Quote (Voyaging @ Aug 17 2012 12:37am)

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 02:39am)

I can't understand that, and I doubt you can either. I've posted two studies that show that the distribution of matter in the universe is fractal, and that the isotropically homogeneous view is flawed. It's outdated.

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 02:36am)

Here's a good study that shows how the isotropically homogeneous view is wrong.

We introduce and study two new concepts which are essential for the quantitative analysis of the statistical quality of the available galaxy samples. These are the dilution effect and the small scale fluctuations. We show that the various data that are considered as pointing to a homogenous distribution are all affected by these spurious effects and their interpretation should be completely changed. In particular, we show that finite size effects strongly affect the determination of the galaxy number counts, namely the number versus magnitude relation (N (< m)) as computed from the origin. When one computes N (< m) averaged over all the points of a redshift survey, one observes an exponent α = D/5 ≈ 0.4 compatible with the fractal dimension D ≈ 2 derived from the full correlation analysis. Instead the observation of an exponent α ≈ 0.6 at relatively small scales, where the distribution is certainly not homogeneous, is shown to be related to finite size effects. We conclude therefore that the observed counts correspond to a fractaldistribution with dimension D ≈ 2 in the entire range 12 ⪅ m ⪅ 28, that is to say the largest scales ever probed for luminous matter. In addition our results permit to clarify various problems of the angular catalogs, and to show their compatibility with the fractal behaviour. We consider also the distribution of Radio-galaxies, Quasars and γ-ray bursts, and we show their compatibility with a fractal structure with D ≈ 1.6–1.8. Finally we have established a quantitative criterion that allows us to define and predict the statistical validity of a galaxy catalog (angular or three-dimensional).

Finite size effects on the galaxy number counts: Evidence for fractal behavior up to the deepest scale

    F.Sylos Labinia, b, c,
    A. Gabriellia,
    M. Montuoria, b, d,
    L. Pietroneroa, b

Quote (Voyaging @ Aug 17 2012 12:40am)

Yes, I can. It's a database of the measured gamma ray bursts (among other things).

It is inconsistent with your cosmological model.



It's too bad that the distribution of radio galaxies is NOT consistent with this model.

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 02:45am)

Just because everything in the universe isn't a dimension 2 fractal when taken collectively doesn't mean that your model is right. If you read what you underlined you would see that radio galaxies form a fractal as well, just not a dimension 2 fractal.

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 02:45am)

Oh, and since you can understand that, then break it down for me and show me their methodology in clear, easy-to-understand terms.

Quote (Voyaging @ Aug 17 2012 12:50am)

I read what I underlined and it is incorrect. Radio galaxies are distributed randomly.

Quote (Voyaging @ Aug 17 2012 12:50am)

They observe GRBs. They plot them. They are shown to be isotropic throughout the sky. They tell Arp he's wrong. He cries.

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 02:58am)

Yes, stick to your rhetoric when it has already been disproven.





I could have said the same thing, and I've already grasped that much from the page. You're bullshiting, you obviously don't understand the webpage. They already addressed the failings of that survey within the study i posted, and corrected it, which lead to a fractal distribution.  If you truly understood the webpage and the study I posted then you would understand why the fractal view is superior.

Quote (Voyaging @ Aug 17 2012 12:59am)

Yeah, I don't understand a collection of measurements.

And the fact that it still doesn't work with a fractal model.

Quote (Voyaging @ Aug 17 2012 12:59am)

In fact, you even just disagreed with your own study you linked 

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 03:01am)

Rofl.  You obviously don't understand the methodology of the measurements. Which, if you did understand it, then you wouldn't be saying that. Yes, I know that its not possible for the fractal model to be right if your model is right, but, unfortunately for you, the study I posted listed flaws in their methodology and corrected their errors to get a fractal distribution. My study countered yours, and you keep on insisting its right.

Quote (AEtheric @ Aug 17 2012 03:15am)

Oh crap. I misread, I thought it was taking about BATSE.  Here's a good article on the fractal distribution that's fairly new, from 2008.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14200-galaxy-map-hints-at-fractal-universe.html