View Single Post
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 18-August-2007, 02:16 PM
parejkoj's Avatar
parejkoj parejkoj is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Philly and New Haven
Posts: 893
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
I have not been following the thread because it has not been about quantized redshifts but about quasar interpretation. I am not en expert on quasar classification and do not intend to be so, so I don't know why anyone would ask about "my quasar classification scheme".

I do have views about periodicity in redshifts. I can easily show that redshift periodicity does not mean we are at a special place in the Universe. I think that I can also show that the analysis that finds no periodicity is flawed in terms of what Arp and Narlikar claim. If anyone wants to discuss those topics then I would be happy to.
And therein lies the rub. If you don't have a consistent classification scheme for quasars, how can you make any claims about redshift quantization? Depending on what objects you allow into your definition, you may begin to find a "quantization" simply due to the way you've defined the sample.

That is the whole reason the folks behind SDSS have worked so hard to generate uniform samples of objects. But I can tell you right now, just selecting everything marked "QSO" from SDSS will not provide a uniform sample (see my discussion above with Ari). Look again at my comments earlier in this thread about this, and make sure you understand the Richards et al. 2007 paper...
__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report