Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancor
A number of posts ago I closed my intervention in this thread by writing:
Now I dare to contradict myself and my decision because, about thirty posts later, I seem that this is not a discussion any more, but a sort of inquisitory tomographic scrutiny.
Obviously, I don't intend any criticism to Nereid here, I simply express my perception of the mood in the thread.
Maybe this depends on the fact that many explanations are needed to correctly understand rtomes's hypothesis/theory (interesting anyway!), maybe that it depends on something else.
For instance, I don't know if rtomes is or considers himself an Arpian, but he does seem to be, as he confirmed to be willing to defend, together with its own, Arp's ideas too.
And this, according the rules ruled by the rulers of the forum, is a mortal sin, as Arp's thread was closed long ago (by the way, without any tangible conclusion), so the argument has to be forgotten (a kind of what ancient Romans called "damnatio memoriæ").
But let me say, in the most friendly spirit of collaboration, that isn't by sweeping the rubbish under the carpet that science (in general) and cosmology (in particular) may solve its problems.
I apologise to anyone might feel hurted by those rermarks, and I ask you all to take them as a fair contribution.
|
My main purpose in this thread is to show that quantization or periodicity of redshifts are consistent with data and that various reasons given against this are mistaken and that some analysis might be mistaken. Of necessity I must quote Arp and Tifft and a few others that did much of the original research. It is clear that it is best to start with galaxies rather than quasars as there are less contentious issues. If I cannot convince anyone about galaxy redshift periodicities then I don't hold out much hope for doing it for quasars. So it would be best to leave the quasar stuff aside an concentrate on galaxies.
I do think all the classification of quasar stuff is largely a red herring. The definition may have wandered a bit, but that does not invalidate earlier work or mean that similar results will not happen with the new basis. However I can see no point in the continued inquisition on this when I have made myself perfectly clear that I do not do quasar classification, but use only the results of others classification. I depend on them being consistent within any one survey or sample.
To some extent this thread is mixing a bit with my harmonics theory. That is OK to some extent, because knowing only of the 72 km/s periodicity I was able to determine an explanation for that and predict other periodicities and their relative strengths. After I posted this prediction to usenet in 1994, that prediction was verified by me receiving an email from an astronomer telling me about Tifft's papers from the late 1970s which had essentially the same periodicities in them. Therefore Tifft's work is very important to me because it confirms my work and my work confirms his.
Unfortunately Tifft developed his own theory with someone else in the mean time and so he was less interested in my work than he might have been.
I would not call myself an Arpian, but I do think that some of Arp's ideas have been dismissed through wrong understanding. I arrived independently at the idea of particle mass increase over time that Arp and Narlikar advocate. He arrived at it by consideration of quasar internal redshifts, believing that they are nearby. I arrived at from redshift periodicity and and harmonics energy moving to smaller scales.
I am happy to concentrate on Tifft related periodicities because the significance of the fit between Harmoniocs theory and Tiffts periodicities is so high that it makes no sense to say that either is false. How could a false theory and misconstrued data turn out to agree at p<10^-18?
One final comment though is that Harmonics theory should not be seen as just an explanation of redshift periodicities. It is primarily based in cycles periods and spacial regularity and applies at all scales in the universe.