A collection of questions that BeAChooser has not answered (but I hope he now will)

[DeiRenDopa]

The title says it all.

BeAChooser has been a prolific poster in several threads in this, the Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology section.

Along the way, he has been asked quite a few questions that are directly relevant to the ideas, proposals, views, and propositions that he has, nearly always, stated quite forcefully.

Myself, I have asked several such questions, and several times have repeated them, in the hope of getting answers. Sometimes I have received a reply; sometimes I have not.

From reading some of the other threads in which BeAChooser has posted, often racking up dozens or even hundreds of posts, it seems that I am not alone in having questions on what BeAChooser has posted not answered, even when those questions have been rephrased and re-presented.

Hence this new thread.

I truly hope BeAChooser will read this thread, go back to the threads with the unanswered questions, and re-engage in discussion, by posting answers.

Of course, anyone reading this is more than welcome to add their own, unanswered questions; I only ask that you provide at least a link to the actual question itself.

Here are three of mine, taken from the Arp Objects, QSOs, Statistics thread:

post #207:

Quote:

BAC: And just because Bell used a source that said it wasn't a complete list of all objects doesn't necessarily invalidate the results. Perhaps the objects in that list were a somewhat fair sampling of the overall population of such objects.

DRD: Perhaps they were; perhaps they weren't ... how do you evaluate the extent to which they were?

The context is a Bell paper which concludes that 'quasars' (Bell actually defines these quite clearly) are not at the cosmological distances their redshifts imply (from some form of the Hubble relationship). Central to the logic of Bell's paper is that VCVcat contains a set of 'quasars' that is complete in a well-defined, tightly constrained, sense. However, VCVcat is not such a catalogue. Here is the source post of my unanswered question.

post #208:

Quote:

Second unanswered question: how does one go about evaluating material such as that in the various Arp et al. papers BAC has cited?

This is a slight paraphrase of the original, which can be found here.

post #209:

Quote:

This isn't so much an unanswered question as a follow-up one.

How - specifically, quantitatively, within the estimated uncertainties - does an Arpian idea account for the full set of data for the 16 quasars [in a paper cited earlier] (and the existence of ~100 strongly lensed quasars)?

Where is the 'alternative cosmology' account of these results [strongly lensed quasars]?

(source)

Here is BAC's answer: No idea. Maybe Arp, et. al. will try to write one soon.

My follow-on question is: if at least some quasars have been shown, quite convincingly, to be at distances consistent with estimates derived from the Hubble relationship and their redshifts, and if there is no 'alternative cosmology' (or similar) which can account for these results/observations, what is to be gained, in terms of doing science, by a posterori analyses of highly selective quasar-galaxy alignments?

This question can also be asked in a slightly different form, using "well-formulated, quantitative, testable hypotheses" instead of 'alternative cosmology'.

Note that these questions are specific/concrete forms of more general ones about how astronomy and astrophysics, as sciences, are done.

[MattusMaximus]

Props to you, DRD, for continuing to engage with the troll that is BAC. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any coherent responses, if I were you...

[DeiRenDopa]

Originally Posted by MattusMaximus

Props to you, DRD, for continuing to engage with the troll that is BAC. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for any coherent responses, if I were you...

I was prodded to start this thread by some BAC posts in this thread: Quarks, [OIII], neutron stars, black holes OK; CDM not OK - Huh?; if you have a chance, I'd value your inputs to the questions I ask in it, MattusMaximus.

Also, in BAC's favour, it should be noted that he spent a lot of time and effort developing an approach to calculate what he calls probabilities (in the Arp, QSO, etc thread), and in researching the topic. Also, while he responded to only a very narrow range of questions he was asked, about what he had posted, he did actually respond, often with posts that clearly took a lot of work to write.

[Tubbythin]

Here Dancing David asks a number of question. I am particularly interested in number 6:

"6. How do you explain the quantity of light elements and heavy elements through PC/PU?"

[DeiRenDopa]

In the thread Another Problem With Big Bang? (which BeAChooser started), there are many unanswered questions.

I will be greedy and repeat here just one that I asked (post #371):

Quote:

Originally Posted by BeAChooser

Sol ... you want something definite? Check out my probability calculations starting in post #125 of this thread ... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=107779&page=4

Of course you have me on ignore so you'll continue ignoring me by posting something negative about me anytime you see someone mention my screenname. Fun to watch.

.
I'm really quite puzzled - what has that post, or anything to do with Arpian ideas, got to do with plasma cosmology?

I mean, there are no works by Alfvén or Peratt that contain any physical explanation of, or prediction of, 'intrinsic redshift', are there?

Nor has any fan of PC ever produced anything like this, have they?

Not to mention 'magic' - what could be more 'magic' than 'intrinsic redshift', a very definite statement about the concrete behaviour of atoms (and ions and electrons and molecules and ...) that is backed by not the slightest shred of evidence from any experiment ever conducted in any laboratory.

Would you mind saying a few words about this please?

[Dancing David]

I wouldn't hold your breath. Some questions remain unanswered:

-scaling Perrat's model to a galaxy and what observations will there be
-how does a Lerner plasmoid avoid gravitational collapse
-what proportion of light elements does PC predict and how do they get distributed
-what causes star clusters to move faster around a galaxy than they should (gravity minus dark matter)
- if this is QSS universe why aren't there are higher proportion of light elements
-where does the blackbody spectrum of the CMB come from
-why is the alpha-lyman forest the way it is
-what evidence is there that QSOs are not AGN
-what other evidence is there for the ejection of QSOs other than anomalous redshift
-will the Cubs go to the World Series this year

Enquiring minds want to know!