Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
If you make an ATM claim, you should expect that the claim will be questioned and challenged.Another BAUT member may say something like "To me it is quite clear that a correction of maximum 380 km/s will affect the 4300 km/s cycle in a material way, especialy given the highly anisotropic distribution of the galaxies.".
rtomes, this is a science-based forum, and this is the ATM section.
You have already said you did not transform the ~30k redshifts to a CMB frame.
You have provided a general account of why you think such a transform would not change the result much, under the assumption the objects are distributed isotropically (or nearly so). They are not so distributed.
Please provide a quantitative account to support your assertion.I don't understand this - could you clarify please?There are three other questions on your ATM claim, as presented; please answer them.
Here they are again:
* Please show, with an appropriate degree of rigour, and references to relevant published papers, that Tifft's rule of thumb has statistical validity, when applied to astronomical datasets such as that in Figure 1.
* What cosmological theory did you use to derive the 'smooth curve'?
* How did you address the authors' statement concerning "the inhomogeneity of the data base and of its incompleteness"?
|
Incompleteness does not create periodicity. If you look at the regions that I coloured in green and connect from one green region to the next, you will see that this line makes an envelope above all the other data. The only exception to the regular 4330 km/s period is the peak marked X. It doesn't matter how you draw the smooth curve that result will be true.
If you want to know how to do such curves, Edward R Dewey was an expert. He used moving averages of about the same period as the cycle and then subtracted that from the original data. In this case that would mean averaging 9 bins together plotting at the central bin, then moving along one bin and repeating.
It is difficult for me to be sure whether you really cannot see that this cycle is obvious or are simply being perverse. |
I think we have reached, in this thread, much the same point in the other ATM one, concerning the nature of astronomy and cosmology, as sciences, and the
rtomes view of the same.
That there is a rather large gap between mainstream astronomy and cosmology, as sciences, and
rtomes' ATM view of science is pretty clear in this post ... it would seem that, in this alternative science (pseudo-science?), when analysing observations an astronomer does not need to consider:
* how the objects observed were selected
* the consistency of those selections, between observations
* the extent to which the objects observed were complete (among all objects which meet the selection criteria)
* how blended objects should be treated
* the precision of the observations
* the reproducibility of the observations, across instruments, telescopes, etc
* data reduction techniques
* and so on.
Alternatively, perhaps this ATM science is not really about astronomy? Perhaps all that's being studied is patterns in what's in papers? Instead of forming hypotheses and going to look at things in the sky, perhaps this ATM approach would be better done by data mining astronomers' papers, and reporting on all 'cycles' contained therein? A key part of such an endeavour would seem to be suppression of all data in such papers that is inconsistent with the 'cycles' (i.e. confirmation bias is a core principle of this pseudo-science) ... Maybe that's a bit too strong; perhaps it's simply an acceptance of inconsistency - a 'cycle' found in an old, incomplete, inhomogeneous, badly done piece of research is kept, even though no such 'cycles' can be extracted from a wealth of later research (which addresses selection effects, completeness, biases, etc in a transparent way)?
Anyway, we have too little time, I suspect, to even ask a sufficient number of pertinent questions about these ATM ideas, as presented ... this thread will close automatically in just days.
So, perhaps just one direct question: please give references, to papers (by Edward R Dewey,
rtomes, or anyone else) published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, on the validity of (or applicability of) drawing smooth curves (as
rtomes did) ... independently of the completeness (or lack of it), homogeneity (or lack of it), all selection effects and biases, for astronomical data.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rtomes
Incompleteness does not create periodicity.
|
Actually two questions.
Please select any one of the early papers which report periodicity in quasar redshifts. Please design a statistically valid analysis of a much more complete selection of quasar redshifts, and present it here. Please state - in as unambiguous a way as you can - what redshift periodicity would be found if the analysis you presented were performed. Please be prepared to answer direct, pertinent questions about the analysis you present, especially concerning the extent to which it would be consistent with the one in the early paper you choose.