I accept that I should not be rude. I do appreciate Nereid's time. However I think he is due a more severe warning than me. I quote these items specifically:

Post #272 harmonics theory thread.
He has repeatedly totally disregarded the many references to peer review papers on the 155 day and related solar cycles. He ignores that many references to peer review papers on red shift periodicities. There is no reason to regard wikipedia as a bad source of data, it is often more up to date than many other sources.

post #258 (this thread)
There is no basis for the pseudo-science remark. Then he lists a whole set of inaccurate statements. I have answered many questions on these topics. I have never intentionally not answered a question. That is more that can be said for Nereid, who consistently refuses to answer the question on the 155 day solar periodicities based on peer review articles. What he is doing is not science, it is an attempt to find weaknesses and have a dig at them. He badgered me repeatedly over how I classify quasars when I told him very clearly that I never need to classify quasars but use other people results. He refuses to look at the strengths of my case. He will not acknowledge or deny the facts regarding the 155 day cycle or the wave structures on Jupiter that confirm harmonics patterns. And he says that I am not scientific! His behaviour is far more serious than calling one comment drivel as he has attacked my character as a scientist.

rtomes, your last post is in violation of the Rules for Posting, specifically this part of Rule 17:
If you disagree with a moderator action, then PM or email the moderator, a different moderator, or an administrator. We will review the case and take action as needed.

Also, if you feel another member has violated any of the Rules, you should report it to the Moderators by clicking the red triangle in the upper right corner of the post. Do not make your complaint in the thread. (This is Rule 16.)

Maybe it's a good time for you to refamiliarize yourself with the Rules?

Finally, as an aside, did you ever bother to look up the derivation of Nereid?

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

My apologies for not following the procedures correctly. I was not intending to disagree with the moderator.

Yes, I did look that up, but wasn't sure whether you meant the sea nymphs or that he was highly eccentric.

What do you mean, by "predate the use of fibers, so that is not an issue?" Whether the spectroscopy is performed by fibers, slits, grisms, prisms or gratings does not matter here. What matters is how the objects were chosen for inclusion in the catalog. Just picking as many objects as you can, from as many catalogs as you can, is great for creating a large database, but said catalog's uniformity isn't (uniform, that is)! As Nereid has pointed out,

which seems pretty clear to me. And what do they include as galaxies here? Defining a galaxy, spectroscopically, is almost as hairy as defining a quasar. As an example, I've attached a histogram of the redshifts of everything spectroscopically classified as "galaxy" in SDSS DR4 (this includes a good number of duplicate entries). The double-humped shape is due to LRGs and AGNs at higher redshift, since those galaxies are intrinsically brighter and, if I recall correctly, nearby clusters and blue galaxies at low redshift.

Again, this is well understood by those who put together these surveys, and most of the selection function happens before any assumptions about cosmology are made.

And, as in my previous example with the Bell 2004 paper, you can't just assume that a published paper has correctly identified selection effects, corrected for them and also has a uniform classification criterion. Even in the mainstream papers, sometimes folks get this wrong, because it tain't trivial atall.

First of all, the existence of your "7 evenly spaced peaks" is in doubt. Second of all, it is quite possible for a selection function to create several evenly spaced peaks: the SDSS quasar selection function does exactly this, in part because of the nature of the photometric filters that are used to select targets.

No, there are error bars. It is a physical measurement (number of galaxies with a given redshift), thus, by definition, it has an associated error--I've gotten burned on this before, myself! For something like this, one often assumes Poisson errors, as you have done above (square-root of the number of objects in the bin), but that includes some assumptions about the underlying distribution. Do you know what those assumptions are, and whether they apply to this sample?

Just so you are aware, these are not trivial questions, nor are they tangential to the point at hand. Determining whether something is a peak or not depends on what the function is that you are comparing it to. If the function itself is "peaky" (and selection functions often are)...

Uh-uh. No. Just drawing a line through the points says nothing about whether your claimed peaks are really there or not. You have to have something to quantitatively compare it to, not just a hand-drawn function.

Personally? Except for the first "peak" in the plot you have (and I have a couple of guesses where it comes from), the "peaks" you claim look like ordinary statistical variation, and/or bin size effects.

Attached Images

redshift.png (4.6 KB, 6 views)

__________________
"What do you care what other people think?" -- Richard Feynman
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled." -- Feynman, at the conclusion of his Challenger report

Your statement that you can get several peaks from selection effects is compatible with mine that you can get 2 or 3 inflection points. There are purposes for which a uniform database is essential, but for finding cycles it is not all that important.

The graph that you show is presumably to demonstrate selection effects. Of course it will not show a 4330 km/s periodicity as the bins are 6,000 km/s wide.

Another way to diminish the broad sweep of the curve is to take first differences because adjacent bins will not generally have very big selection differences. In this case I read all the data off the graph and then did the following processing. I first took logs to make the variations more similar in the high and low ranges; then differences between adjacent elements;finally I did a 3 term moving average to smooth the roughness, and this is the result. It almost totally removes any smooth curve resulting from selection effects. It makes the cycle quite clear.



The taking of first differences has the property that a cycle that repeats a number of times is enhanced in comparison to a smoothe selection effect curve that does only a couple of ups and downs. This is a matter of calculus. Differentiate sin(t/10)+sin(t) and compare to the original graph. The faster term grows by a factor of 10 compared to the slower one.

The HT thread has closed, so I expect that this is about to also. So some closing remarks.

Tifft and a number of others found 72 km/s and multiples of this differences in the redshifts of galaxies in pairs, small groups and various configurations. Subsequently Tifft found a that in both the milky way centre frame and the CMBR frame (or very close to each) the entire sky showed a common redshift periodicity. In different samples including different types of galaxies he found various related periodicities of 144, 72, 36, 24, 18, 12 km/s periodicities. Although it was seen as impossible to understand as being true, these results have persisted in all tests that I know of. A number of different researchers who realized the importance of the results if true repeated the analysis with different samples and thoroughly investigated the statistics. To the best of my knowledge there is not a single test of redshifts in a single line of sight that did not show at least one of the mentioned redshift periodicities.

At the larger scale, a number of tests reported z=.043 periodicity (12,800 km/s or 128/h Mpc). This seems to be widely accepted as existing now. Several other surveys reported related values to this such as close to 1/2 and 1/3 that period. Whereas the smaller scale periodicities are wiped out by the common two point correlation function, these longer periods are not. From that, and the fact that we see these periods in the the other two dimensions as a type of lattice, we can safely say that they are real distance periodicities.

However the shorter range periods are different. They are not seen in 3D. This argues very strongly for the Narlikar-Arp hypothesis of atomic frequencies changing in steps due to particle mass changes in time. This produces the observed whole sky pattern in the right frame without any observed distance periodicity in the other two dimensions. It also follows that galaxies are not moving*. Any real motion of galaxies by even 20 km/s would destroy the observed patterns.

It follows from this that all the cosmology based on virial theorum and estimation of mass and behaviour of gravity at the largest scales is not understood.

* Actually the galaxies could be moving, but the restrictions on their movement would be very severe and not at all in accord with any prevailing physics or cosmology theories.

I will add material related to these discussions in my Wobbly Universe blog (link below) including an index and attempt to arrange the material into sections. If anyone wants to keep up with that material, ask questions or make further comments to either the Harmonics Theory or Quantized Redshift subjects then they can do so there. It is also possible to subscribe to the RSS feed.

I thank all those who took part in the discussions, especially Nereid. His questions have been valuable in causing me to make things clearer especially on Harmonics Theory, and that is very valuable. I have learned a lot in the research done in this thread and confirmed my suspicions about the different methods of analysis and what they do.

Best wishes
Ray

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 m_pg ~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.

All of the dataset sizes are listed in the papers themselves. So these are not really questions. They are attempts to undermine the significance of the work. The simple fact is that tests for statistical significance fully take account of the sample size. If a smaller sample size is used, then a stronger periodicity must be present to get the same level of significance. So that simply proves how strong these periodicities are that they can be consistently detected in small samples.

Although it is relevant to the results what type of galaxies are in the sample, it is not important. I will explain that.

When larger galaxy types only are included then larger quanta are found such as the 72 km/s one. When smaller galaxies are included then the smaller quanta are found as well as the larger. This is made clear by Tifft in his papers and also is consistent with the expectations of Harmonics theory. So whatever types are included one or more periodicities will be found. It is still advisable in future research to examine the periodicities by galaxy type so that thee details of these matters are better understood.
I am fully aware of the use of H I radio observations to measure redshifts. Tifft used these measures to get accurate redshifts in the 1970s.

Your little game with asking silly irrelevant questions to try and find things that I do not know so that you can criticize them is quite irrelevant. There is no need for me to be able to carry out a redshift measurement. All the redshift measurements used in the surveys were taken by astronomers. I am not and astronomer. Your logic on this is inexcusably poor. It would seem that it is a desperate attempt to evade the true conclusions of this research.
Your referring to me with words "she" and "her" when my photo is on hundreds of posts that you have looked at is another example of your attempt to take the conversation into the gutter rather than address the real issues.
Edward R Dewey describes these methods in "Cycles" magazine, and the relevent material is available in the "Cycles Classic Library Collection" published by the Foundation for the Study of Cycles in 1987.
I have stated that the curve is not relevant, the peaks are there without it. I also posted a further graphic based on first differences which shows the periodicity clearly. First differences is effectively differentiation and enhances higher frequency components in a spectrum. Because any selection effects are lower frequency (they have few inflexion points) this method is effective.
Why don't you list them. Then I will prove that none of them can cause a periodicity.
You have the papers of Tiffts as references because you did not believe my statements and wanted peer reviewed material. Now read it!
You apparently missed the other references to a similar period in the papers. Go back and look for 41.5/h Mpc which was reported. This period is visible in every decent sized sample. You can see it in the Broadhurst data along with other fractions of 12,800 km/s.
The facts remain:

1. Every paper that has been published that has sufficently accurate data (as described by Tifft) and looks for smaller scale redshift periodicity in galaxies has found at least one of the quanta 72, 36, 24, 12 km/s and often more than one. There have been many replications and not a single negative result. This is called the scientific method and criticizing sample sizes is not an adequate response because different samples have been used by different researchers.

2. Papers that use the correlation function in 3D do not show these shorter period variations. That proves that they are not spatial structures and that the interpretation of redshift as totally a velocity measurement is wrong.

3. Most papers that have looked at large scale periodicity have found the 12,800 km/s period (z=.043 or 128/h Mpc) and often fractions of this also (1/2 and 1/3). These periods are found using either redshift periodicity or looking for 3D spacings. There are papers that I referenced showing the clear 3D structure as a type of lattice.

4. A number of studies have been performed in special frames to investigate the whole sky synchronization of smaller scale (~72 km/s) redshift periodicities. All published studies confirm the presence of such frames. New data continues to support that conclusion. This totally undermines the conventional interpretation of redshift. If it were correct then the whole universe would be a huge conspiracy to make the centre of our galaxy a very special place. I don't think that anyone believes that.

5. The inescapable conclusion is that Arp and Narlikar are right and that these 72 km/s and such periodicities are changes by steps in redshift over time, and nothing to do with distance. Because the time taken to travel a distance by light is a linear one, it just looks like a distance relationship. However at the distance scale of galaxies the relationship breaks down because there are traveling wavefronts where the redshift of a galaxy will suddenly change by 72 km/s. So you cannot use that information to calculate distances at that scale.

6. In general galaxies cannot be moving even by 20 km/s. If they were, the whole sky periodicity would be destroyed. And it is there for all to see. In fact, it would be destroyed in even galaxy pairs because of the different orientations that we see them at and the 72 km/s difference between them is prevalent.

7. The virial theorum is not a valid basis for anything because it uses the assumption that redshift measures velocity, and it clearly does not.

Your referring to me with words "she" and "her" when my photo is on hundreds of posts that you have looked at is another example of your attempt to take the conversation into the gutter rather than address the real issues.

(sigh)

rtomes, you were given two very pointed hints and still failed either to get it or to admit you got it. So, just to make it clear, Nereid is female. Her use of the feminine pronouns when addressing/referring to you was a third hint, which you also didn't get.

As for your comments that you don't have to "do the math" yourself because you're referencing someone who can is begging the question. If you are unable to work the equations yourself, how can you understand them enough to defend them?

Finally - and bluntly - your attitude leaves a lot to be desired. You seem to be of the opinion that anyone who has the audacity to question you too strongly deserves to be treated with disdain and thinly veiled insults. Nereid has devoted considerable time and effort on your proposals. You should be appreciative of, even flattered by, her attempts to help you work through the intricate details of them, and to help you fill in the gaps in both those proposals and your understanding of the underlying science involved.

You have been given a warning; consider yourself on a short leash. Curb the attitude. It will only get you in trouble if you don't.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov