This comment is not justified. When I compiled this list, about the only galaxy distance that was given accurately (that is, not dependent on the Hubble constant) was Andromeda. I do not do selection of data to suit my purposes. I have conceded that the new value does not fit.

I have already explained that the reason for using some data that was not strictly a common cycle was simply to try and determine the longest cycle. I also suggested to you ignoring other data and concentrating on a limited range of periods where there is greater accuracy and a lot of supporting data.

Towards that end I have posted the data in #80 which is solid data that does not depend on astronomers changing their mind every second year about how big the universe is. Perhaps astronomers are just making that stuff up to fit their big bang theory! (Not so nice the other way around is it?)
This is the sort of non-scientific insult that I am used to getting from scientists. Up until now you have been very scientific and I really appreciate that. You have not resorted to that sort of thing, and I hope you will stop it, because I have better things to do with my time that trade insults. I do not practice numerology. I practice science and expect to be judged on a scientific basis. I have responded to all your questions as best as I can on a scientific basis, acknowledging any mistakes or lack of evidence.

The reason for treating light years and years in an equivalent way has been properly explained. But I will do it again.

If a standing wave exists and it has a wave velocity of the speed of light (applicable to electromagnetism and gravitation and perhaps other fields) then the period in years will be the same as the wavelength in light years.

Do you agree with that?
I have claimed that periods will tend to be close to the harmonics. There may well be cases that they are exact. However everything that has been studied has been found to have cycles. And that includes the cycles themselves.

The cycle called the 3.39 year cycle (Dewey's 40.68 month cycle) has been studied and found to have harmonically related frequency modulations of ^23.7 years and ~70 years. If you measure it accurately over a short interval then it will not be the long term average.

For example, the planetary periods that we have now are known to about 10 decimal digits accuracy, but they vary over thousands and millions of years about those values and that variation might be in the 3rd or 5th place, I am not sure. So the accuracy of the data only represents a particular point in time not an average.

Even in light the frequency oscillates about a central value and this is called the fine structure and hyperfine structure. If you have a long enough time (as you do with light because it is so fast in oscillating) then these variations are seen as additional peaks in the spectrum within what originally looked like one peak. The small differences between these main frequencies may be interpreted as modulating cycles, and this may be verified by looking at the beat frequency where for example you may find something like the hydrogen 21 cm radio wave.

The case of the 72.45 +/- 0.30 km/s waves of Tifft's is exactly like that fine structure of light and the beat frequency also corresponds to a larger wave as I mentioned earlier.

That is why I use a test that compares the predicted values to the actual values and looks at how near they are.
The red shift predictions were made my me before I knew of Tifft's data and posted on the internet. Then I received an email from an astronomer that refgerred me to Tifft's work. That is a genuine prediction even though Tifft had already done his work. I was only aware of the 72 km/s result before that.

I have made a number of predictions and subsequently either found data that confirms them, or subsequent results confirmed them. Some examples:

* The 34.76 Mev particle prediction was made before the discovery of the 33.9 Mev suspected particle. I have shown an internet post that proves that.

* The redshift periodicities as mentioned.

* The common cycles periods were known before calculating the star distances which match them.

* The common cycles were known before calculating the satellite period commutations which match many of them.

Additionally I have made further predictions that can be tested. One that could be done right now is to see whether Sun has an acceleration relative to nearby stars that is not predicted by present theory. I say that the stellar distance periods are like atomic bonds, having particular lengths. Just like atoms in a crystal, the stars will have restoring forces that keep them from roaming about in a loose way. This is a totally unexpected result in present physics and astronomy. It would prove that there is significant energy / mass in stellar waves and solve the missing mass problem. Here is how to do the test.

First get the accurate stellar distance data now available for the nearer stars (with accurate distances). Then analyse the distance between all pairs of stars and make a histogram. It should show the periodicities that match the common cycles table. Then use the exact values of the bond lengths from the table to work out for all stars at bond lengths from the Sun whether the bond is shorter or longer than expected. e.g. if Alpha Centauri is at 4.31 light years and the bond length is 4.44 light years then the bond is compressed and there will be a force (implies acceleration) away from Alpha Centauri in proportion to the degree of distortion. Repeat for all stars near bond lengths. The resulting sum will be an acceleration vector. It will have a direction but not a known magnitude. Actually there are some problems because we do not know the relative strengths of teh different bonds, but some estimates can be made.

Next, get the data used by Marcy etc to discover planets. They measure stellar velocities to ~ 1 m/s accuracy. Get all of their residuals after removing planetary accelerations. Collectively this data has the potential to show a solar acceleration relative to the other stars. Compare vectors. Even without comparing vectors, such an acceleration should not exist in standard theory. Its existence would prove local dark matter which I suggest is simply stellar waves (and planetary waves and others).

When did you compile the list?

I'm curious to know, so I can check the validity of your statement.You have indeed, and that alone puts you in a very exclusive club here in the ATM section of BAUT.Indeed.

It took quite a while to get to this point, but at least you have started to put something solid on the table.

BAUT has an excellent Q&A section, where you will find many, many threads on "astronomers changing their mind every second year about how big the universe is. Perhaps astronomers are just making that stuff up to fit their big bang theory!" (and much, much more). If you do not find a thread, or threads, which adequately address(es) your questions about the big bang theory, please start a new one.Please continue to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ATM ideas you have presented, here in this thread.

Please continue to be very clear about what ATM claims you are making, and what claims you are prepared to answer questions on and address challenges to.

If I may state a general area where your claims have been found wanting so far, by your own admission: references to papers published in relevant, peer-reviewed literature. The distance to M31, er, experience, earlier in this thread may serve as an example of a gap between your perception of "a scientific basis" and that which is common to the astronomical community.Earlier in this thread, in post #71, I asked about the notion of distance you were using. Your response, in post #73 (which actually quoted my indirect question) did not address this at all.

Perhaps you did not understand the question? Or its significance wrt your "reason for treating light years and years in an equivalent way"?

As I have said before, at least once, if you do not understand a question, please ask for clarification.

In this case, especially since the "wavelengths" you have explicitly stated you intend to investigate include billions of lightyears, my question has direct pertinence.

So, is the universe you are investigating, with these ATM ideas, a flat, Euclidean one? What assumptions does your ATM idea make about the geometry of the universe?

(to be continued)

See above; let's keep discussion of this to the thread specifically devoted to it.Perhaps at a later time, within the 30-day window, I might be interested to return to this. For now, I will continue to focus on astronomy (and cosmology).Please provide details, especially "the star distances".This is the plot in post #80, right?Such estimates of solar system barycentre acceleration have been made, using a much, much more precise and accurate method than the one you propose here. No such unexpected accelerations have been found (to date).

Unfortunately, as your method does not produce even an OOM (order of magnitude) estimate of the value of the unexpected acceleration, it is of extremely limited scientific merit.

In any case, where is this "stellar distance periods are like atomic bonds, having particular lengths" idea published?

In the other rtomes ATM thread (excepts relevant to this thread):I myself will not pursue this ATM idea concerning the cause of mass extinction events (though other BAUT members may wish to).

However, I am interested to know what you expect the signatures of a small, medium, and large jump in the mass of particles would be, in astronomical phenomena (other than a quantisation of redshifts).

Also, what is the "stress" sufficient "to flip to a new state"? In what physical units would this "stress" be measured?

Yes, that seems sensible. Can you please leave a note here to say that they have been moved and that all matters related to redshift periodicities and the harmonics theory is in that thread?

Much of my data was compiled in the late 1980s and early 1990s when made many visits to the local university library. I did that list some years later, but from that material. So it is a bit dated when it comes to anything to do with cosmology. The purpose of the list was simply to try and calculate the number one period of the universe. I have never made public that list before. I think that even though there are a few values in it that are not sufficiently robust, the result for the number one cycle is not affected. I say that because it mainly depends on the location of the prime ratios 11 and 13 to get the starting point. The theory predicts a particular sequence of primes in the main line of harmonics. These are visible in this diagram that I posted previously, along the top:



You can see that the 11 and 13 are a long way along the diagram at about 10^15 and 10^21. In all the cycles that I found, these ratios occur only once. The 11 occurs between the geological cycles at about 10^8.5 years and the mass extinction cycle at about 10^7.5 years so we can say at roughly 10^8 years. The 13 occurs between the climate and solar system cycles of about 10^3. years and many cycles of around 10^2 years and so we may say at roughly 10^2.5 years. From these two we can estimate the number one cycle twice. The 11 gives 10^15 * 10^8 years = 10^23 years. The 13 gives 10^21 * 10^2.5 years = 10^23.5 years. So they agree that the universal oscillation is near my derived 1.4*10^23 years without the exact fit that I tried to do.

These features of the observations are what convinces me that the theory really is of fundamental importance.

To be fair I need to add that although the primes 17 , 19 and 23 occur in the correct sequence also, they do not occur until the scale of particles and that is further down than expected. So the theory is not perfectly correct as it stands. I think the reason for this relates to the assumption that all paths of energy flow are equal and that the relationship is exactly an inverse power. I suspect that if spherical standing waves can be modeled or exact solutions found, these will have slight adjustments along the direction of addition factors in the Taylor expansion series over and above the assumptions. This is normally the case with trig, exp and log expansions into Taylor series and so I wouldn't expect any different. But the maths of this is beyond me so I just incorporated what I knew.

If I can convince others that it is useful, then younger people can take up these maths challenges. Sixty is too old to be solving difficult new maths problems. The rewards are very great though. I think that the spherical solution of standing waves in a non-linear medium will not only allow fine tuning the harmonics theory, but will produce the entire structure of all particles and explain exactly what are all the quantum properties such as charge, spin, isospin, and all the other stuff. If any university Prof thinks this interesting then I will look at arranging scholarships for suitable students to do this sort of fundamental physics project or harmonics theory projects.

Well you made the remark that I might just as well say that 72 furlongs fitted as well or something along those lines. So I explained that light years and years do exactly correspond for speed of light waves.

I you are saying something more here I do not get it. Please clarify.

I would mention that there is a huge advantage in using light time distances to be able to see these relationships. It is obvious with galaxy distances in light years (and I appreciate you doing this rather than parsecs, so I have assumed that you understood my reasons).

The same applies in the solar system. If you see that the outer planets are at 40, 80, 160, 240 and 320 light minutes from the sun then you might notice the connections with the solar 160 minute oscillation. I will introduce one more item in relation to this, "the beats of the solar 5 minute oscillations" in the following post.

Yes.
At the body being orbited.
These are the average per orbit. They are the published figures in any set of planetary of satellite orbital parameters. It is one of the fundamental parameters used for all orbital calculations. If I had just used the period it would be clearer to understand. But the result is exactly the same.
I think this one, but to the accuracy we require any one will do. http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/
It is effectively arbitrary. It represent the inverse of the sum of the differences which are accumulated and so depends on the sample size, units and such. It is however comparative between different test periods. The resulting peaks can then be tested for significance by producing the little table like I did for the planets and 83 year period. That is beyond 3 s.d. by the way.It could also be done that way as you say. I think that the results would be similar. Kotov did it this way and I think it is a good choice.
I don't know. I do them fine enough that the result is unchanged by making them finer. Usually I do about 2000-5000 steps across the graph. Probably overkill just to be sure.

This is a great tool by Kotov. I have not seen it used by anyone else but him and his colleagues ... and me!

Beats in the Solar 5 minute Oscillatons.

The solar 5 minute oscillations are due to very fast sound waves that internally refract and reflect inside the Sun. They vibrate at various rates according to how many divisions of longitude and latitude there are in each mode. See for example GONG project http://gong.nso.edu/

Because the individual modes have similar periods, the stronger modes are mostly around 5 to 6 minutes, but weaker modes range from about 3 to 11 minutes, it is interesting to look at whether there are "beats" between the different modes, that is, whether all the modes tend to come together after some particular intervals of time. I investigated this. The analysis is the same method as described previously as Kotov's communalities, except that each mode was not treated as equal, but was weighted by how strong that particular mode is. These are the periods of most of the main modes found arranged in a table. Note ratios of 2 horizontally and of 3 vertically. All in minutes.

5931 ---- 1484 742.2
1979 989.6 494.8 247.4 123.7
---- ---- 164.9 82.5

Also found was a longer period of 6.53 days. This is similar to the rotational quantum identified in the Sun and slowly rotating planets.

The faster periods fit with the quantum for the faster rotating planets, as well as the quanta derived from the distances of the planets from the sun. The solar oscillation of 160.01 minutes is different from the 164.9 minute beat frequency by about one cycle. There are actually multiple peaks surrounding each of the above periods, so that a peak at close to 160.0 minutes is there. This is similar to the multiple peaks in Tifft's measurement of the 72.45 +/- 0.30*n km/s (with n a small integer) that I mentioned before.

I am trying to describe something in words that is easier demonstrated by a physical system. I did some wave experiments that are similar to Hans Jenny's "cymatics" experiments. //www.google.co.nz/search?q=hans+jenny+cymatics

My experiments are described on my web site at http://ray.tomes.biz/cymatics.htm with some photos. Of particular relevance to this discussion is how the circular wave structure changes when the volume is altered. At a low sound volume the
waves are simply one set of concentric circles. At intermediate volume there is a sudden jump to a different state. You cannot get an in between state no matter how hard you try. The new state has a central circle with six other circles touching it outside. Then a set of ladder like waves coming out. I cannot find a graphic to post here. Finally a third state happens where multiple extra wave centre appear and dance about instead of having a fixed pattern. In this third case there are clearly two types of centres of opposite polarity. A similar thing has been observed in vibrated trays of balls and is called oscillons.

I describe all this because I am trying to give a mental picture of what happens. The water waves in my experiment are non-linear as wave velocity depends on depth. However they are constrained to have a whole number of waves in the radius of the circular dish. If the number of waves is to change it has to change by 1.00 so that even if the driving frequency is changed gradually there will be no change at all and then suddenly a shift by 1.00 wavelengths. Likewise the change in the pattern is sudden, and although forces may be gradually accumulating towards causing a change, the change is very sudden and discrete. I think that these changes are like changes of state (solid, liquid, gas) in matter and it is part of the reason why I am confident that non-linear waves can solve all of particle physics. I am not alone in this - mention was made of Milo Wolff earlier in the thread and there are others, but it is not mainstream physics. However a competent mathematician or two given the right guidance could get better results on home computers than all the money spent on accelerators in my opinion.

I hope that this answer gives you the flavour of what I am on about. Part of this is based on my observation of real physical systems, and part on the understanding that objects like stars and galaxies are wave centres and that waves have to fit a whole number of times between centres (or maybe something and a half if they have opposite polarity as some in the cymatics experiment).

I paint a big picture, so it takes a while to cover it all. My research amounts to some 15 years of full time work. And I worked very fast, so that is why my references are often not so good. I only learned the importance of that after most of the work was done. I think that it would be difficult to give my whole picture in papers to peer review journals because it would take about 50 papers. I do appreciate the attention that you are giving it. I do not know to what extent the picture is becoming clear to you.

Just a housekeeping question or two about this. When the time period is up and the thread is closed, I assume that all the material remains on the website here. Is that correct?

It will be useful for me to put links to it from my web site. Also I will perhaps take some of my replies and repeat them on my web site as a sort of FAQ as I need one. You could give me guidance on whether I may use your questions as they are asked or whether I should just make a generic question that I can answer? I am happy to to avoid your text or use it as you prefer. Whatever, I will certainly make links here and to other places that I have had discussions. This has certainly been the longest one that I have. There was one very long private one with an astronomer in about 1995. I think that I made the mistake in that one of trying to answer all his questions instead of also trying to influence the agenda. The harmonics theory is strong on structural matters and so is complimentary to other theories rather than competitive with them, on the whole.

The header of the "Planetary Satellite Mean Orbital Parameters" page states:How have you incorporated that warning into your analysis?

Some sections of elements are headed "Mean orbital elements referred to the local Laplace planes"; others "Mean ecliptic orbital elements"; "Mean equatorial orbital elements"; one "Mean barycentric orbital elements referred to the mean Charon orbit"; and one "Mean orbital elements referred to the Saturn equator".

What relevance do these differences have?

As Kepler first summarised quantitatively, and as Newton later explained, a satellite's mean daily motion can be derived (to the first order) from its parent's mass and its orbital radius.

In an arbitrary system of satellites in orbit around a planet, and pure Newtonian gravity, what do 'Kotov charts' look like?

The Saturn satellite system includes Trojans (Calypso, Telesto; Helene, Polydeuces), co-orbiting satellites (Janus, Epithemeus), F ring shepherds (Pandora, Prometheus), and - in a generalised sense - thousands/millions/billions of objects in the rings (including two named satellites, Pan and Atlas). It seems to me that these objects will produce (near) degeneracies in any 'Kotov chart'. To what extent does your analysis address this?

And so on ... the three inner Galilean satellites; the rings of Jupiter, Uranus, and Neptune; the presumed common origin of several sets of the outer satellites of Jupiter and Saturn; the variability of the orbital elements of co-orbiting satellites, ring shepherds, outermost satellites (esp of Uranus); etc.

To what extent does your analysis address these aspects?

Further, several asteroids are now known to have satellites, and quite a few KBOs (in addition to Pluto) too. It is likely that the total number of such satellites exceeds the number of planetary satellites whose orbital parameters are listed in that NASA webpage.

To what extent does your analysis address these aspects?Is it linear? If not, what?

How does the scale depend upon "the sample size, units and such"? What comprises "and such"?Please describe the "test for significance" in more detail.What analysis have you done to show "that the results would be similar"?

Please click the 'notions of distance' link and read the material there (including the papers referenced).

This goes to a core part of your claims: the extent to which the universe in which your waves and cycles live are consistent with GR. In many respects, a GR universe provides a framework for relating - at some level - distance, time, energy, and so on. The implications are pretty far-reaching: if your waves (etc) do not live in a GR universe, then your ATM idea suddenly has a very heavy set of good observational and experimental results it needs to account for ...

So I will be asking/continuing to ask you questions about this.

Here is a piece from the table I referred to. You can see that the mean daily motion is accurate to many figures, much more than I needed. The reason that these are not used for ephemeris is not that the mean motion is inaccurate, but that there are perturbations by other planets that must be incorporated. So there is no need for any disclaimer, except to say that all cycles are inconstant, having larger cycles that modulate them, and larger ones that modulate them.
If you want to do really long term projections (I don't) then barycentric co-ordinates are best because they follow the fixed frame that all the orbits wobble about. I don't know all the others. These are subtleties that will not affect these results significantly.
I assume that by arbitrary you mean randomly selected? Of course there would need to be some control on the orbits being too close (unless they are the same as some of these are). I have been thinking about that myself recently. The test will be whether the peaks are significant statistically. From memory, Kotov's 160.0 minute period in binary stars is significant at 4 s.d.. I do significance tests sometimes but not always.
Yes, I think I understand what you are asking and it is important.

I used 118 objects. I also did two separate analyses with the faster and slower satellites because when you do longer periods like thousands of years you don't really want satellites that go around in a day, and when you do shorter periods like hours you don't want longer periods like years. They will lead to the graph just going up and down a heck of a lot for each multiple and needing to calculate with the test parameter at far too close intervals.

The graph I showed is the middle range using all 118 satellites.
The use of mean orbital motion addresses some of them. Looking at the list I see some satellites with very similar mean motion but I don't see any that are exactly the same. Of course it would make some sense to use weighting for the satellite sizes as I did for the 5 minute solar oscillations. I have not done that. My guess is that the peaks would remain in much the same places but vary a little wrt amplitude.
I always try to use some single published list without selection. The only exception would be to delete insufficiently accurate data. If there are values with only 2 digits precision then they will cause artificial peaks at places like 0.01, 0.001 and 100, 1000 etc. I do not have any asteroid satellite data. I do have asteroid data, and as you know this shows a lot of Jupiter related periods, but that will not surprise anyone. However satellite distances (rather than periods) do show a continuation of the planetary wave harmonics. I had better post the planetary data first.
Please explain what you mean by linear here?
Actually it doesn't depend on the units, I spoke wrongly.

The method is adding together the deviations from integers, which randomly are expected to be in the range 0 to 0.5 (as more than 0.5 is measured down from the next integer up). Therefore with n measurements the expected total is 0.25*n +/- k*0.25*(n^0.5) where the +/- is the s.d and k is a small value that depends on the s.d. of a square distribution, about 0.6 to 0.7 I think. So in the example that I posted of the planets, with 9 values the sum of these is expected to be 9*0.25 +/- k*3*0.25 = 2.25 +/- 0.5 approx. The 0.56 observed difference given in the table for the 83 year period is more than 3 s.d away. Actually a t-test is not quite the right one. Probably the ideal method is to do monte carlo tests. I do not know if Kotov has published the method of statistical testing, but he does quote levels of significance on some results. Note that the 0.56 is a low in the sum of deviations but appears as a peak in the graph because I invert it to make it compatible with other classes of spectra.

Sorry, I don't know how to do fixed formatting in this forum, so the table is a mess. Anyway, the figures for mean daily motion are accurate to like 7 digits accuracy. Looking at the figures that I used in my graph they are mostly 7 digits and some 6 digits precision. That is far more than I often find in data and does allow the method to be applied to wider ranges of test period in both directions.

I cannot find a notions of distance link. Where is this?

I would say that Harmonics theory does live in a GR universe, with the one proviso that Narlikar's variable particle mass will explain any differences. These differences will be meaningful at the largest scales where redshifts are high. However at any place the behaviour is still described by GR. But light traveling from one place to another will keep constant wavelength as there is no motion, and the observed differences will be explained by local changes in particle mass.

These factors will be relevant to the discussions in the quantized red shift thread but generally not to the discussions in the harmonics theory thread now that those matters have been moved. Perhaps the one matter not obviously fitting that would be the extremely small forces that I state regarding stellar accelerations. However I expect this to fit, just to be due to very large standing waves of either e/m or gravity that no-one but me has considered as existing.

Ray

Do you mind if I cite your work in the revision of my paper?

I have already given it a quick revision since we last spoke. Some of Caroline's work is now in it. The revision will have more. I think your work could give it more breath also.

I had a breakthrough in obtaining the correct value for the observed mass of the Up and Down quarks. Hence the quick revision. Now I have a whole lot more work to do. Keep up the good work.

Best Regards
Charles

If you have "about 10^7 p and f [solar oscillation] modes alone" to play with, I would have thought, naively, that patterns like the above would be very easy to find.

What statistical tests did you look at, to consider using to estimate significance? What such tests did you apply?

re Tifft: I thought you'd already conceded that these "multiple peaks" are not "measurements", but the derived results of application of his 'redshift state' model. Did I misunderstand? In any case, can we please leave discussion of Tifft, and 'quantized redshifts', to the other thread?

It is in post #71: Cosmological distances applet (the link takes you to a site with a Java applet).

I also referred to this in post #93.Are you quite sure about this?

I want to be certain, because I have several questions, and challenges, about your ATM ideas, as you have posted them here in this thread. However, the questions (and challenges) depend upon just what it is you are claiming wrt GR.(my bold)

In this statement, are you referring to all objects (including the birds flying in the sky outside my window, and the leaves rustling in the wind)?

If not, then what is the scope of your ATM claim here?If you wish ... my understanding is that the other thread focusses on the existence (or otherwise) of 'quantized redshifts', in galaxies and/or quasars; i.e. its focus is the observational evidence for such claims. This thread is the place where you are presenting theoretical interpretations, cosmological models, ATM physics, and so on.

Hi Charles

You can surely cite my work. If you want me to check what you put I am happy top do that.

For now I have not put significant time into looking at your work because Nereid is keeping me pretty busy and I want to make the most of my 30 days in the ATM thread.

Regards
Ray

Hi Nereid

The number of modes used was 75, being only modes with significant energy from the 5 minute modes. The weighting is set by the measured relative energy of the modes. There is no selection process involved, as Kotov's method is used on all the modes at once. Any peaks found are therefore near commensurate with most of those peaks.

The pattern is very strongly significant and here is a graph of part of the range. You can see that the peaks stand out very strongly.




Well it may be wrong to call Tifft's peaks measurements, but if it is then it is wrong to call redshift values measurements also. They are computed from measured spectra after making assumptions about having common elements with common wavelengths to material on Earth. So yes, they are computed, but periodicities are pretty basic tools in science as FFT and the like are not really questioned as valid tools. Of course when it comes to a universal frame then there are additional assumptions made and it mores away from a simple measurement a bit more, but it isn't really theory laden to reduce measurements to a common frame.

I am not convinced that his state model is a necessity to arrive at his results. It seems to me more in line with being his way of trying to interpret them. I think this is simply an historical accident resulting from the fact that the 72 km/s quantum was known for a while and then suddenly 36, 24 and 12 km/s steps began to show also.

Of course we are doing this half of the post in the wrong thread now.

Regards
Ray

Thank you for this, it is interesting. On that subject, I not that Martin Croansdale does a test to see whether z or log(1+z) works better with the data. He finds that z works better but the redshifts are small so that it is not really conclusive. When I look at the 128 Mpc data it also seems to me possibly more consistent with cycles in z than in log(1+z). Analysis of data with large z is needed to be sure about this, so that is one reason that I want to do my own analysis.

This is really difficult to understand, because the waves are understood as being produced in a way that makes log(1+z) the logical basis and yet it seems that they appear in z which does not provide a basis of their production. It just goes to show that no-one has yet arrived at a proper way to look at it that resolves all the weirdness, just as a hundrec years ago decades went by in QM with such conflicts.
I don't see any reason for it not to be so other than what has been mentioned. Do you have some specific thing in mind?
It depends on the day of the week.

If I see the universe as a sort of giant 4D Mandelbrot set but defined by an equation that is consistent with harmonics theory, then it follows that every feature must be a result of the equations including every bird and leaf. If you look at the spectrum of the harmonics calculation, then by that sort of scale it is incredibly rich and has a very crowded background with a smaller number of stronger frequencies.

Hans Jenny did experiments with sound acting on powders and fluids. In one of his experiments, using only two frequencies, some powder gathered into a shape that looked like a centipede complete with many legs which then wiggled and more or less walked across his plate. You can get these cymatics videos through amazon or see them on youtube or google video. If such a thing can be made by two frequencies, then what can be made with the harmonics structure?

I think that I see where you are going and will try to explain how I see it all working, but add that this is somewhat speculative as I have not been able to solve the equations nor yet done simulations to prove the ideas right. But there are related experiments that indicate it might be. ... When you think about a large e/m standing wave such as a galaxy wave, then we know that it could act as a gravitational lens, focusing e/m waves. It is also true that an aerial (say radio or TV) tuned to a particular frequency actually collects more energy from the waves of matching frequency than it simply intercepts. That is because it creates a pattern of phase differences around itself that focuses the e/m. I don't know the correct terms for this but have seen diagrams. Remember that naked e/m is 10^40 stronger than gravity, so even quite weak waves can be significant if tuned correctly. In the harmonics theory there is a whole pattern of harmonically related waves that create subtle effects in focusing waves so that smaller waves tend to remain in specific orientation in relation to larger waves. So this is why I think that Jupiter has an 11.86 year period as it comes from 11.86 light year waves that can be found as stellar distance quanta. However these waves will not have large mass that is easily detectable by their gravity as it is probably an e/m effect rather than a gravitational one. It might be that the space craft anomolous decceleration is a measure of this type of thing, I don't know. The effect certainly seems stronger at galaxy scale and above if it is related to missing mass, dark energy etc, which seems to me the very likely way that harmonics theory can mesh with existing theory.

Quite clearly these effects would have to be very small at smaller scales because there is no missing mass as such. However in standard physics there are mass components that have no corresponding "particles", which are called things like binding energy. I see atoms as having waves with wavelengths equal to the bond lengths of the particular element or compound. These would have energy and can be understood as the binding energy, so that for example when 4 hydrogen atoms combine to make a helium atom, the standing atom wave of hydrogen is released and replaced by a standing atom wave of helium which accounts for the mass difference.

So we can see the mass component of these waves at very large and very small scales, but we do not really notice them in between. I don't know that anyone has counted the atoms in a leaf and checked to see if there is a deficit. If there is it must be pretty small, so I think that those waves will have tiny relative mass. However there are clear signs of weak wave structure at intermediate scales. Funnily enough the wavelengths are very close to imperial units, being about 1% less. I won't present the evidence for this here as it has little bearing on astronomy, but many different areas of study do converge in this finding, from Thom's stone circle units to human dimensions to rock formations etc.
(my bold)

Thank you, I think that this is a good question, which taking what has gone on helps us to focus on what is important in the evaluation.

Harmonics theory has several things that I think add to existing knowledge without causing too much conflict with it. These result from the non-linear equations which are understood to produce harmonics. My only additional thing relative to standard theory is to recognize that if these harmonics are new waves themselves they can produce harmonics too. This leads to the whole pattern and I don't think anyone disputes the calculations of the pattern. So it simply needs on thing to be accepted - the iteration of the process - to be acceptable.

To accept that should just require showing that the theory does make predictions that accord with observation. That would mean that there needs to be present a pervading pattern of harmonically related cycles present as periods and distance quanta whenever a sufficient volume of data is gathered and studied. To this end, Kotov's method allows an impartial look at whether data, be it temporal or spacial, contains quanta and getting best estimates of them. Additionally, there is the larger scale pattern of structure over orders of magnitude and the harmonics theory is unique in explaining why the universe does this thing of having obvious structure at certain scales and not at others, and the relationship between those scales. I will put that one aside now and look at the general pattern of harmonics expected which is many ratios of 2, less of 3 and only sometimes other prime numbers. There is a definite proportion in these prime ratios which, if violated, would show that the harmonics theory was not relevant. For example if you got 8 powers of two in a row with no powers of 3 then a much more likely explanation would be chaos theory.

So first off we need a collection of data from many disciplines showing the common cycles, and then test that new additional astronomical data fits into that pattern seamlessly. I think that the strongest evidence in astronomy comes from the following tests.

A. All of Kotov's research relating to the 160 minute cycle, which I may have added a little to. This includes:
1. Planetary distances from the Sun.
2. Planetary rotation periods.
3. Solar 160 minute oscillation.
4. Binary stars 160 minute commutation.
5. Solar 5 minute beats of Tomes.

B. The natural satellite data that I posted which shows similar cycles periods to Dewey's common cycles. This is my research. but easily able to be confirmed by others from material that I can post.

C. The solar periods related to the 155 day cycle. These make a clear harmonically related pattern that has been noted by astronomers and so is quite independent of me. It also merges seamlessly with common cycles reported by Dewey (the 40.68 month one) and does fit his main harmonically related pattern when a ratio 7 is used, as that gives a period of 40.67 months, an excellent agreement.

There are probably more, but I think that this is sufficient because it draws together the work of others that is at present just anomalies without meaning and makes them all part of a common pattern with a sensible explanation.

I think that leaving out the redshift data in this evaluation is a good idea
because it has an additional layer of weirdness in it that is best put aside from whether harmonics theory is useful. If people come to accept it for these other reasons, then they are more likely to accept redshift periodicity as something that could possibly have a sensible explanation, as the biggest psychological hurdle will have been lowered a lot.

I will make three additional posts that summarize each of these three topics and perhaps we can look at them in turn. This might take a couple of days to do.

This post is intended to show that the pattern of common cycles often with ratios of 2 and 3 between them has been observed by astronomers and noted as being harmonic patterns. This extends Dewey's pattern and with Tomes' Harmonic Theory.

Beginning in 1984, Rieger and others began to report a cycle most often refereed to as 154 or 155 days long in various solar phenomena. The range of phenomena include gammaray flares, proton flares, solar wind, interplanetary magnetic field, sunspot areas and neutrino output. The periods include 154-155 days, 77-78 days, 51-52 days, 28 days* and 1.27 years and 2.14 years. The papers often refer to the observed harmonic relationships between the periods.

*Note, the 28 day period is out of line with the others and would be expected to be 26 days. This appears to be due to the fact that ~26 days is the solar rotation period but due to the earth's motion around the Sun we see it as ~28 days. This effect only seems to apply to that period and not the others.

The common cycles pattern with ratios 2 and 3 observed by Dewey and others is shown here with all periods in years. Dewey only showed the top part of the table above the 7 ratio. I have added the lower part, and all the periods are mine, calculated using fixed exact harmonic ratios an fitted to Jupiter's orbital period of 11.862 years. Although Dewey did not have the lower part of the table he did have a cycle of period 40.68 months which is 3.390 years, so it can be seen that the 7 ratio between the two parts is very accurately an integer. Some of the other values in the lower part of the table have also been found in generals cycles research. The key point is to show that these solar cycles also fit the pattern accurately (All figures in years):
Converting the lower part of the table to days gives these values:

The four figures reported in solar cycles in the days range are found together in the table on the right side. In addition, the periods 1.27 years and 2.12 years are 3 and 5 times the 154.7 day = .4237 year cycle. Although astronomers publishing these reports have noticed the relationships between all of the observed periods as noted, they are probably unaware of the work of Dewey and others that links into the pattern that they find.

The reports do not generally give very accurate values for the cycles periods, and have some variation in the values that they do give, but the averages are certainly close to the common cycles periods table values.

A Russian publication "Cosmic Rhythms" has an article by N S Nesterov (1986) showing an analysis of solar radio emissions at 3.75 Ghz. It shows three periods grouped in a triplet with labeled periods 148-154-162 days. This triplet is centred on 154.7 days, and indicates that the cycle is modulated by a longer cycle of the order of 9 years, quite likely actually 11 years, which is consistent with western reports that the cycle appears in each solar cycle and then disappears again. It would seem that the cycle can be more accurately measured if it can be traced through multiple solar cycles.

Some years ago I found a cycle in the sunspots of about this period using a filtering method and traced it through a very long record, obtaining a measure that was far more accurate than these. Unfortunately I cannot find this at present, but just want to record that this is possible to do.

Other known harmonic relations in solar cycles are the series 11, 22, 44 and 88 years which are commonly reported in solar phenomena although the 44 year one is less common.

Rieger, E, G H Share, D J Forrest, G Kanbach, C Reppin, and E
L.Chupp, Nature, 312, 623, 1984.
“A 154-day periodicity in the occurrence of hard solar flares”.
Bogart, R S, and Bai, T 1985, Ap. J. (Letters), 299, L51.
"Confirmation of a 152-day Periodicity in the Occurrence of Solar
Flares Inferred from Microwave Data''
Bai, T, and Sturrock, P A 1987, Nature, 327, 601.
"On the 152-day Periodicity of the Solar Flare Occurrence Rate"
Bai, T, and Cliver, E W 1990, Ap. J., 363, 299.
"A 154-Day Periodicity in the Occurrence Rate of Proton Flares"
Lean, J L, Astrophys. J., 363, 718, 1990. “Evolution of the 155 day
periodicity in the sunspot areas during solar cycles 12 to 22”.
Bai, T, and Sturrock, P A 1991, Nature 350, 141. "The 154-day and
Related Periodicities as Subharmonics of a Fundamental Period"
Sturrock, P A, and Bai, T 1992, Ap. J. 397, 337. "Search for Evidence
of a Clock Related to the Solar 154 Day Complex of Periodicities"
Bai, T 1992, Ap. J. Letters 388, L69.
"The 77-day Periodicity in the Flare Occurrence Rate of Cycle 22"
Bai, T, and Sturrock, P A 1993, Ap. J. 409, 476.
"Evidence for the Fundamental Period of the Sun: Its Relation to the
154-day Complex of Periodicities"
Cane, H V, I G Robinson, and T T von Rosenvinge, Geophys. Res.
Lett., 25, 4437-4440, 1998
“Interplanetary magnetic field periodicity of ~ 153 days”
http://news-service.stanford.edu/new...neutrinos.html
Twenty-eight day cycle found in ghostly solar neutrinos, team says
David F Salisbury
http://ourstar.bao.ac.cn/pdf/swb_asr_2005.pdf
Wavelet Analysis of Photospheric Magnetic Flux
W B Song, J X Wang
http://wave.asu.cas.cz/spm10/abstrac...ts_dbs_317.pdf
The near 160-day periodicity in the photospheric magnetic flux
M Carbonell, R Oliver, J L Ballester
http://www.astro.uni.torun.pl/~kb/Pa.../Barcelona.htm
Proc. Conf. held Univ. Barcelona, 3–7 July 1995,
A Search for Periodicities in the Solar Flux at 127 MHz
G Gawrońska and K M Borkowski
Dewey, Edward R., “The 41 month Cycle in Industrial Common Stock
Prices”, Cycles Vol II No. 9, November 1951 pp 327-335. Reports
40.68 month cycle.

It seems my question was not clear; let me try again.

On the one hand, I think rtomes is on record, in this or the other ATM thread, as saying the existence of ~72 km/s (and other) galaxy redshift periodicities is equivalent to (proof of?) the galaxies being at rest wrt either SgrA* (galactocentric frame) or the CMBR (or, possibly, in a heliocentric frame).

Yet the redshifts of every astronomical object (beyond the solar system) show very clear, repeatable, unambiguous periodicities - ~24 hours, ~1 month, ~12 months, ...

Does the existence of these redshift periodicities mean that no astronomical object is moving, wrt the observatory/observatories where the redshift observations were made?

Within the solar system, every solar system object also has very clear, repeatable, unambiguous redshift periodicities ... but they are a little more complicated.

Does the existence of these redshift periodicities mean that no solar system object is moving, wrt the observatory/observatories where the redshift observations were made?

A great many stars also exhibit other (very clear, repeatable, unambiguous) redshift periodicities.

And so on.

In the rtomes ATM idea, how is 'motion' defined? If all you have to hand is a time series of spectra of an astronomical object, how - in the rtomes ATM idea - do you assign 'motion' to the object?

The Sun rises, and some hours later it sets (or, in some parts of the world, at certain times of the year, days/month). Does the Sun 'move'?

Viewed against the stars, the planets (and their satellites) 'move'. How, in the rtomes ATM idea, does this 'motion' relate to time series redshift measurements of those planets and satellites?

At a much higher (angular) resolution, many stars 'move' wrt other stars. Astronomers call this 'proper motion'. How, in the rtomes ATM idea, does this 'motion' relate to time series redshift measurements of those stars?

At higher (angular) resolution still, some extra-galactic objects' proper motion has been unambiguously detected. Such objects include galaxies. How, in the rtomes ATM idea, does this 'motion' relate to time series redshift measurements of those extra-galactic objects?

(my bold)

What 'modes' are you referring to? How did you determine "significant energy"?

What is the vertical (y) axis? What are its units?

What statistical test(s) did you do to determine that "[t]he pattern is very strongly significant"?

What is the relationship between the peaks in your plot and the "about 10^7 p and f [solar oscillation] modes"?

To put this question in a more general way: to what extent does your analysis merely illustrate the existence of a subset of the p and f solar oscillation modes that have been investigated by astronomers for several decades now?

(my bold)

How do you know the motions are accurate to the number of figures stated?

If the actual motion of the satellites is that which an ephemeris would provide, what is it that you are using as input to your analysis?

Specifically, to what extent does your analysis become nothing more than an analysis of a model built using only Newtonian gravity?

If you are not using the actual ephemerides, what work did you do to confirm the inconstant nature of the cycles, and the existence of larger cycles?(my bold)

What analysis did you do, or what observations did you make, to show that "they [do] follow the fixed frame that all the orbits wobble about"?

Perhaps you simply assumed Newtonian gravity (and nothing but Newtonian gravity); your analysis assumes that models built with this theory are sufficiently accurate representations of reality?Please show that they are not.

If you did not check their significance, please say so.
Random selection is one level of testing. Do you intend to closely specify the test - both how selection is random, and how significance is tested - before you do the simulation?

How will you ensure that your algorithm for random selection is not influenced by any cycles?(my bold)

What binary stars did Kotov use?The source you provided has 168 satellites.

Which 50 did you not use?

Why did you exclude them?

How - specifically - did you address the specific cases I listed?

Yes sorry, I could have used better words. I was stating that there is no universal expansion, no big bang.

In the case of galaxies it may go a bit further. If galaxies are restricted to motions at multiples of 72 km/s, then it is very difficult to see how they can be in orbit about each other. If Tifft is right then galaxies are just at rest in a big matrix.

If Arp is right that quasars and companion galaxies to spirals are ejected along the axis at high velocity and then slow down as they make speed of light contact with other matter, then there is limited motion only.

As for planets and stars, yes I accept that they make orbital motions.
And leaves and birds flutter in the wind.