Talk:Quasar/Archive for 2006
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Quasar. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Quasars effect on Communications
Has anyone got information about how Quasars affect communications here on Earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.36.210.92 (talk • contribs)
- Uh, do you have something in mind? I can't think of any way that they would. Are you thinking of solar flares or something? -- Coneslayer 02:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Positive identification of a previously unknown quasar after hours/days/weeks of sifting through data has been known to have the effect of creating a great deal of communication among scientists. Other than that, since we're talking about some of the distant objects ever studied, there is no effect. siafu 03:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Quasars are distant AGN
This is taken as basically fact by the astrophysical community. There is no other point up for discussion. No controversy exists anymore. --ScienceApologist 09:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
- You just destroyed your credibility with that statement. Theories are based on facts, but stating the theory as fact is bad science. Lengis 18:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't need any credibility here. You should read-up on scientific theory and fact and get back to us. --ScienceApologist 19:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
- Lack of credibility makes your statements, and arguments meaningless. Lengis 00:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- My "statments" are not the issue. You may wish to read WP:V and WP:CON. --ScienceApologist 01:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- No, in this case your statements are the issue because the reflect your credibility. Therefore, I can't take you seriously. Sorry. Lengis 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- You don't have to "take me seriously". You have just have to discuss and abide by consensus decisions which are decidedly not in your favor at this time. --ScienceApologist 02:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think he's listening to you because you embarrassed yourself by making that statement about theories being absolute facts. Some theories are quite solid, while others pretty soft. This is one of the softer theories. In either case, neither can be stated as fact. Also I don't think a consensus means much. A large consensus also believes the world is a few thousand years old, and was created in 7 days. Malamockq 14:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- It might behoove you to read about scientific theory and fact and get back to us. --ScienceApologist 18:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)