Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Historically the 72 km/s period was found first and a number of papers on that published.
|
Can you list some please (other than the Tifft one already on the table)?
If possible, please focus on those which are in relevant peer-reviewed journals, and which present original analyses or observations.
Quote:
|
I saw an article about the 72 km/s in New Scientist which set me to trying to understand it in terms of Harmonics theory. The whole problem of course is that if you interpret it as velocity, then the earth is in a special place. No-one really believes that. That is why Tifft's work is disregarded.
|
When* you get around to answering some of the questions I've asked about how Tifft derived "
the 72 km/s", it may become obvious why his work was disregarded (in a nutshell, no such period exists ... at least in the input data he used).
Quote:
|
However Arp's explanation of redshifts being steps in time not velocity totally solves the problem of geometry and our unique position - it looks the same everywhere. But I do not think that astronomers have generally understood this. Furthermore I think that their analysis of redshifts looking for distance correlations are all contaminated by that lack of understanding of Arp.
|
As I have said, at least once before, this assumes that there is, indeed, a redshift periodicity.
If and when you choose to put the relevant Arp papers (concerning redshift periodicity in galaxies) on the table, BAUT members will be able to question and challenge your claims. Until you do, what point is there in repeating unsubstantiated claims?
Quote:
That is why I want to do my own analysis with the newer data.
I do distinguish between Tifft's periodicity findings ("quanta" in his words) and his interpretations. In particular his theory was an attempt from chaos theory to explain the pattern because it has many frequency doublings. However chaos theory does not produce the combined pattern of 2s and 3s found and harmonics theory does. e.g. in km/s
72 36 18 9 ratios of 2 across
24 12 6 3 and 3 down
I think that your suggestion (if I understand it correctly) that the state model is interpretation or theory, rather than just pure observation, is a correct one.
|
It seems that my questions are not sufficiently clear; let me try again.
In post #80, I listed a number (8) of assumptions, or inputs, Tifft made, or used, in converting observations into a (derived) conclusion of a ~72 km/s redshift periodicity.
In post #83, you agreed that several of these (~4) were indeed used, and are important. You stated you were not familiar with "
blends", nor with the ~18 km/s "galactic expansion" (3 assumptions). You stated that one assumption was "
not needed" (a galactic co-ordinate system). You stated that, as far as you knew, there were no other assumptions.
Subsequently you have stated your interpretation of Tifft's "
redshift state" model, several times, and I have continued to challenge you on that understanding, by referring directly to Tifft's paper (more to come).
In post #92, you quoted yourself on a Tifft claim that requires "
galactic expansion, at least locally" (or, to quote Tifft directly "
π = -18.8 km s-1"). I have asked you, several times, in differently worded questions, how the validity of the ~72 km/s redshift periodicity depends on the existence of such "
π = -18.8 km s-1", but you have yet to answer.
In post #101, I asked the (general) question again, in two different ways:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
how did you establish the validity of the reported ~72 km/s redshift periodicies conclusions (derived results) in terms of the long chain of assumptions and calculations that these derived results seem (to me) to depend upon*?
|
Quote:
|
It seems that this whole exercise rests upon an assumption, or postulate, (or similar): that the derived conclusions (about a ~72 km/s redshift periodicity) stated in Tifft's paper are valid, in some scientific sense. I understand from your posts in this thread that you are claiming that they are ... are you making such a claim?
|
I will return to "the existence of a "
static universal frame"", "suitability of "
the galactic coordinate system" to determine "
the solar motion"", "absolute accuracy (however defined) of "
the galactic coordinate system" Tifft used", and "techniques for uniquely removing the "
[internal] rotational or radial motion components" of the galaxies" soon.
If you do not understand the questions I am asking, about either the importance of the assumptions, or the actual assumptions themselves, please ask for clarification.
If you need more time to answer them, please say so (and give an indication of when you expect to answer them).
If you do not know the answer to a question, please say so.
Quote:
|
I think it is based on the history of the 72 km/s period being known for some time and then suddenly some 36 km/s steps turning up. And they did again for Napier and Guthrie. Evenetually when he found the other periods of 12, 6, 3 km/s etc then he saw the pattern clearly.
|
References please, both "Napier and Guthrie" and Tifft (?) - "
Evenetually when he found the other periods of 12, 6, 3 km/s etc"
Quote:
|
If you look at my post #94 in this thread then you will see the pattern that is expected from Harmonics teoery. If you just pick out the biggest peaks you will see a single large quantum. If you then look at the next biggest peaks you will find some smaller quanta of 1/2 and 1/4 that size and eventually 1/12 that size. This is the result of getting better data and including smaller galaxies in the sample. In the local region I have found that the smaller galaxies are at distance steps of 1/12 of the Andromeda distance, or 2,220,000 / 12 = 185,000 LY. That is pretty close to the Magellanic cloud distances from our galaxy centre. Other nearby small galaxies are at multiples of this distance from us or from M31 or M33 etc.
|
How are the so-called ~72 km/s redshift periodicities related to the distance to M31 and the distance to the LMC and SMC?
Quote:
|
I am aware that to some extent harmonics theory is spilling into this thread. I suppose that does not matter a lot. It is difficult to not address those issues because they do suggest why Tifft's periods should be taken very seriously.
|
If I may paraphrase (and turn up the contrast): the scientific validity of Tifft's conclusions (concerning ~72 km/s redshift periodicities) is much less important than the fact that your ATM idea includes a number close to this.
Or, turning this around and making it a question, given the importance you attach to ~72 km/s, how important is it to establish the scientific validity of Tifft's conclusions?
*
or if; I have been trying to focus on the validity of the astronomical evidence you have presented to support your ATM claims in this thread (currently the so-called 72 km/s redshift periodicity). It wouldn't surprise me if this thread ends - 30 days after it was started - with many basic questions about such evidence still unanswered.