From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: sci.astro
Subject: Re: Quasars: near versus far
Date: 27 Jul 92 13:44:41 GMT
Organization: University of Central Florida

In article <Bs18po.5oz@well.sf.ca.us> metares@well.sf.ca.us (Tom Van Flandern)  
writes:
> 
> Earlier, Joseph Lazio gave a short comparative list of quasar properties in
> the standard model and in the Meta Model.  The following is a more extensive
> list.  Note the relative quality and plausibility of the two explanations if
> prior familiarity is not used as a standard.
> 
> OBSERVATIONAL FACT    INTERPRETATION IN     INTERPRETATION IN
>                       STANDARD MODEL        META MODEL

	<21 triplets deleted> 
>      A careful examination of the middle column reveals that almost
> all of these observational features of quasars have explanations in
> the standard model.

Agreed 

> But it also reveals that most of these
> explanations were contrived after the properties were discovered,

An historical accident. Theory shouldn't be blamed for 
order of discovery.

> and are therefore ad hoc helper hypotheses, serving the purpose of
> saving the feature of the standard model that quasar redshifts are
> distance indicators.  By contrast, inspection of the last column
> reveals that most quasar properties become unremarkable if quasars
> are assumed to be supermassive stars with mainly gravitational
> redshifts. Only a few arguments in the last column are ad hoc, and
> these are only because of the lack of specificity now available for
> the still unpublished the Meta Model.  

You forgot the most ad hoc assumption of all:

(22) Quasars Exist      Explanation Requires  New Physics is Invoked
That is, Star-like      Much hard work to     For Explanation
Objects with Large      Develop Models that
Red Shifts.	        Fit Data Using Known
			Physics in Context of
			Standard Model      

To me, and I suspect to many of those you are trying to convince,
this is the most telling blow to your meta-theory.  You cannot
explain quasar redshifts within the context of known physics.
This failure also defeated earlier gravitational red-shift quasar
theories in the 60's. 

New Physics is the most ad hoc of all arguments.  I can explain
anything if you allow me to freely choose the laws of the universe.

By invoking new physics you have set yourself a daunting task.
Your theoretical structure must account for all previous theoretical
successes, but must plausibly allow for expflanation of quasars and
other cosmological problems.  Difficult to judge how well you
succeed from net postings due to lack of a convenient mathematical
vehicle (maybe you could post some of your equations using TeX?).

Perhaps your a priori derivation of the universe with the Meta Theory
is particularly elegant and compelling.  Elegance can count for a lot.
I rather liked the perfect cosmological principle of steady state
theory.  A pity it fell afoul of observation.

I await your book.
 
> 
> -- 
> Tom Van Flandern / Washington, DC / metares@well.sf.ca.us
> Meta Research was founded to foster research into ideas not otherwise
> supported because they conflict with mainstream theories in Astronomy.

--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu