Author Topic: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef  (Read 4516 times)

daniel rey m.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« on: April 30, 2014, 12:30:25 am »
An old report on Bruno's discovery of the unusual Violin Clef/Integral group of merging galaxies (Oct. 2011) brought me to the Zoo, where the newcomer is encouraged, thus: "If you're quick, you may even be the first person to see the galaxies you're asked to classify."

How quick?  I started classifying, found a colorful object that looks like a green eye with a red pupil (image # 1237679478017556509), decided to send a comment and found out that two people had done the same thing a year ago, which was disheartening.  An object classified at least that long ago was still on the classifying list, which is pointless.  This means that an image one comes across might've already been classified thousands of times.  The FAQ section is not helpful as concerns this matter.
 
Aprilwitch says: "Star from our galaxy.  Imaging gone wrong."  Is she an expert, or could it be a planetary nebula?  She's a "Sr. Member" of the Forum.  What are the implications?  Can she throw a hex on people who dig into her background?  It's scary. 

A Big-Yet-Not-Frequently-Asked Question: How frequent are findings like Bruno's?
 
« Last Edit: April 30, 2014, 12:49:38 am by daniel rey m. »

planetaryscience

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3638
  • 33rd most talkative in galaxy zoo!
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef ( ? )
« Reply #1 on: April 30, 2014, 12:48:08 am »
Well, the thing is, astronomy, like all sciences, is not a one-click revolutionary discovery. Since galaxy zoo has been open for a long time, most galaxies (if not all) have been classified before. Of course, you're fairly late to the place (I am too) and most of the discoveries were found a couple years ago, but discoveries are still occasional. However, the thing that matters now is not seeing a galaxy first- but rather identifying something unusual. Often, unusual things are found to be artifacts, but rarely are a new discovery (e.g. Bruno's clef.)

Now, on the comments given, after classifying several galaxies, one gets to notice the common artifacts and features that distinguish certain things from another- for those who want help, many pages have been made, including this one, which describes typical oddities and what they are. Aprilwitch's classification is not necessarily an expert one, but since they probably have experience with classifying galaxies, and since stars have an obvious range of artifacts, I would trust them to be correct.
Also, forum titles don't necessarily denote someone's expert-ness or how much they should be respected. They simply represent how much someone posts on a forum. Someone with a large number of posts who posts mainly in the "games" section of the forum is almost certainly not as experienced in this as someone who carefully plans their total of 50 posts.


For your final question, while interesting galaxies are often, and ones worthy of a discussion are ~1/100, the galaxies you are looking for used to be more common when the zoo was more popular, around 2009/2011. Today, activity has subsided significantly, and most large discoveries have already happened. Here's an approximate graph, though, to help you out:

Year:      Discoveries per month:          # per classifications:
2009      ~5-10                                     1/500
2010      ~3-5                                       1/800
2011      ~5-8                                       1/1000
2012      ~1-2                                       1/2000
2013      ~0.5                                       1/3000
2014      ~0.2                                       1/4000

Don't quote me on this- it's just a rough estimate.


tl;dr: You may not be the first to see the images, but you might be the first to recognize them for something odd. Often, odd objects are artifacts or other odd things found here, Aprilwitch isn't an expert, but probably has experience. Member titles don't denote seniority. And lastly, odd objects such as that are often rare, and are not easy to just click and discover.


P.S. here is the object:

it is an overexposed star and not a nebula, as nebula are often larger, dimmer, not so oddly-colored, and not a symnetrical. I used to mistake objects like this, too, so no worries- It's an easy mistake to make.  ;)
I like to find asteroids and galaxy mergers- but all galaxies are still fine to me.

daniel rey m.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #2 on: April 30, 2014, 01:55:00 am »
Superb statistics.  So the party's over.  No matter.  We, the stragglers, are a resourceful bunch.  We go looking for the tasty leftovers that no one wants, still to be seen on the tables.  It's best when it's nice & quiet, and you have the ballroom all for yourself, the dog & the cat.

Fastest reply on record, for the Guinness Book!!!  A mere quarter of an hour!!!  It seems like some people never sleep, or else it's the long nighttime hours spent watching the heavens out on the balcony and the rooftop.

The integral sign placed at the end of the title for this topic appeared in the preview but was then published as a question mark, so it had to be deleted.  Let's see what happens if it's placed within the body of the message.  I'll leave the question mark there this time if it happens again.

This is supposed to be an integral sign & the Real McCoy looks like a stretched letter ess =======> ʃ     
 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2014, 09:16:22 am by daniel rey m. »

Rick Nowell

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1333
  • Bristol, U.K.
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #3 on: April 30, 2014, 08:23:41 am »
So the party's over

No! Everyday of my life! Well, nearly...

daniel rey m.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #4 on: May 01, 2014, 09:13:52 am »
So the party's over

No! Every day of my life!   


ʃ ʃ ʃ ʃ ʃ
A timely comment, and very reassuring, since "planetaryscience" sketched a tragic scene with a sinking ship and the rats jumping off.  Shipwreck or no shipwreck, my intention is to hang around and poke a toe into all the nooks and chinks.  (The reason why rats do that long before it starts to sink can be found in the Theosophy books.) 
ʃ ʃ ʃ ʃ ʃ

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2014, 12:12:42 pm »
Welcome to the Galaxy Zoo forum, daniel rey m.!  ;D

If you're interested in being the first to 'see' a galaxy, here in the extended Galaxy Zoo family, I'd suggest you head on over to Radio Galaxy Zoo. The 'galaxies' are, mostly, radio jets and lobes from active galaxies, but some are not. There are a great many new objects, ones that - unlike in Galaxy Zoo - have not been classified before. Of course, with hundreds of other zooites busily classifying, much of the time you won't be the first to 'see' a galaxy, but you could be the first to comment on it, or notice something unusual.

Some other comments:

An object classified at least that long ago was still on the classifying list, which is pointless. Not so. Although you have to search hard, you will find that the science team is looking for ~20 independent classifications of each object, so if it's still on the list, that means it hasn't yet been classified enough times, independently. And for some objects, the target may be higher than 20.

This means that an image one comes across might've already been classified thousands of times. As far as I know, no object, in any iteration of Galaxy Zoo (or its 'cousins') has been classified even 1,000 times. There are some objects which were classified perhaps a few hundred times, collectively over all variants, in the 'mirror study' done many years' ago (you can learn more about this from this Object of the Day). In recent times, I think it's rare to find an object classified more than ~40 times.

The FAQ section is not helpful as concerns this matter. That's certainly true! Unfortunately, no one seems to be looking after it.

How frequent are findings like Bruno's? This is a very interesting question!  8) If you consider Bruno's finding as a good example of a serendipitous discovery by an ordinary zooite, then they are surely happening at about the same rate as they always were, which is likely ~a few times a year. However, as the members of the science team - and professional astronomers in general - seem to be far less involved than they were, few of such discoveries are now followed up (in the first year or so, they all were). You can read more about this in The unbearable arbitrariness of serendipitous Galaxy Zoo discoveries? thread. These days it seems it's up to us ordinary zooites to take the lead; check out the Very Strange Spirals? and the supernovae from spectral survey, 'potential candidates' threads, for example.

We, the stragglers, are a resourceful bunch.  We go looking for the tasty leftovers that no one wants, still to be seen on the tables. Great! In Galaxy Zoo forum there are very long threads full of 'tasty leftovers', just waiting for someone to come along and discover the pure gold hidden beneath the dull surface (to mix a metaphor or three). Oddballs- Post your weird pics here! is just one example.

Happy hunting!  :)

daniel rey m.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2014, 01:44:33 am »
Jean, thank you for assigning me all that substantial homework.  I might have to spend days reading the discussions.  Having finished, I'll start feeling like a veteran.  I'm assuming you have nothing to do with art and galleries.
 
My (delirious) purpose is to stumble upon something so unusual that it would make scientists change their theories about an expanding Universe that invents space and time as it advances like a Blob of Everything drowning in the Sea of Nothing and was once packed into the Point of Infinite Density or the Cosmic Spawn the size of a grape, as first conceived in the mind of a Belgian mystic who was a Jesuit priest but who managed (incredibly) to convince all the atheists that this miracle is possible.
 
Actually it's a Throbbing-Heart Universe.  They're interpreting the data mistakenly.  The expansion is a sign that we're now in the diastole interval of the Neverending Beat.  What if the systole were to start next week?  We'd never find out.  The light of the nearest galaxies would spend millions of years travelling towards us to tell us that they're now approaching and not moving away from us.  (Call it the Lung Universe, if you want.)
 
So, no Big Bang, and no Big Crunch, either.
 
Following my Grand Discovery in the Galaxy Zoo, they would realize that the Steady-State notion was right and that we're swimming in Infinite Space and trapped in Endless Time.  There's always the risk that the Dread of Infinity will make them go back to the Jesuit's teachings about the Wicked Feudal Lord living high off the hog in a castle overlooking the Lake of Fire and Brimstone. 
 
ʃ ʃ ʃ

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2014, 06:12:50 pm »
Jean, thank you for assigning me all that substantial homework.  I might have to spend days reading the discussions.
You're welcome.

But sorry if what I wrote was too overwhelming (I do tend to get carried away).

Quote
  Having finished, I'll start feeling like a veteran.  I'm assuming you have nothing to do with art and galleries.

Ha! :P No; Tate is not a very common family name, but it's also not all that rare. As far as I can tell, no relationship to anyone famous (associated with the famous Tate Gallery, or otherwise).

Quote
My (delirious) purpose is to stumble upon something so unusual that it would make scientists change their theories about an expanding Universe that invents space and time as it advances like a Blob of Everything drowning in the Sea of Nothing and was once packed into the Point of Infinite Density or the Cosmic Spawn the size of a grape, as first conceived in the mind of a Belgian mystic who was a Jesuit priest but who managed (incredibly) to convince all the atheists that this miracle is possible.

Your "(delirious) purpose" is, in the form of a generalized hope (i.e. about making a major breakthrough), something I'm pretty sure a very large percentage of professional astronomers have, in their heart of hearts. It's also a hope which many amateurs and citizen scientists surely have, in many fields of science.

And even a fairly casual search of the wide world of the internet will tell you that there seems to be an awful lot of people who don't much like 'the Big Bang Theory' (the TV series too). Rather fewer of them, so it seems, have anything significant to propose, in a scientific sense.

Quote
Actually it's a Throbbing-Heart Universe.  They're interpreting the data mistakenly.  The expansion is a sign that we're now in the diastole interval of the Neverending Beat.  What if the systole were to start next week?  We'd never find out.  The light of the nearest galaxies would spend millions of years travelling towards us to tell us that they're now approaching and not moving away from us.  (Call it the Lung Universe, if you want.)
 
So, no Big Bang, and no Big Crunch, either.
 
Following my Grand Discovery in the Galaxy Zoo, they would realize that the Steady-State notion was right and that we're swimming in Infinite Space and trapped in Endless Time.  There's always the risk that the Dread of Infinity will make them go back to the Jesuit's teachings about the Wicked Feudal Lord living high off the hog in a castle overlooking the Lake of Fire and Brimstone. 
 
ʃ ʃ ʃ

That's a rather, um, grand vision you have!  ;D

I think you'll find that many of the regulars here, both professionals and citizen scientists, can get pretty hard-nosed about pesky things like evidence, logical reasoning, and so on.

There was one guy (?) who was very good at classifying and could pick out faint features in images that many others missed. He also had a very radical idea about the universe, but instead of presenting his case dispassionately got rather unpleasant towards others who didn't agree with him.

But the universe is a big place, and the amount of high-quality astronomical data (observations) about it, available for free, is simply staggering. So why not learn how to access that data, and start analyzing it? You may discover, as I did, that even zookeepers can make mistakes in their analyses ... (whether those shortcomings are sufficient to render their conclusions invalid is quite a different matter!)
« Last Edit: May 05, 2014, 07:49:20 pm by JeanTate »

daniel rey m.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #8 on: May 09, 2014, 12:09:15 am »
"(…) no relationship to anyone famous (…)."  Quite discouraging.  I thought I was dealing with British royalty and would soon receive an invitation to spend some weeks in the family country house.  During the sojourn there, the Queen would come over for tea and crumpets and would tell me all about her clan.  I would write a bestseller about the encounter.  History books would have to be rewritten.  Don't go around feeling bad about this, though.
     
"(…) rather fewer of them (…) have anything significant to propose, in a scientific sense."  … but what about astronomer Tom van Flandern, whose 10 very specific anti-B.B. proposals were these…

1.   Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models.
2.   The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
3.   Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
4.   The universe has too much largescale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
5.   The average luminosity of quasars must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
6.   The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
7.   The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
8.   Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
9.   The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
10.   If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.

"He also had a very radical idea about the universe (…)."  When the Steady-State Universe Theory was fashionable, the bigbangers were the radicals.  Now the steadystaters are supposed to be the radicals.  When the space aliens arrive they will tell us that we're all a bunch of radicals, no matter on what side of any crazy discussion we happen to be.  Many people won't like this.
 
"(…) but [he] got rather unpleasant (…)."  … and was banned and read no more?  I wish I had his name so I could go over the quarrel and see for myself.
 
I asked, What if the contraction of space started next week, and replied that we'd never find out, but there's this other possibility: what if it started millions of years ago?  We could find out tomorrow.  There would be newspaper headlines like this one: "UNIVERSE STARTED TO SHRINK 12 MILLION YRS. AGO!!!"  … and the subtitle: "Amateur astronomer D. Rey shocks the world with something he discovered while watching the Leonids last night". 

***ʃ ʃ ʃ***

 

 
« Last Edit: May 09, 2014, 12:42:46 am by daniel rey m. »

EigenState

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #9 on: May 09, 2014, 12:25:13 pm »
Greetings,

I asked, What if the contraction of space started next week, and replied that we'd never find out, but there's this other possibility: what if it started millions of years ago?  We could find out tomorrow.  There would be newspaper headlines like this one: "UNIVERSE STARTED TO SHRINK 12 MILLION YRS. AGO!!!"  … and the subtitle: "Amateur astronomer D. Rey shocks the world with something he discovered while watching the Leonids last night".

Perhaps amateur astronomer D. Rey would be better served by learning the fundamentals rather than aspiring to make a name for himself.

Best regards,
ES

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #10 on: May 09, 2014, 01:22:58 pm »
"(…) no relationship to anyone famous (…)."  Quite discouraging.  I thought I was dealing with British royalty and would soon receive an invitation to spend some weeks in the family country house.  During the sojourn there, the Queen would come over for tea and crumpets and would tell me all about her clan.  I would write a bestseller about the encounter.  History books would have to be rewritten.  Don't go around feeling bad about this, though.

Well, as I spend much of my time in what I call Sandy territory (see my OotD) ...  ;)

Quote
"(…) rather fewer of them (…) have anything significant to propose, in a scientific sense."  … but what about astronomer Tom van Flandern, whose 10 very specific anti-B.B. proposals were these…
Hmm ... aren't you mixing up two things which should always be kept apart?

Surely it matters very little who proposed what, in scientific terms; the strengths (or weaknesses) of the proposals stand on their own merits (or lack of them), irrespective of who made them? Or am I missing something here?

Quote
1.   Static-universe models fit the data better than expanding-universe models.
You must be reading "the data" very differently than I am!  ::) Or perhaps you know of model fits which are not published, in astrophysics journals?

Quote
2.   The microwave "background" makes more sense as the limiting temperature of space heated by starlight than as the remnant of a fireball.
I'm sure you meant this as a joke, right?

Quote
3.   Element-abundance predictions using the Big Bang require too many adjustable parameters to make them work.
Huh?

Quote
4.   The universe has too much largescale structure (interspersed "walls" and voids) to form in a time as short as 10-20 billion years.
Umm, no, just no. One of the dramatic successes of LCDM cosmological models - with 'best fit' parameter values - is that huge simulations based on a very modest number of initial assumptions produce large-scale structure that looks amazingly real, just like what we observe.

Quote
5.   The average luminosity of quasars must decrease in just the right way so that their mean apparent brightness is the same at all redshifts, which is exceedingly unlikely.
That's another "no". To both halves. But, once again, maybe you've read some published papers I haven't; got any cites, please?

Quote
6.   The ages of globular clusters appear older than the universe.
As far as I know, that was never true. What was true - several decades or so ago - is that estimates of the ages of some globular clusters had mean values greater than ~13 billion years; however, they all had 'error bars' which included 13 billion years, so perhaps you read only part of the results?

Quote
7.   The local streaming motions of galaxies are too high for a finite universe that is supposed to be everywhere uniform.
Huh?

Quote
8.   Invisible dark matter of an unknown but non-baryonic nature must be the dominant ingredient of the entire universe.
Yes, so why is this a problem?

Quote
9.   The most distant galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field show insufficient evidence of evolution, with some of them apparently having higher redshifts (z = 6-7) than the faintest quasars.
I think you'll find there's been a large number of papers published, on high-z galaxies (etc) and their evolution, in the past decade. I'd be curious to know if you think this point still holds, in light of what's in those hundreds of recent papers.

Quote
10.   If the open universe we see today is extrapolated back near the beginning, the ratio of the actual density of matter in the universe to the critical density must differ from unity by just one part in 1059. Any larger deviation would result in a universe already collapsed on itself or already dissipated.
I think you mean 10^59. In either case, so? I don't see why this is an issue; perhaps you could explain?

Quote
"He also had a very radical idea about the universe (…)."  When the Steady-State Universe Theory was fashionable, the bigbangers were the radicals.  Now the steadystaters are supposed to be the radicals.
In other words, science at its best.

Quote
  When the space aliens arrive they will tell us that we're all a bunch of radicals, no matter on what side of any crazy discussion we happen to be.  Many people won't like this.
Surely. But those who won't like it will include very few scientists, right?

Quote
"(…) but [he] got rather unpleasant (…)."  … and was banned and read no more?  I wish I had his name so I could go over the quarrel and see for myself.
RandyC. You've got quite a bit of reading ahead of you ...  ;)

Quote
I asked, What if the contraction of space started next week, and replied that we'd never find out, but there's this other possibility: what if it started millions of years ago?  We could find out tomorrow.  There would be newspaper headlines like this one: "UNIVERSE STARTED TO SHRINK 12 MILLION YRS. AGO!!!"  … and the subtitle: "Amateur astronomer D. Rey shocks the world with something he discovered while watching the Leonids last night". 

***ʃ ʃ ʃ***
Indeed. As my daughter used to say, from an astonishingly young age, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

I sometimes dream that Bill Gates and a hundred other super-rich will one day wake up and realize that they should give all their wealth to funding astronomical and astrophysical research. Ain't gonna happen, of course. And let's not forget the Red Queen (or is the White Queen), in Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There; she found it all too easy to believe six impossible things, even before breakfast.

Back to your dream ... if I may be blunt, what are you actually doing to make it come true?

daniel rey m.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #11 on: May 11, 2014, 05:08:54 am »
"(…) better served by learning the fundamentals rather than aspiring to make a name for himself and win the Nobel Prize for Physics, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and the Booker Prize for Biographies of the Royals." Redoubtable sarcasm!!!  Regrettably, no time for all that anymore.  I'm on the way out, like 60-something-yr.-old RandyC.

Jean's teutonically thorough refutation of the points found to be understandable could only be the work of a professional.  Poor Dr. van Flandern!  No longer is he able to argue with his detractors, unless he can find a medium willing to be his go-between.  All I did was copy-paste that list I found at the Science-Frontiers.com website (scientific oddities).  Meanwhile I'm struggling to go through "the fundamentals".  Maybe the college level is already just around the corner???


A search on "RandyC" comes up with someone called Randy Conk who sent only 26 comments back in 2007, all of them short and harmless, and no big discussion.  It must've been deleted.

I was unable to link phrases to URLs in such a way that the URLs are not shown.  The hyperlink-insertion tool is unlike others elsewhere that show a box where you must place the URL.
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 10:10:45 pm by daniel rey m. »

JeanTate

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2976
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #12 on: May 11, 2014, 11:38:10 am »
"(…) better served by learning the fundamentals rather than aspiring to make a name for himself and win the Nobel Prize for Physics, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry and the Booker Prize for Biographies of the Royals." Redoubtable sarcasm!!!  Regrettably, no time for all that anymore.

Sad to hear read that.  :(

EigenState (wonderful name, don't you think?) is surely right: a discovery/breakthrough of the kind you've sketched is impossible without a good grasp of the fundamentals, wouldn't you say?

Quote
  I'm on the way out, like 60-something-yr.-old RandyC.

Jean's teutonically thorough refutation of the points found to be understandable could only be the work of a professional.
WOW!  8)

If those few words I wrote left with you the impression that I'm a professional, well, all I can say is I'm really flattered!  ;D

IRL (in real life), I am an ordinary zooite, just like you; I do not work in a university or research institution, and do not have a PhD (in any subject, much less astronomy).

Quote
  Poor Dr. van Flandern!  No longer is he able to argue with his detractors, unless he can find a medium willing to be his go-between.

What he wrote is available, pretty much for anyone to read (and most of it's free too, right?); the scientific merits (or not) stand on their own two feet. In the case of what you copy-pasted, it would seem that there's little scientific merit to it.

Quote
  All I did was copy-paste that list I found at the Science-Frontiers.com website (scientific oddities).

Does that mean you really didn't understand them? That you made little effort to try to make your own, independent assessment of them? To learn how well cosmological and astrophysical models fit the relevant data, today?

Quote
A search on "RandyC" comes up with someone called Randy Conk who sent only 26 comments back in 2007, all of them short and harmless, and no big discussion.  It must've been deleted.

Well, on the first page of the Stunning sights! board, RandyC is given as the name of the zooite who wrote the first post in no less than two threads there. So I guess what he wrote has not been deleted.

Quote
I was unable to link phrases to URLs in such a way that the URLs are not shown.  The hyperlink-insertion tool is unlike others elsewhere that show a box where you must place the URL.

Try this, without the spaces: [ u r l = {put your URL here} ] {put your name for the link here} [ / u r l ]

EigenState

  • OotD posters
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1334
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #13 on: May 11, 2014, 06:22:14 pm »
Greetings,

Jean's teutonically thorough refutation of the points found to be understandable could only be the work of a professional.  Poor Dr. van Flandern!  No longer is he able to argue with his detractors, unless he can find a medium willing to be his go-between.  All I did was copy-paste that list I found at the Science-Frontiers.com website (scientific oddities).  Meanwhile I'm struggling to go through "the fundamentals".  Maybe the college level is already just around the corner???

With all due respect for our esteemed colleague JeanTate, van Flandern's assertions have been repudiated for a long time by a simple, even cursory review of the available, objective observational and theoretical evidence.

So you come here allegedly looking to make a name for yourself within a discipline about which you apparently know next to nothing, and serve up a large helping of pseudo-scientific pap.  And then we are treated to a marketing extravaganza for your blog sites.  To what end if I might ask?  If it was not intuitively obvious, the question is purely rhetorical.

Best regards,
ES


daniel rey m.

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Lucky Bruno and his Violin Clef
« Reply #14 on: May 11, 2014, 10:34:41 pm »
"(…) I am an ordinary zooite (…)."  In that case, the average knowledge base of the zoo visitors here is far  broader than that of the average citizen.  Maybe I should be captured and thrown into one of the cages so I can try and learn something from the nonhuman animals???!!!

"Does that mean (…) you made little effort to (…)?"  I decided to trust the discernment of the owner of the S-F site, who says:  "T. Van Flandern, editor of the MetaResearch Bulletin, has compiled a list of Big-Bang problems, and it is not a short list. Can the Big-Bang paradigm be that shaky? Like evolution and relativity, the Big Bang is usually paraded as a proven, undeniable fact. It isn't."  His title for that subject (1998): "Ten Strikes Against the Big Bang". 


NOTE: "Marketing extravaganza" deleted today around 5:30 p.m. E.S.T.   
« Last Edit: May 11, 2014, 11:49:06 pm by daniel rey m. »