Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
From the above quoted wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift_quantization
I want to explain why, if Arp is right, the Hawkins result is expected to be null and the Arp result is successful. According to Arp, QSOs are not at cosmological distances implied by redshift but have two componets to the redshift that he calls "internal" and I guess "external" or cosmological. The periodicity in QSO redshifts is in the internal component so that it shows up in samples that are nearby (all at small z compared to the periodicity in log(1+z)). The Hawkins result includes QSOs which are distant and therefore have large cosmological redshifts. This will totally blur out all the peaks in the internal redshift. When Arp uses only bright QSO then he effectively selects the nearby ones that all have small external z component so no blurring results.
The problem is that when analysis is done to compare two models, you cannot make the assumptions of one model when testing the other. Unfortunately these procedures are so ingrained that it happens without people realizing. |
You might like to review the relevant posts in the (very long!)
More from Arp et al. thread, here in this ATM section.
The Arp et al. idea re quasars/QSOs was covered quite extensively in that thread, and under the new ATM policies, reviving an ATM idea in a closed ATM thread is permitted only when quite specific conditions are met (e.g. a relevant new paper is published)*.
*
For details, see Fraser's posts in the two key About BAUT threads discussing the new ATM policy; they are the first two About BAUT links in my previous post.