Hi Nereid

My turn to ask some questions.

I have presented in the quantized red shift thread the case for Tifft's periodicities and my calculated redshift periodicities being extremely significantly similar according to a chi-square test. This one item on its own outweighs many other things, although of course many astronomers reject Tifft's results. I suggested that the reason for that is that it seems to imply a special place for the Earth. But putting all that aside, I have suggested that the null test is:
*** Tifft's results are spurious OR Tomes theory is of no use ***
This is an inclusive OR so that it means that either is wrong or both are wrong. I think that this would be the view of many astronomers. Am I right?

I propose to prove that the null result will be rejected at the ~p<10^-18 level
(I cannot be exact here as I cannot find a chi-square table that goes far enough). Do you agree that if the null result is rejected that it means that both results are correct. That Tifft's values are real and Tomes theory is useful? (This is only a question in logic so it should be easy).

My argument goes like this. You probably need to accept that I did not develop my theory until after Tifft published his results, otherwise Tifft could have fiddled his data to match my results. If he had he would probably agree with me which he does not. I didn't start on my harmonics theory work until 1984 and got the theory worked out in 1989 and the redshift part in 1994. I state that I only knew about the 72 km/s quantum at that time, but my logic does not depend on that fact.

If Tomes theory is good but Tifft's values are spurious then there is no reason for them to agree with each other. Do you agree?

If Tomes theory is wrong and Tiffts's values are real there is no reason for them to agree with each other. Do you agree?

If both are useless there is still less reason for them to agree with each other. Do you agree with that?

If Tomes theory is right and Tifft's data is meaningful then we are not surprised if they agree with each other.

All that is required then is to establish that my table of redshift periods are indeed the strongest harmonics calculated as explained on my web pages and using the redshift formula (1+z)^h=2. There is no chance that the table is a fiddle if someone checks the maths. Do you agree?

For Tifft's data I suggest using any periods that he clearly states and published prior to 1980. I believe that all the significant quanta had been mentioned by that date. Where several values have been reported the average should be used. I think that this is an unbiased procedure. Do you agree?

I think that it is important that someone other than me searches Tiffts papers in the range ~1975 to 1979 inclusive in AstroPhys Journal for any mentioned periods. That assures that I have not biased the results. Do you agree?

I can do chi-square calculations but it is essential that an independent statistician should check the results. Do you agree?

If the result is extraordinarily significant, do you agree that this establishes both Tifft's and Tomes' work as sensibly established and worthy of further study?

If you think this sounds too much in one go, you might want to just get a statistician to tell you how significant the chi-square result is first.

regards
Ray

Moderator note: Moved from the Harmonics Theory thread, per the OP’s request.