention that is obvious by your constant need to reach out and pretend that you have some background or that you are something special
You never did say where (specifically) you were going to show your AGW findings... nor which "major International Climate Change Conference " you meant even though people asked This going to be a hush-hush top secret squirrel event and/or paper like your ToE jam paper?
you can't even solve the problems which got you banned Therapy would help
LMFAO
Come off it. It proves you will rationalize the indefensible in attempt to 'justify' getting in bed with that troll just to make your unprovoked personal attack on me.
Bigbangcon
2 / 5 (4) May 29, 2015
This discussion on the Big Bang theory and the Quasars is interesting. For a (dialectical) view of the universe contrary to the Big Bang theory and inspired somewhat by Arp's work, please see:
1. Ambartsumian, Arp and the Breeding Galaxies: http://redshift.v...2MAL.pdf
2. The Dialectical Universe: http://www.amazon...40414445

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.