Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
He did? Where did he publish this revision?
Did you check his calculations?What analyses did you do to check the dependence (or lack of it) of the Tifft redshift periodicities on the assumptions used re a galactic co-ordinate system?How extensively did you check his calculations?
The number of high quality galaxy spectra - available online - has increased enormously since the 1970s. What analyses have you done, using at least a well-defined sample of these newer spectra, to check Tifft's conclusions?What about "monostates" and "bistates"?
Perhaps a simpler question might be: given a perfectly accurate redshift of a galaxy (we'll look at definitions later), which Tifft declares to be not a "monostate", how is a specific redshift period/quantum determined?If you don't have a reference for it, what merit should this have, in any scientific investigation?
For example, I could claim that "[t]his data of Arp's" was all made up, late one evening after a too many pints at the local pub. Without a reference, how can anyone reading this decide, objectively, whose story is right?How does the existence of this, as an assumption by Tifft, affect the conclusions concerning redshift periodicities?
After all, you cited the Tifft paper as the source of these (presumably you have used the conclusions in your own analyses on your own ideas); if there is no basis for such an assumption, shouldn't the whole chain leading to Tifft's conclusions be re-done (at a minimum)?Please show that Tifft's conclusions are unchanged if this assumption of a galactic expansion of ~18 km/s is removed.What sources are you using, as inputs to your analysis?Clarification: does "his data" refer to the (derived) conclusions, in published papers by Tifft? Or the input redshifts (etc) he used to do his calculations? Both? Something else?
If "Harmonics theory" predictions are "exact", what - quantitatively - does "accord a bit less well" mean?
|
As far as I can remember Tifft published the paper on CMBR basis in AstroPhys Journal also. I know nothing about the 18 km/s galactic expansion. It was not in any of the papers that I read. Maybe this came later. I have not done any analysis of the newer surveys, and agree that much more data is available. That was one of the questions I came to the forum to ask about getting data. I do not want to get 100 GB of data! Just a modest amount is quite sufficient. Perhaps when these discussions have run their course it would be appropriate for someone to advise me and assist me through the various steps in getting a modest sized sample or two for analysis. If that proves fruitful, them the same technique can be applied on larger volumes of data.
For straight forward galaxies with a single redshift, the easiest way to look at periodicity is as in the survey that I quoted with the 128 Mpc period --- to pick a sample that is in a small region of the sky (so called pencil beam) because then you do not have to worry about our motion relative to CMBR or anything else like that. Ideally the central redshift should be to better than 1 km/s. This can be repeated with many small areas of sky, the same consistent set periods should result, but in different directions there will be different starting offsets. When the whole sky is examined these starting offsets should be cleary explained by our CMBR motion.
Having stated that, I suspect that Tifft's 18 km/s figure may be some sort of bias in the CMBR due to our nearby galaxy centre in one direction. He may have found that this extra component brings all the different directions into better agreement. I am just guessing based on his earlier work.
I certainly think that it is a good idea to replicate Tifft's work. The only case I know of this being done was by Guthrie and Napier who did not find a 72 km/s period but did find a 37.6+/- 2 km/s period or something like that. It agreed with the 36 km/s one of Tifft's. But again the sample was much smaller than available today.
Much of the early work on the 72 km/s period came from single galaxy clusters where it was found that the differences in velocities were often 72 km/s or multiples thereof.
I do not know about Tiffty's bistates as already stated. My guess is that you can take a galaxy spectrum and by correlating it against a typical galaxy spectrum and varying the red shift adjustment continuously get a graph which has peaks at more than one place. This is standard variance analysis and i assume this technique is used when multiple absorptions at different redshifts are detected fro quasars. I have downloaded a few spectra to try and do this, but as far as I could tell they were all random noise and had no resemblance to anything at any red shift.
