Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dgruss23
Hypothetically a person can give an opinion before looking at the details because Bell&McDiarmuid are proposing an ATM ...  ... idea - which means that their statistical analysis must be flawed. |
It is possible to select a subject and do a perfectly valid statistical analysis on the available data set and find something that supports an idea that doesn't work when applied more broadly (mainstream or ATM). I don't think anyone believes that because Bell&McDiarmuid are working on an ATM idea that their statistical work must be flawed. Nor is it the case that anyone working supporting a mainstream idea must have it right. Certainly there have been a lot of people along the way who leaped ahead working near the limit of what observation could show, and come up with wrong conclusions, or had done wrong work. One recent example was the "speed of gravity" experiment with light passing Jupiter.
Concerning quantized redshifts, we have statistics on the redshifts of quite a few galaxies and quasars right now. My understanding is that the claim of the quantization level is smaller than the differential we can measure using our usual wideband techniques. It is also likely to be the case that the difference (70 km/sec) is less than the thermal variation in redshift from any one quasar, or orbital mechanics redshift variation from any one galaxy. This whole thing is trying to find signal buried deep in noise.