Talk:Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies
 | This article was nominated for deletion on May 11, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
| This article was nominated for deletion on June 26, 2015. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Why posit a link to an article to be called "bad mathematics"? Unless its the name of a rock band or something, "bad mathematics" is no more notable a subject of its own article than bad gymnastics or bad history, both of which will also likely stay red.
I'm removing the brackets from this story.
Reportedly, some of Arp's calculations seem to be simply "bad mathematics".
- could someone provide an example? I'd like to check this claim myself -- 216.234.56.130 19:55, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I haven't found any, but Arp also reported similar claims. About small number statistics - in the link it is described as induction based on insufficient evidence. In the book Arp presented some examples from which he originally made the conclusion as a hypothesis, and a search for quasars in an area not searched for them before with the purpose of a statistical test. This resembles rather the Popper's method than induction. Some observations even don't need statistics: galaxies connected to quasars or higher redshift galaxies. From an interview[1] - Arp first found that radio sources tend to be paired across galaxies and concluded they had been ejected (this part is now accepted); when he found some of them were quasars he took it as falsifying the conventional interpretation of redshift. In both this book and Seeing Red he warned that those who tried to disprove his results with bigger statistics made more important mistakes, e.g. in the search for multiply interacting groups without anomalous redshifts there weren't more than one redshift measured per a group, and the sample size was overestimated with bad images. --88.102.183.204 (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
Quasar or Quasars?
[edit]I think the correct title of the book is "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", that is, Quasars not Quasar. A Google search shows 343 hits for "Quasar, Redshifts and Controversies" - but on the first two Google pages, I couldn't find a single hit that wasn't either quoting this review verbatim, or just citing the book without commenting on it. There are 773 Google hits for "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies", including Amazon.com and other booksellers, who presumably have a copy of the book on hand.
Therefore, I suggest that this page be renamed "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies". As with all Wikipedia moves, anyone searching for, or linking to the old title, will be redirected to the new one. Mentions of the book throughout Wikipedia should also have an "s" added. Art LaPella 01:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Fixed. Thank you, Zundark. Art LaPella 22:32, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
Do We Really Need the Redbourne Review
[edit]Our bibligraphy contains a review of one of Arps books by Redbourne, which is utterly uninformative about the book or attendent controversies. Redbourne is saying, "Arps thinks the establishment is wrong. I think so too. Now I will talk about my own pet theories without further reference to Arps' book."
Okay,that's his right, but is it notable enough to be included here? --Christofurio 16:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
- Nobody reacted, so I have removed it. When someone wants to put it back, please supply a reason. After having followed the link, I couldn't find one to keep it in. Qarel 06:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
references behind paywall
[edit]Change them or mirror them. Period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusty007 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)