Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Nereid
* 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.
|
The Tifft paper was in the list of references that I gave. You can read his method there. I simply state is that I know from understanding statistics that he is right. |
Perhaps this is another good illustration of the (apparent) difference between
rtomes view of science (as it applies to astronomy and cosmology) and the mainstream.
I think it's called 'appeal to authority', and is, I think, a common fallacy. It is certainly common in ATM threads.
Please provide a detailed analysis of Tifft's methods, with direct reference to standard texts on statistics, to support your claim.
Note: I am
not claiming "
that Tifft's rule of thumb has statistical validity, when applied to astronomical datasets such as that in Figure 1"; nor am I claiming that it doesn't. All I am doing is asking a direct, pertinent question about a claim you have chosen to make, as you made it.
Quote:
Quote:
|
* What cosmological theory did you use to derive the 'smooth curve'?
|
I used my eye which is not a cosmological theory. I gave a method from Dewey if you want to do it yourself. I have already pointed out to you that it does not matter how you draw the smooth curve because the parts marked in green are the highest peaks. Your repeated asking of silly questions is simply your refusal to face facts.
|
Which chart are you referring to? The one in post #223 (and at least one other post)?
If so, then the two "
highest peaks" are those on either side of 5000 km/s. The next five or six are the 4.0-4.5k (km/s) bin, and the four/five to the right of the highest peak. Only one of "
the parts marked in green" is included in these seven or eight peaks.
Indeed, only two of "
the parts marked in green" appear to be peaks in any sense at all ... unless the 'smooth curve' has relevance.
In which paper, by Dewey, published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, is the applicability of the method you used to draw the 'smooth curve' presented?
Quote:
Quote:
|
* How did you address the authors' statement concerning "the inhomogeneity of the data base and of its incompleteness"?
|
I do not know what this refers to, please clarify.
|
Riccardo Giovanelli and Martha P Haynes, in the paper from which the underlying Figure is taken, state this (I presented this in
post #210):
Quote:
|
Figure 1 displays a heliocentric radial velocity histogram, in 500 km s-1 bins, up to 30,000 km s-1. With the caveats of the inhomogeneity of the data base and of its incompleteness [...], the histogram in Figure 1 resembles the redshift distribution expected of a sample with a limiting magnitude of mpg ~15, and a depth of about 75 h-1 Mpc [...]
|
The authors have stated that the "
data base" is incomplete and inhomogeneous, wrt that "
expected of a sample [of galaxies] with a limiting magnitude of mpg ~15, and a depth of about 75 h-1 Mpc" These are quite explicit and unambiguous.
In your analysis, which you claim shows a 4330 km/s periodicity, how did you take account of the authors explicit characterisation of the data base?