Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Here I make a summary of the case for periodicity by listing a selection of papers. This is by no means a comprehensive list nor in any sense a representative one, but it simply includes some papers that I have looked at that argue both for and against periodicity in redshifts. I discuss the methods used, the degree of checking with other samples and why there are differences of opinion about periodicity.
According to reference 16 "Correlation function is the most widely used in studies of large scale structure" and I see no reason to dispute this. It does seem that some large scale periods are found with this method, but at smaller scales the method will wash out the Tifft type periods when done in 3D. This claim will be fully addressed in a following post. I simply note that surveys that simply analyze redshift for periods generally find significant results. However when these other methods are used, particularly at smaller scales then periodicity may not be found. The conclusion is that the periods are there but that the assumption that redshift can be mixed with other dimensions to test for small scale periodicity is invalid as demonstrated by Tifft's results that have been consistently verified,
A. Small scale galaxy periodicity
This includes the 72 km/s quantization and related periods. Almost all of the periods found have been simple ratios to 72 km/s. Most of these have appeared multiple times in papers by different authors. The periods that I contend are real include 144, 72, 36, 24, 18, 12 km/s and perhaps additional smaller ones, but I will just concentrate on this list. It is clear from the papers (and is also expected by HT) that dwarf galaxies have smaller periods than larger galaxies. The periods relate to galaxy pairs, galaxy groups, and whole sky consistency in either the milky way centre frame or the CMBR frame or similar frames to these determined by Tifft. Others have checked for these frames and confirmed them. I have not found any paper that used Tifft's method and reported none of these periodicities.
1. APJ 221:756-775 1978 May 1, The absolute solar motion and the discrete redshift, W G Tifft.
Dwarf galaxies, after removing the solar motion, show 72 km/s periodicity and various multiples of 12 km/s including 36 km/s and 24 km/s. The determined values are 72.135 km/s and 12.0225 km/s. R Tomes notes HT predicts 72.153 and 12.0255 km/s. Many later papers get 72.45 km/s and fractions thereof.
2. APJ 268:56-59 1983 May 1, Redshift Quantization in compact groups of galaxies, W J Cocke and W G Tifft
Compact galaxy groups show a significant 72 km/s periodicity. With less significance 144, 90 and 36 km/s periods also found.
3. APJ 291:88-111 1985 Apr 1, Analysis of groups of galaxies with accurate redshifts, Halton Arp and Jack W Sulentic
Following Tifft's findings of differences withing groups tending to be multiples of 72 km/s, this paper examines that issue. It finds that the differences do indeed tend to be low multiples of 72 km/s. It also finds that the main galaxy in a group tends to have a lower redshift than its companions. This is an argument for internal redshifts. Arp made an error in his statistics, but the result is still true. R Tomes notes this is somewhat similar to the O and B type stars having an offset in redshift relative to other stars.
4. APJ 345:72-83 1989 Oct 1, Periodicities in Galaxy Redshifts, Martin R Croasdale
Using new data Croasdale tests for Tiffts periods of 72, 36 and 24 km/s. He uses Monte Carlo simulations to check on the statistical probabilities, so the paper is very solid statistically. He also checks for the difference between periods in z and in ln(1+z) and finds that the periods are present only in z. The sample is deeper than Tifft's and so this conclusion should over-ride Tifft's. He uses a whole sky frame and Tifft's bases of reduction to that frame based on our motion. The estimates of the errors in the measured values are 72.45+/-0.3, and 24.15+/-0.1 km/s. R Tomes notes that these error margins place Tifft's values at 1 s.d. from HT predictions. R Tomes further notes that the periodicty in z and not ln(1+z) also shows up in some other places and leads to the conclusion that this idea of Arp, Tifft and Tomes should be revised. It would appear that some aspect of development of the universe is over-riding this natural assumption.
5. 1991MNRAS 253 533-544, Evidence for Redshift Periodicity in nearby filed galaxies, B N G Guthrie amd W M Napier
Set out to check Tifft's findings. Find 37.2 km/s periodicity at p~10^-5 level. Whole sky periodicity with results in the galaxy frame.
6. APJ 385:32-48 1992 Jan 20, Velocity Differences in Binaary Galaxies I...., Stephen E Schneider and Edwin E Salpeter
Performing a check on Tifft's binary galaxies using new data, they found multiples of 72 km/s at low multiples only 0, 72, 144 km/s), then a smooth curve with no peaks at 216 km/s and beyond.
7. J Astrophys Astr 1997 18:415-433, Redshift quantization in the CMBR frame, W G Tifft
Tifft finds that by using the CMBR frame the periodicities are visible over the whole sky. In addition to the 72 km/s period he finds 36.6 km/s, 18.3 km/s, 10.67 km/s, 9.15 km/s, and some shorter periods.
8. J.Astrophys.Astr. 1997 18:455-463, Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report, W M Napier & B N G Guthrie
71.5 km/s in Virgo Cluster p<10^-4 and 37.5 km/s global p<10^-3 to galaxy frame, V=213 km/s 93 d, 2 d.
[snip]
|
To some extent the challenges and questions which follow are repeats of ones made earlier in this thread.
In particular, in
#166,
#175,
#177,
#185,
#186, and
#203.
Starting with #203: "
selective quoting from selected papers, misunderstanding of basic terms, blindness to the need for consistency (let alone any independent effort to perform consistency checks), failure to recognise (much less consider) the effects of errors/uncertainty in the observations and analyses (even when these are clearly described in the papers from which the selective quote are taken), and so on."
Rather odd, to me, is the inclusion of the three Tifft papers in this list (1, 2, and 7). After all, the only way one can reproduce Tifft's results is to include Tifft's 'redshift state' model. Further, there seems to be a particularly sharp inconsistency: the same ~"
72 km/s periodicity" (and others) are claimed, by Tifft, in both galactocentric and CMB frames!
Paper 3 was introduced much earlier in this thread too, and post #177 contains a question on consistency (with Tifft) that remains un-answered. I will ask the question again. Please answer it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please state the consistency between "redshift periodicity" published in papers by Tifft and by Arp.
In your reply, please be sure to include, at minimum, the following:
* the frame(s) within which the reported "redshift periodici[es]" exist
* the classes of objects for which each report such "redshift periodici[es]" (be as specific as possible)
* the number of objects for which each report "redshift periodici[es]"
* the stated estimates of uncertainties of the reported "redshift periodici[es]", both random and systematic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Paper 4 was briefly discussed in #166 and
#168. I think it's time to resume that ... starting with the sample size and selection criteria. Croasdale's sample is 157 and 144 (he uses two different cuts). Section III of that paper goes into some detail about the galaxies selected, and some of those go directly to the question of consistency between different papers listed above. For example, one/two sub-class of galaxies that Tifft used was not among the 144/157 Croasdale used ("narrow profile"/high-luminosity intermediate profile). Then there's the degeneracy in Croasdale's conclusions - one periodicity? or several? If several, is their significance independently determined, or jointly?
Paper 6 is interesting because it should be, per
rtomes, the purest test ... yet the authors conclude that only one periodicity (~72 km/s) is significant, and explicitly rule out all the others Tifft had reported previously. Their sample size is 107 pairs of (isolated) galaxies.
Paper 5 can be ignored; paper 8 is by the same authors, more recent, and explicitly includes the findings in 5. Pace
rtomes, paper 8 does report null findings; for example (p458) "
No significant periodicity was found for the sample of 77 irregular galaxies."
Two quotes from my previous posts seem appropriate:
#185: "
If there are no answers to basic questions concerning consistency of the reported results, how should claims concerning their being the same phenomenon be judged?"
#186: "
No BAUT member has yet presented an analysis to show the consistency - if any - between even the papers mentioned so far in this thread, much less a more comprehensive set of papers that would include negative findings."
While the list quoted at the head of this post begins to address some of the consistency questions, it clearly only barely scratches the surface. In particular, even for the ~72 km/s value, paper 8 reports a null finding!
Perhaps it is thus apt to close with two comments.
First, that there are, today, vastly more high-quality galaxy redshifts, freely available. Further, these observations are from a variety of telescopes, programs; in different wavebands; and so on. Surely it makes more sense to do a rigourous test of the 'redshift quantization', using selection criteria and analysis techniques very clearly stated
beforehand (maybe even a double blind test?), using more modern data than to engage in archeology in astronomy papers?
Second, E. E. Salpeter, co-author of paper 6, in 2005
published the following paper: "Fallacies in astronomy and medicine". The abstract reads, in part:
Quote:
|
Both in astronomy and in medicine research, fallacies occur occasionally. Sometimes these fallacies are due to 'subconscious cheating' or the 'file drawer effect' (filing away unfavourable results instead of publishing), but it is difficult to know whether a fallacy has occurred and, if so, why. I give two examples from the past where, in my opinion, fallacies have occurred: a quadratic distance—redshift law and a periodicity in galaxy pair redshift differences.
|
OK, not quite the end; here's a question for
rtomes: for what set of observational techniques (including waveband), classes of galaxies observed, frames, and statistical significance do all 8 papers above report a consistent result?
More specifically, for the ~72 km/s redshift period, which classes of galaxies, observational techniques, and frames are common to all 8 papers (where a statistically significant result is reported)?