Restricted to the topic of this thread alone, and to the ATM claims, as presented (by
rtomes), in this thread.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post #250:
What is the size of the dataset (number of independent galaxy redshifts) used in paper 1? How many of the galaxies in the dataset used in paper 1 are dwarf galaxies?
Ditto, paper 2?
Ditto, paper 3?
Ditto, paper 4?
Ditto, paper 6?
Ditto, paper 7?
More generally, what is the composition of the datasets, in each paper, by type of galaxy?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: these questions go to the heart of the ATM claim presented in this thread. It is a claim that has been made repeatedly; post #223 contains the eight papers used to support that claim, and post #228 contains the first set of questions on that claim (and those papers). Post #238 is rtomes' response to those questions.
The general issue of consistency - sampling of galaxies, analysis of observations, methods used to detect and estimate periods, etc - and of how uncertainty (in estimates of selection effects, in derived values, etc) and systematic errors should be properly handled in statistical analyses intended to show redshift periods has not been adequately addressed by rtomes. This failure may be due in part to a profound misunderstanding of what a 'galaxy redshift' is, how it is derived, and what astronomical observations are used as inputs (see, for example, this - rtomes is apparently ignorant of the use of H I radio observations by Croasdale, to take just one example).
Another reason why this is important: rtomes has stated, very clearly, many times, that she sees 'quantized redshifts' as evidence to support her broader ATM idea (HT). In HT, there is no necessary relationship between the objects which are at various locations (in an appropriate space) and astronomical objects (such as barred spiral galaxies). Thus failure to establish consistency weakens both the empirical claim (which is what this thread is about) and the theoretical one (which, presumably, rtomes cares much more about).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post #258:
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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: This is just one of a number of questions about a claim rtomes made first here. The method she used to make the conclusion about a "4330 km/s periodicity" seems to depend upon the validity of 'the smooth curve' she superimposed on the chart (there are some other unanswered questions on this, see below); crudely, unless she can show that the curve she drew has validity for the particular astronomical inputs to the chart, then she cannot claim any validity for the conclusion she drew from it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post #259:
Please list all the effects which affect the detectability of a GRB in a waveband where its redshift can be observed. Please identify which effects are based on models of GRBs, which on waveband-redshift detectability, and others.
I want to be quite clear on this ... are you claiming that there is a model-independent* statistically significant "delta z=.131 periodicity" in the redshift data of these 26 GRBs?
*Selection effects are models.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: rtomes claimed that a paper reporting an analysis for 26 GRBs showed "periodicity in this data", and stated that she will "report this [analysis showing periodicity] separately". That "report" has not yet appeared.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post #268:
Please present an appropriate quantitative analysis of the data in "
the graph with the green peaks marked".
In the absence of any such analysis, please state how "
significant periodicity" can be determined?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: This refers to the claim rtomes first made in post #193. In post #263, she very strongly asserted that "the data presented shows a periodicity in the vicinity of 4330 km/s". While rtomes is, perhaps, one of the most numerate of ATMers BAUT has seen, and she claims particular experience with statistical analysis, it seems the critical importance of establishing the validity of the method used to produce "a periodicity in the vicinity of 4330 km/s" conclusion, let alone the need to present quantitative results of any periodicity analysis, is not recognised, much less acknowledged. This is an especially puzzling (apparent) failing, given that properly handling selection effects is one of the most difficult aspects of extra-galactic astronomy.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Post #269:
Please provide a detailed analysis of Tifft's methods, with direct reference to standard texts on statistics, to support your claim.
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?
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?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comment: More unanswered questions on the "4330 km/s periodicity". rtomes', in post #270, and post #275 seems to have attempted to address one part of one of these questions (selection effects). The second of these clearly demonstrates a command of math that is highly unusual for an ATMer; however, it also shows a profound ignorance of, or misunderstand of, the inputs.
Aside from technical aspects of the analysis - which are serious enough - she seems to be completely blind to how the galaxies that are represented in database relate to real galaxies. This is despite the fact that Giovanelli and Haynes make it very clear exactly what they expect these galaxies are a sample of ("a sample [of galaxies] with a limiting magnitude of mpg ~15, and a depth of about 75 h-1 Mpc"). So, given that the Malmquist bias is well-known in astronomy, given that galaxies are found in groups and clusters (of a range of sizes), given that the zone of avoidance introduces strong biases in any volume-limited sample (of optically selected galaxies), ... even if a statistically significant period can be extracted, it tells you nothing about the (population) properties of galaxies within ~ 100 Mpc of the Milky Way ... unless you can correct for all of these.
Now claiming that this particular dataset shows "a periodicity in the vicinity of 4330 km/s" is one thing; claiming that this is evidence of "a regular periodicity of 4330 km/s as predicted by the Harmonics theory" (as rtomes did in post #193) is quite another.
Throughout this thread, this apparent blindness to the need to rigourously address this gap - and so even acknowledge the need to even look at selection effects - is evident.