Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > The Proving Grounds > Against the Mainstream
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

   

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #181 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 06:24 AM
Ari Jokimaki Ari Jokimaki is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
Please state the consistency between "redshift periodicity" published in papers by Tifft and by Arp.
...
Please also state the commonality between Broadhurst et al. and Arp and Tifft wrt specific objects.
They all find redshift periodicities in samples of extragalactic objects, that's why I think they might be looking at same phenomenon. I said "Tifft and Arp (for example)" and meant that Broadhurst et al. also was an example (perhaps I should have said so explicitly) of long line of mainstream papers dealing with redshift periodicities. I'm not going to enter into details on these three, especially because I don't have an access to Broadhurst et al, which I also have already indicated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
In your reply, please be sure to include, at minimum, the following:
You see fit trying to dictate how I should respond to you, and yet you didn't even bother to answer my questions.

I'm not playing this game because I really didn't make much of a claim. I might also easily be wrong about they all looking at same phenomenon, but to me it just currently seems their work might be closely related.
__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]
  #182 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 07:13 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
(my bold)

Please show this consistency, quantitatively.
I wrote "I am not going to attempt a quantitative proof." I thought that was very clear.
Quote:
Please include references to sources of estimates of "galactic Black Hole [...] masses".
BH masses have been reported of around 1*10^9 solar masses which will have an event horizon at around 160 light minutes. I am not going to look for references to this.
Quote:
If I may summarise:

* nothing published

* nothing quantitative, in terms of either consistency between GR/Newtonian gravity (or any part of the Standard Model, of relevance to astrophysics), or any extra-galactic observations.If my summary above is accurate, what leads you to expect that your ideas should receive special treatment?
I am not asking for special treatment. I have asked some questions in forums and groups about whether standing waves have been considered as sources. It appears not. It seems to me to be a silly idea to invent new forms of matter and energy when existing physics can adequately explain something. Note that you are the ATM advocate here and not me. You please explain why your ideas about dark energy and dark matter are needed when standard physics is quite capable of doing the job.

The problem is simply that they are unfamiliar with these solutions to e/m or GR equations. And they do not think about standing waves at all.

Last edited by rtomes; 28-August-2007 at 08:09 AM.. Reason: mistake
  #183 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 09:47 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default Galactic Black Hole Masses

The biggest collection of known galactic black hole masses that I could find was at http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/rela.../bhctable.html
I have plotted them on a log scale of black hole mass, and labeled in red above some values of the equivalent radius in light minutes. You can see that the common cycles that I have mentioned of 3, 6, 80 and 160 minutes are also common black hole masses along with a few related values.



Note that the values are not accurate enough to use Kotov's method.
  #184 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 10:55 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Note that although I was answering a question in this thread, the post about black hole masses should really be in the Harmonics Theory thread.

The other three peaks in the middle are at 16, 30 and 50 light minutes.
  #185 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 03:24 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ari Jokimaki View Post
They all find redshift periodicities in samples of extragalactic objects, that's why I think they might be looking at same phenomenon. I said "Tifft and Arp (for example)" and meant that Broadhurst et al. also was an example (perhaps I should have said so explicitly) of long line of mainstream papers dealing with redshift periodicities. I'm not going to enter into details on these three, especially because I don't have an access to Broadhurst et al, which I also have already indicated.

[snip]

I'm not playing this game because I really didn't make much of a claim. I might also easily be wrong about they all looking at same phenomenon, but to me it just currently seems their work might be closely related.
(my bold)

Perhaps they do; let's assume they do.

Perhaps one paper reports a 999 km/s period in edge-on spirals with integrated magnitude < 11*.

Perhaps another reports periods of 11, 13, 17, and 19 km/s in 21 cm galaxies in the Great Attractor.

Perhaps a third reports periods of 12, 18, and 1234 km/s in galaxies, with no detected radio emission, in the Great Attractor.

Perhaps one other reports a period of 555 km/s in dwarf galaxies in the Local Group, and explicitly rules out all other periods.

Perhaps another reports a period of 33 km/s in dwarf galaxies in the Local Group, and explicitly rules out all other periods.

Perhaps a review paper finds the field to be a complete mess, with no consistency between any results published previously.

Perhaps a paper rips the methods used to find reported periods to shreds, by showing fatal errors in selection, in analyses, and faulty inputs (not gross errors of course, those would have been picked up by the reviewers).

...

If there are no answers to basic questions concerning consistency of the reported results, how should claims concerning their being the same phenomenon be judged?

Note: this is not a question Ari Jokimaki needs to answer; his post (quoted above) does not make any claims about common phenomena.

*These are all made up examples, to illustrate the point.
  #186 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 04:08 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Thank you Ari Jokimaki, that is an impressive list. I think that it does highlight the fact that something really is going on.
How does it so highlight?
That there are so many reports of periodicity and certain common ones such as 72 km/s and many different authors indicates that there is something real going on. The fact that it is difficult to join it seamlessly with existing knowledge is the only reason that it might be called ATM.
If I may summarise:

Some BAUT members have an intuitive feeling, gained from reading popsci articles and one or two (a dozen?) papers "that there is something real going on".

No BAUT member has yet presented an analysis to show the consistency - if any - between even the papers mentioned so far in this thread, much less a more comprehensive set of papers that would include negative findings.

Trusting instinct, one BAUT member draws a broad conclusion.
Quote:
But these reports are from within the astronomical community, so calling them ATM is a bit severe. They are more properly an additional stream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Specifically, what - quantitatively - is common among these papers (that is not now part of mainstream astronomy)?

[snip]
Well I haven't read the vast majority, so I couldn't say with any certainty.

I think that your original statement about Tifft can now be simplified to:
1. There are certain periodicities in galaxy redshifts that can be observed within clusters. Most prominent is the 72 km/s one. Others are related harmonically to this.
2. When such observations from all over the sky are combined, there can be found a frame in which the base offset of all the periods is common. That frame agrees with the CMBR frame.
3. There are some strange goings on within galaxies that appear to mean that multiple different redshifts can exist within a single galaxy.

Conclusions from these:
A. From Arp and Narlikar, the idea that redshift may be a function of time and not motion or distance. Of course this is strongly correlated for galaxies.
B. There is some component of redshift that is not cosmologically related. It might be called internal redshift. It takes steps like 72 km/s and harmonics.
C. The total sky problem of redshift being co-ordinated is resolved by A above, but the result implies that most galaxies do not have significant random velocities. Also that there is no expansion.
D. From Tomes, that the redshift periodicities can be explained by non-linear standing waves forming harmonics combined with Narlikar's variable particle mass theory.

[snip]
WARNING! The following may well have been taken too far out of context!
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
I am not going to attempt a quantitative proof.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Please show this consistency, quantitatively.
I wrote "I am not going to attempt a quantitative proof." I thought that was very clear.
In the absence of anything quantitative, concerning the relationship between your idea and those of Arp and Narlikar, between relevant observations and your idea, and between the Arp-Narlikar VMH and relevant observations, how can your ATM ideas (as presented in this thread) be tested?

To take a possibly extreme example, I could counter-claim:
I think that your original statement about Tifft can now be simplified to:
1. No periodicities in galaxy redshifts that can be observed within clusters with certainty.
2. When galaxy redshift observations from all over the sky are combined, there is no consistent frame in which the base offset of any period is common.
3. There is no substantiation of isolated reports of some strange goings on within galaxies re multiple redshifts.

Conclusions from these:
A. Concerning Arp and Narlikar, the idea that redshift may be a function of time and not motion or distance: while this is an alternative explanation for the Hubble relationship, there is no consistent, independent, credible observational support for the Arp-Narlikar VMH.
B. There is some component of redshift that is not cosmologically related. It is called peculiar velocity, and has been used, since Zwicky's work in the 1930s, to provide consistent estimates of the mass of dark matter in rich clusters. It is not periodic.
C. There is no 'total sky problem of redshift', so there is nothing to be co-ordinated. As A above is demonstrably inconsistent with a wide range of good astronomical observations, it could not apply to any such (non-existent) problem anyway. The LCDM concordance models, on the other hand, are consistent with multiple sets of independent classes of observations. The universe seems to behave in a way that is consistent with GR.
D. From Tomes, the absence of any quantitative analysis means evaluation of "non-linear standing waves forming harmonics combined with Narlikar's variable particle mass theory" cannot even begin.


Do you have any proposals for objectively assessing the two sets of claims?
  #187 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 04:24 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
I wrote "I am not going to attempt a quantitative proof." I thought that was very clear.

BH masses have been reported of around 1*10^9 solar masses which will have an event horizon at around 160 light minutes. I am not going to look for references to this.

I am not asking for special treatment. I have asked some questions in forums and groups about whether standing waves have been considered as sources. It appears not. It seems to me to be a silly idea to invent new forms of matter and energy when existing physics can adequately explain something. Note that you are the ATM advocate here and not me. You please explain why your ideas about dark energy and dark matter are needed when standard physics is quite capable of doing the job.

The problem is simply that they are unfamiliar with these solutions to e/m or GR equations. And they do not think about standing waves at all.
You are relatively new to BAUT, rtomes, so you may not have read the several threads which addressed claims concerning 'standard physics' being 'quite capable of doing the job', and what 'Against the Mainstream' means, for BAUT.

In a nutshell:

* 'the mainstream' in this case is simply the present-day community of astronomers, cosmologists, and (astro-)physicists. It is an operational definition

* very few quantitative claims have been presented here to the effect that standard physics can do the job of accounting for the many classes of good observational results which lead the community to 'dark matter' and 'dark energy' conclusions. No such claim, presented here, has resulted in (or results from) a paper in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, much less recognition*.

Earlier in this thread, you stated (twice in fact) that you will not be presenting anything quantitative in this regard.

Now you have repeated, with some variation, a comment on the knowledge and ability of quite a number of astrophysicists, concerning a theory which is at the heart of modern cosmology (GR).

Perhaps you could refer to one the standard textbooks on GR, and describe where material on "these [standing wave] solutions to e/m or GR equations" should appear?

Would you please describe the relationship between 'the angular power spectrum' and 'baryon acoustic oscillations' and GR? In particular, please point out - as specifically as you can - how these fail to meet your requirements for standing wave solutions to GR equations.

*[ETA: there was one, that I know of, which came close: Search 'Nicholson' - a 'standard physics' approach to flat rotation curves in spiral galaxies was introduced in a BAUT predecessor, but not actually proposed in this ATM section. It turns out that this approach had been published several decades previously, but the BAUT member was unaware of the papers.]

Last edited by Nereid; 28-August-2007 at 07:48 PM.. Reason: added caveat re Nicholson
  #188 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 08:00 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
[snip]

Incidentally, the New Scientist article omitted the Ho altogether and so I didn't know what H had been assumed. When I found the article itself it was clear that 128 Mpc is based on H=100 km/s, so that it means 12,800 km/s in velocity terms. What they actually found was a periodicity of 0.0427 in z and the other stuff is all highly theory laden.

[snip]
Can you please quote from the Broadhurst et al. paper ("fair use" allows you to do so), to show that "128 Mpc is based on H=100 km/s"?

For the record, I don't think you can ... because Broadhurst et al. did no such thing.
Bumping this question.

Earlier, Ari Jokimaki pointed to part of the abstract of the Broadhurst et al. paper; here is the ADS entry, and the abstract in full (my bold):
Quote:
Data from four distinct surveys at the north and south Galactic poles have been combined to produce a well-sampled distribution of galaxies by redshift on a linear scale extending to 2000/h/Mpc. An excess correlation and an apparent regularity in the galaxy distribution with a characteristic scale of 128/h Mpc is reported. This structure is revealed only after the completion of recent surveys extending to redshift greater than 0.2. Similarly deep surveys with greater angular spread are needed to verify these results and to determine the implications for cosmology.
Note that it's "h" not "H0".

If you're unsure of the difference, why not start a thread in the Q&A section, and ask? Something like "What do "h" and "H0" represent, in papers on cosmology? Why do cosmologists use both, and not just H0?" perhaps?
  #189 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 11:05 PM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
(my bold)

Perhaps they do; let's assume they do.

Perhaps one paper reports a 999 km/s period in edge-on spirals with integrated magnitude < 11*.

Perhaps another reports periods of 11, 13, 17, and 19 km/s in 21 cm galaxies in the Great Attractor.

Perhaps a third reports periods of 12, 18, and 1234 km/s in galaxies, with no detected radio emission, in the Great Attractor.

Perhaps one other reports a period of 555 km/s in dwarf galaxies in the Local Group, and explicitly rules out all other periods.

Perhaps another reports a period of 33 km/s in dwarf galaxies in the Local Group, and explicitly rules out all other periods.

Perhaps a review paper finds the field to be a complete mess, with no consistency between any results published previously.

Perhaps a paper rips the methods used to find reported periods to shreds, by showing fatal errors in selection, in analyses, and faulty inputs (not gross errors of course, those would have been picked up by the reviewers).

...

If there are no answers to basic questions concerning consistency of the reported results, how should claims concerning their being the same phenomenon be judged?

Note: this is not a question Ari Jokimaki needs to answer; his post (quoted above) does not make any claims about common phenomena.

*These are all made up examples, to illustrate the point.
Perhaps half of them report a 72 km/s periodicity and a decent number report 36 km/s with a few each of 24 km/s, 18 km/s, 12 km/s, 6 kms/ and 3 km/s. Add some larger scale ones at 12800 km/s and perhaps you have the vast bulk of them. This is a lot nearer to the truth than your speculation. There are in fact several review papers in the list. That is a good place to start on checking this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
If I may summarise:

Some BAUT members have an intuitive feeling, gained from reading popsci articles and one or two (a dozen?) papers "that there is something real going on".

No BAUT member has yet presented an analysis to show the consistency - if any - between even the papers mentioned so far in this thread, much less a more comprehensive set of papers that would include negative findings.
This is a fair enough comment. However your previous one was not. Although I have not read the majority of papers I have seen enough to know that the 72 km/s periodcity has been reported by many astronomers in several different ways - galaxy pairs, galaxy clusters, ... The 36 km/s periodicity has also been mentioned multiple times by multiple differnt astronomers and some of the others by several.
Quote:
Trusting instinct, one BAUT member draws a broad conclusion.
WARNING! The following may well have been taken too far out of context!In the absence of anything quantitative, concerning the relationship between your idea and those of Arp and Narlikar, between relevant observations and your idea, and between the Arp-Narlikar VMH and relevant observations, how can your ATM ideas (as presented in this thread) be tested?

To take a possibly extreme example, I could counter-claim:
I think that your original statement about Tifft can now be simplified to:
1. No periodicities in galaxy redshifts that can be observed within clusters with certainty.
That is of course why at least a dozen astronomers have found statistically significant evidence for the 72 km/s periodicity and multiple for teh 36 km/s periodicity. The shoe is now on the other foot. Please produce evidence that these astronomers results are wrong (we have already had the list of names in a past post and you got me to supply the references) or show other studies that performed the same type of analysis and did not find such periodicities, or agree that your statement is wrong?
Quote:
2. When galaxy redshift observations from all over the sky are combined, there is no consistent frame in which the base offset of any period is common.
Please produce evidence that this is not so by showing a refutation of Tifft's published papers or other research that has performed the same analysis that does not get similar results, or agree that your statement is wrong?
Quote:
3. There is no substantiation of isolated reports of some strange goings on within galaxies re multiple redshifts.
Well this is just as mischievous, but I will ignore it.
Quote:
Conclusions from these:
A. Concerning Arp and Narlikar, the idea that redshift may be a function of time and not motion or distance: while this is an alternative explanation for the Hubble relationship, there is no consistent, independent, credible observational support for the Arp-Narlikar VMH.
All of the repeatedly confirmed findings of 72 km/s periodicty from all over the sky show that one of these must be true:
1. The earth is at the centre of a lot of concentric spheres of galaxies.
2. The redshifts of stars have no significant expansion of velocity component (i.e. less than 10 km/s). Therefore Arp-Narlikar explanation is needed to explain that.
3. God is performing miracles or the Devil is deceiving us.
Now which of these do you think is correct?
Quote:
B. There is some component of redshift that is not cosmologically related. It is called peculiar velocity, and has been used, since Zwicky's work in the 1930s, to provide consistent estimates of the mass of dark matter in rich clusters. It is not periodic.
But the assumption of this component is what causes the problems with imbalance in mass in clusters. And it is periodic. Very many of the papers listed in that big list are exactly about studies of redshift periodicity in clusters.
Quote:
C. There is no 'total sky problem of redshift', so there is nothing to be co-ordinated. As A above is demonstrably inconsistent with a wide range of good astronomical observations, it could not apply to any such (non-existent) problem anyway. The LCDM concordance models, on the other hand, are consistent with multiple sets of independent classes of observations. The universe seems to behave in a way that is consistent with GR.
Quote:
D. From Tomes, the absence of any quantitative analysis means evaluation of "non-linear standing waves forming harmonics combined with Narlikar's variable particle mass theory" cannot even begin.
Well, the formation of harmonics from standing waves is a fact in GR because it is non-linear. Do you dispute this? This is a very important point.
Quote:
Do you have any proposals for objectively assessing the two sets of claims?
Yes, but it means looking at the evidence of redshift periodicity without the preconception that the big bang is right. If you are committed to believing that redshift periodicity is impossible because it undermines the big bang then progress is impossible. I do not claim to have all the answers. However that is not a necessary condition to accepting that redshift periodicity is a proven fact. Once that is accepted then the process of working out what is wrong with present cosmology can begin. You may find that in the process, other problems like missing mass and large scale structure (which shouldn't happen in big bang cosmology) get solved. It does not mean that everything in cosmology is wrong.

In ancient Greece they did arithmetic using only the rational numbers and all of their beliefs were based on there being no other numbers. Then a smart guy showed that the square root of two was irrational. The first thing that they did was to take him out to sea and drown him.

You may not think we act like that now, but if you look into the treatment of Halton Arp then you will see that we are not so different today.
  #190 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 11:19 PM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
...
Earlier in this thread, you stated (twice in fact) that you will not be presenting anything quantitative in this regard.

Now you have repeated, with some variation, a comment on the knowledge and ability of quite a number of astrophysicists, concerning a theory which is at the heart of modern cosmology (GR).

Perhaps you could refer to one the standard textbooks on GR, and describe where material on "these [standing wave] solutions to e/m or GR equations" should appear?
...
I should make it clear that the quantitative remark refers to the energy content of the waves. I do make very clear and accurately stated predictions of the wavelengths of the waves.

My criticism is not of the knowledge or ability of astronomers. It is of the failure to consider standing waves as existing at various scales. Of course it is an easy oversight. However I think that the evidence of repetitive structure at large scales, which has lead to speculations of waves, should be enough to consider this now as a serious solution. But you tell me why they don't consider it?

Any textbook that deals with the range of solutions to e/m or GR equations should consider standing waves, because they are solutions.

A wise physicist once said something like...
"Whatever is not forbidden by the laws of physics is compulsory"
This is a little deeper than it first appears. It says that if the laws of physics allow something, then you should look about to see what thing you already know about is actually that very solution. Does that make sense?
  #191 (permalink)  
Old 28-August-2007, 11:26 PM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
Bumping this question.

Earlier, Ari Jokimaki pointed to part of the abstract of the Broadhurst et al. paper; here is the ADS entry, and the abstract in full (my bold):Note that it's "h" not "H0".

If you're unsure of the difference, why not start a thread in the Q&A section, and ask? Something like "What do "h" and "H0" represent, in papers on cosmology? Why do cosmologists use both, and not just H0?" perhaps?
I am sorry, but I cannot access the paper without paying. I think that you will find that it is actually h/ho. If it is not shown as such then they cannot have actually determined the value. As was pointed out, the measurement is a periodicity in z. That can only be converted to Mpc by an assumed h which I think you will find is 100 km/s/Mpc. If you disagree with this, perhaps you will explain how they got from km/s to Mpc. Or perhaps you will agree that I am right?

Note added later: I think from memory the paper uses the notation h, but it is defined as H/Ho where Ho is 100 km/s /Mpc. Or something very similar to that.

Last edited by rtomes; 29-August-2007 at 12:41 AM.. Reason: add note
  #192 (permalink)  
Old 29-August-2007, 06:37 AM
Ari Jokimaki Ari Jokimaki is offline
Established Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Finland
Posts: 1,345
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
This is a good question, and one of (potentially) wide general interest.

So I have started a thread in the Q&A section on it: (redshift) periodicies or quantisation - what's in a name?
Of course, my question didn't have anything to do with the difference between redshift "quantization" and "periodicities". I was addressing your comment about mainstream papers dealing with "large scale structure". What I actually asked was that: "Oh, it's the name of the phenomenon that is important?" That was followed by my take on the difference of terms "fluctuations of large scale structure" and "redshift quantization" when they both are derived from redshift observations. I don't know how that triggered you to start that thread which seems to be just another one of those discussions where we declare ATM concept false outside ATM-forum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
If there are no answers to basic questions concerning consistency of the reported results, how should claims concerning their being the same phenomenon be judged?
There's a slight difference in asking basic questions and asking someone to go through every study (as one can see from my lists, there are lot of them) in detail. I just won't go there, I rather take back my claims (if I made them) or answer "I don't know", and spend my time elsewhere. I saw your questions, and immediately I got flashback from earlier in this thread where you asked Ray to go through 600 quasars. What's next, show that each quasar in SDSS quasar catalogs show evidence of quantized redshifts?

I agree what Ray said about your examples. I'll just give an example situation that shows one possibility how all different periods could be connected. Let's assume that the cause of periodic redshift distribution is large scale structure (so that there is alternatingly voids and a "sheets" of galaxies), as those mainstream papers do. Let's imagine that we do two pencil beam surveys to two different directions. Other survey finds redshift distribution peaks at z = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5,... Other survey finds peaks at z = 0.2, 0.4, 0.6... This clearly means that both surveys found periodicity of z = 0.2. But if we put those two studies together, we have peaks at z = 0.1, 0.2, 0.3,... so we have a periodicity of z = 0.1. That's a simple and clear example, but if we don't do a pencil beam survey, but take our sample from larger areas in space, we probably would have those clear periods washed out and we might have left only weak mixture of theose stronger and longer periods, and we might just see it as periods of cz = 72 km/s for example. In this example it's same phenomenon, and both camps would have made correct observations too.

Also, if the periods are thought to present some sort of waves, then I think it's not surprising to find different periods, because I think it's rare to find processes in nature that would only produce one clean frequency (typically you have harmonics there as well). But you are of course free to assume that Tifft & Arp et al. only make false observations.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes
I think from memory the paper uses the notation h, but it is defined as H/Ho where Ho is 100 km/s /Mpc. Or something very similar to that.
The Morikawa paper I mentioned previously says in it's abstract:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morikawa (1990)
...recently observed periodicity in the redshift distribution of galaxies with a characteristic scale of 128h-1 Mpc (where h ~ 0.5-1 is the present Hubble parameter in units of 100 km s-1 Mpc-1).
That means their Ho was 50-100 Mpc, so you are at least partially correct.

(Note that while Morikawa paper seems to be a mainstream paper, it uses the term "periodicity".)
__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]
  #193 (permalink)  
Old 29-August-2007, 06:50 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default 4330 km/s periodicity

The following histogram is taken from the referenced paper and is compared to a regular periodicity of 4330 km/s as predicted by the Harmonics theory. The predicted peaks are all present although there is one additional unpredicted peak marked with an X. Note that this periodicity is close to exactly 1/3 of the so called 128 Mpc one.

  #194 (permalink)  
Old 29-August-2007, 09:09 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Just to further explain the 128 Mpc periodicity as being and inferred 12800 km/s which is really z=.0427.

In the article the stated measure is 128 h^-1 Mpc. Then h is stated to be 0.5 to 1 in units of 100 km/s/Mpc (i.e the Hubble constant is between 50 and 100 km/s/Mpc). So they are saying that if the Hubble constant is H, then the distance is 128 Mpc / (H / 100 km/s/Mpc) = 12800 km/s / H.

Of course the 12800 km/s is really an observed z=.0427 with an assumed big bang causing the redshift to be velocity.

In other words 128 h^-1 Mpc is a really stupidly confusing way of saying z=.0427, and the fact that Nereid cannot work it out is evidence that it is a daft notation.
  #195 (permalink)  
Old 29-August-2007, 09:53 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

In APJ SS 75:273-295 is an article "A New Survey of Quasar Clustering" 1991 Feb
http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...;filetype=.pdf

This survey uses three tests for clustering. One of these is the "the most widely used" Correlation Function. For pairs, this uses the distance between every pair of quasars in the sample to calculate a distance distribution. To get the distance between a pair the redshifts are taken to be a good measure of distance and the calculation is done in 3D on that basis.

This is all fine when when seeing if the distribution is compatible with big bang cosmology, and they show that the quasars are randomly distributed in that case. However this test is often quoted as not only supporting big bang cosmology but as proving that alternative ideas, such as Arp's, are wrong. Such a test cannot possibly do that, because to test Arp's ideas you cannot assume that redshift of quasars are a reliable distance indicator or you have already assumed that Arp is wrong.

This confirms for me that the bulk of reports (if not all of them) that say the periodicity are tested for and not found are not doing a test that allows the likes of Tifft and Arp to be right because they blur all the distances by the assumption that redshift measures distance. Please note that I am not overstating the case here because the words "the most widely used" are from this paper.

This does confirm the suspicion that I raised when I re-opened this topic. The paper gives a clear enough description of the correlation function to make that clear.

To Nereid: What this makes clear is that a large number of surveys that do not assume in advance that redshift is a reliable distance indicator find periodicity. Probably only surveys that make the assumption that redshift is a reliable distance indicator find no periodicity, and they can only achieve that by taking the distance between pairs of galaxies because otherwise the periodicity is not blurred out (i.e if we use only distance from us of the galaxies).

I am now pretty much convinced that these are reliable statements. I would like to hear of any evidence to the contrary.

Last edited by rtomes; 29-August-2007 at 07:42 PM.. Reason: typo
  #196 (permalink)  
Old 29-August-2007, 10:53 PM
Jim's Avatar
Jim Jim is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clear Lake City, TX
Posts: 4,485
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
... the fact that Nereid cannot work it out is evidence that it is a daft notation.
So, is this a slight against Nereid, or a slight compliment of Nereid?
__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov
  #197 (permalink)  
Old 30-August-2007, 01:10 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim View Post
So, is this a slight against Nereid, or a slight compliment of Nereid?
I think the latter. Certainly I do not mean to indicate that he is incapable. I am grateful for his efforts in looking at my proposals. It is primarily a criticism of the units used in astronomy, and in the case of the distance in Mpc/h a severe criticism. I would further note here that New Scientist also got this wrong when they quoted the peer review paper, leaving off the "/h".

Last edited by rtomes; 30-August-2007 at 05:23 AM.. Reason: typo
  #198 (permalink)  
Old 30-August-2007, 12:45 PM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

In the Narlikar and Arp model, new matter increases in mass or frequency as a result of speed of light contact with old matter in the vicinity. A natural consequence of this would be that the direction of the close by old matter would important in how it stimulates the new matter.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...379...19W
Title: Superclustering at high redshifts
Authors: West, Michael J.
Quote:
An argument is presented to the effect that the radio emission from distant quasars and radio galaxies is not randomly directed, but rather has preferred orientations with respect to surrounding large-scale structures. In particular, the radio major axes of high-redshift sources are found to exhibit a significant tendency to point in the direction of neighboring quasars and radio galaxies for separations of up to about 45/h Mpc (comoving). This alignment phenomenon is very similar to that seen at low redshifts between neighboring rich clusters and their brightest member galaxies, which suggests that what is being observed here is tentative evidence of the existence of a filamentary pattern of superclustering at redshifts of about 1 or more. It is concluded that if the alignment effect found here is confirmed with larger and more homogeneous samples, then the orientations of extragalactic radio sources may provide a very useful probe of large-scale structure at high redshifts.
This shows that for both quasars and galaxies this effect is observed of preferential orientation towards surrounding matter.
  #199 (permalink)  
Old 30-August-2007, 05:59 PM
mugaliens's Avatar
mugaliens mugaliens is online now
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Colorado Springs
Posts: 12,554
Default

When a bomb explodes, there's not a single outward shockwave. Rather, the shockwave goes out, comes back in to fill the vacuum, overpressures, rebounds outward, etc.

Thus, it's not just a single sinusoidal BANG, but more like a diminishing ring.

Your graph looks similar to that and I can't help but wonder if that's a coincidence, or whether it's evidence of an initial Big Bang.
__________________
If I set the budget, we'd have Ares and more. Unfortunately, I don't set the budget, and Ares is just too expensive and too far out for us to accomplish our goals within the budget we were given.

If we halt the ISS, all versions of Ares, and transport Orion and Altair aboard DIRECTv3's Jupiter family of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, we just might make it back to the Moon by 2020.
  #200 (permalink)  
Old 30-August-2007, 06:13 PM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,113
Default

Bubbles and voids and/or obscured objects and selection effects?

Expect these topics to be visited and revisited and revisited. The soft X-ray background knows no limits.
__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?
  #201 (permalink)  
Old 31-August-2007, 10:20 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mugaliens View Post
When a bomb explodes, there's not a single outward shockwave. Rather, the shockwave goes out, comes back in to fill the vacuum, overpressures, rebounds outward, etc.

Thus, it's not just a single sinusoidal BANG, but more like a diminishing ring.

Your graph looks similar to that and I can't help but wonder if that's a coincidence, or whether it's evidence of an initial Big Bang.
The large sweeping curve upwards and then down (in post #193) and fading out is a combination of two things. Firstly the number of objects grows as the square of distance - that explains the left hand part. Secondly, there is a selection effect, probably based on brightness that causes a rapid dropping off with distance - that explains the tail. So that broad sweep has to be disregarded when looking at the actual spacial density of objects.

Of course as regards the rest, I agree that they are ripples, but not caused by a bang, big or otherwise.
  #202 (permalink)  
Old 31-August-2007, 05:12 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
The following histogram is taken from the referenced paper and is compared to a regular periodicity of 4330 km/s as predicted by the Harmonics theory. The predicted peaks are all present although there is one additional unpredicted peak marked with an X. Note that this periodicity is close to exactly 1/3 of the so called 128 Mpc one.

FY (and every other reader of this post) I, the source is a paper by Riccardo Giovanelli and Martha P. Haynes, "Redshift Surveys of Galaxies". Here is a link to the ADS abstract.

Even a cursory read of the paper will reveal that rtomes has, shall we say, misunderstood the figure (see next post).
  #203 (permalink)  
Old 31-August-2007, 06:04 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default As Celestial Mechanic says "get thee to a library!"

As rtomes has discovered in the course of this thread, and as Ari Jokimaki already knew, the number of papers on the general topic - large-scale structure, (galaxy and quasar) redshift quantisation, redshift periods, redshift periodicities, etc - in enormous.

Wrt quasars, the rtomes ATM case ended pretty much here (post #91):
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
If you have done no, or very little, consistency checking, what status does anything you have posted, re quasars have (in a scientific sense)?

And I would like a straight answer please ... how much (cross-paper/source, quasar definition) consistency checking did you do?
NONE! I have repeatedly told you this. I have never used more than one sample at a time. I have depended on the analysis of others. I cannot see how I can make this any clearer. I shall ignore all future questions on this because I cannot see any point repeating myself any further.
Later parts of this thread have started heading down a similar path: selective quoting from selected papers, misunderstanding of basic terms, blindness to the need for consistency (let alone any independent effort to perform consistency checks), failure to recognise (much less consider) the effects of errors/uncertainty in the observations and analyses (even when these are clearly described in the papers from which the selective quote are taken), and so on.

Underlying this is, I think, a failure to appreciate just how dramatically extra-galactic astronomy has progressed in the last decade or two.

In particular, the impact of the two surveys 2dF and SDSS, combined with the many medium-deep and deep surveys, has been tremendous.

In an earlier post I (think I) gave a link to an SDSS PR, dated 27 October, 2003; it's worth repeating.

The title is "3D Map of Universe Bolsters Case for Dark Energy and Dark Matter", and it includes a popularised version of a P(k) chart (here, in hi-res form). The SDSS team paper that a key part of the P(k) chart is based on is "The 3D power spectrum of galaxies from the SDSS" (here is the arXiv abstract). It's worth copying the abstract:
Quote:
We measure the large-scale real-space power spectrum P(k) using a sample of 205,443 galaxies from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, covering 2417 square degrees with mean redshift z~0.1. We employ a matrix-based method using pseudo-Karhunen-Loeve eigenmodes, producing uncorrelated minimum-variance measurements in 22 k-bands of both the clustering power and its anisotropy due to redshift-space distortions, with narrow and well-behaved window functions in the range 0.02 h/Mpc < k < 0.3h/Mpc. We pay particular attention to modeling, quantifying and correcting for potential systematic errors, nonlinear redshift distortions and the artificial red-tilt caused by luminosity-dependent bias. Our final result is a measurement of the real-space matter power spectrum P(k) up to an unknown overall multiplicative bias factor. Our calculations suggest that this bias factor is independent of scale to better than a few percent for k<0.1h/Mpc, thereby making our results useful for precision measurements of cosmological parameters in conjunction with data from other experiments such as the WMAP satellite. As a simple characterization of the data, our measurements are well fit by a flat scale-invariant adiabatic cosmological model with h Omega_m =0.201+/- 0.017 and L* galaxy sigma_8=0.89 +/- 0.02 when fixing the baryon fraction Omega_b/Omega_m=0.17 and the Hubble parameter h=0.72; cosmological interpretation is given in a companion paper.
A much bigger team wrote the landmark paper "Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP" (ADS abstract link here; this paper has been cited by 879 others!), which presents, to the scientific community, the story behind what's in the SDSS PR.

So here's the general challenge to those BAUT members who wish to (continue to) present a case for revisiting "quantized redshift": at the very least, back up your claims with references to papers that do at least as good a job as the two above in terms of addressing selection effects, biases, consistency, and handling of errors and uncertainties. Make sure too that the observations on which your ATM claims are based are clearly cited, that you understand the limitations of those observations (selection effects, biases, consistency, etc), and are prepared to address relevant questions about them.

Re the Arp-Narlikar VMH, which I understand to be the theoretical basis of rtomes' ATM case: as quasars are no longer on the table, if rtomes (or any other BAUT member) is prepared to answer questions and challenges to this, please say so. Please note that if you do say you are so prepared, then all key aspects of the hypothesis will be open to question and challenge ... both consistency with all relevant observations as well as theoretical considerations.

Note that there are but few days left for this thread; given that, I would recommend focus.

Oh, and if you want to know more about P(k), pseudo-Karhunen-Loeve eigenmodes, redshift-space distortions, window functions, artificial red-tilt caused by luminosity-dependent bias, flat scale-invariant adiabatic cosmological models, ... and large-scale structure in general, why not avail yourself of BAUT's excellent Q&A section?
  #204 (permalink)  
Old 31-August-2007, 06:16 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
I think the latter. Certainly I do not mean to indicate that he is incapable. I am grateful for his efforts in looking at my proposals. It is primarily a criticism of the units used in astronomy, and in the case of the distance in Mpc/h a severe criticism. I would further note here that New Scientist also got this wrong when they quoted the peer review paper, leaving off the "/h".
If you don't understand why "h" is used, why not start a thread in BAUT's Q&A section? You might consider asking for a bit of history too, because I think you'll learn that any criticism you may feel you need to make may come back to bite you.

The soundbite version: the universe is not obliged to conform to anyone's (naive) expectations.

PS: you might also consider checking the etymology of "Nereid".
  #205 (permalink)  
Old 01-September-2007, 11:42 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

I do know why the h is used. It is used because units are used that are not properly known, when units that are known could have been used without confusion. What is directly determined is a periodicity in z. That is what should be quoted as it is the immediately relevant observed thing and all else is assumption and obfuscation.
  #206 (permalink)  
Old 01-September-2007, 11:45 AM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
FY (and every other reader of this post) I, the source is a paper by Riccardo Giovanelli and Martha P. Haynes, "Redshift Surveys of Galaxies". Here is a link to the ADS abstract.

Even a cursory read of the paper will reveal that rtomes has, shall we say, misunderstood the figure (see next post).
The graphic that I produced by colouring their graphic is not what the paper was about. All I was doing was showing that this graphic has a clear 4330 km/s periodicity, and that this is one of the strong harmonica that I predicted.

Perhaps you will explain in what way you think I misunderstood the figure?

It is a histogram showing frequency of occurrence of various redshifts.
  #207 (permalink)  
Old 01-September-2007, 12:01 PM
rtomes rtomes is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Posts: 737
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid View Post
As rtomes has discovered in the course of this thread, and as Ari Jokimaki already knew, the number of papers on the general topic - large-scale structure, (galaxy and quasar) redshift quantisation, redshift periods, redshift periodicities, etc - in enormous.

Wrt quasars, the rtomes ATM case ended pretty much here (post #91):Later parts of this thread have started heading down a similar path: selective quoting from selected papers, misunderstanding of basic terms, blindness to the need for consistency (let alone any independent effort to perform consistency checks), failure to recognise (much less consider) the effects of errors/uncertainty in the observations and analyses (even when these are clearly described in the papers from which the selective quote are taken), and so on.

Underlying this is, I think, a failure to appreciate just how dramatically extra-galactic astronomy has progressed in the last decade or two.

In particular, the impact of the two surveys 2dF and SDSS, combined with the many medium-deep and deep surveys, has been tremendous.

In an earlier post I (think I) gave a link to an SDSS PR, dated 27 October, 2003; it's worth repeating.

The title is "3D Map of Universe Bolsters Case for Dark Energy and Dark Matter", and it includes a popularised version of a P(k) chart (here, in hi-res form). The SDSS team paper that a key part of the P(k) chart is based on is "The 3D power spectrum of galaxies from the SDSS" (here is the arXiv abstract). It's worth copying the abstract:A much bigger team wrote the landmark paper "Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP" (ADS abstract link here; this paper has been cited by 879 others!), which presents, to the scientific community, the story behind what's in the SDSS PR.

So here's the general challenge to those BAUT members who wish to (continue to) present a case for revisiting "quantized redshift": at the very least, back up your claims with references to papers that do at least as good a job as the two above in terms of addressing selection effects, biases, consistency, and handling of errors and uncertainties. Make sure too that the observations on which your ATM claims are based are clearly cited, that you understand the limitations of those observations (selection effects, biases, consistency, etc), and are prepared to address relevant questions about them.

Re the Arp-Narlikar VMH, which I understand to be the theoretical basis of rtomes' ATM case: as quasars are no longer on the table, if rtomes (or any other BAUT member) is prepared to answer questions and challenges to this, please say so. Please note that if you do say you are so prepared, then all key aspects of the hypothesis will be open to question and challenge ... both consistency with all relevant observations as well as theoretical considerations.

Note that there are but few days left for this thread; given that, I would recommend focus.

Oh, and if you want to know more about P(k), pseudo-Karhunen-Loeve eigenmodes, redshift-space distortions, window functions, artificial red-tilt caused by luminosity-dependent bias, flat scale-invariant adiabatic cosmological models, ... and large-scale structure in general, why not avail yourself of BAUT's excellent Q&A section?
I abandoned the quasar discussion because your questions were pointless.

My selection of material included anything that I found that had periodicity measurements. Actually I have a number more that show the same periods of 72, 36, 24, 18 and 12 km/s. No new values other than ones already mentioned by Tifft. So I have not been selecting material that suits my case. You OTOH didn't bother to select material but made up some of your own periods. Is that supposed to be the moral high ground?

I am fully aware that observation of redshifts has made huge advances in the last decade or two. This is wonderful stuff.

However the analysis has not made the same advances. I have already pointed out several times, first with some hesitancy but lately quite directly, that the methods used in almost all analysis effectively removes any possibility of detecting periodicity as reported by Tifft. You have never answered these objections. I will state them again clearly and perhaps this time you will answer.

From the abstract of paper that you reference:
Quote:
We measure cosmological parameters using the three-dimensional power spectrum P(k) from over 200 000 galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) in combination with Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and other data.
This three dimensional power spectrum uses the difference between pairs of galaxies in 3D. To calculate the distance, the assumption is made that the distance is directly proportional to redshift. This is OK for checking big bang for errors, but cannot detect Tifft type periodicity which is present only in the redshift and not the other two dimensions. By combining these other dimensions the periods are totally washed out. To demonstrate this, consider two galaxies with a radial distance determined by redshift of r1 and r2, with the other two dimensions being x1, y1 and x2, y2. In Tifft's analysis there is periodicity in r1-r2 but the other measurements are irrelevant as long as they are nearby in the sky. In this analysis they use ((r1-r2)^2+(x1-x2)^2+(y1-y2)^2)^(1/2). Now take r1-r2 as the distance corresponding to 72 km/s redhsift distance and try plugging in values for the other variables and see how quickly that period gets destroyed.

The reason that no-one finds Tifft type periods in this data is very simple - no-one looks for it.
  #208 (permalink)  
Old 01-September-2007, 05:38 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default Tifft's so-called redshift periods

It seems the heart of the ATM idea being presented in this thread are the results published in papers by Tifft, concerning periods in the observed redshifts of galaxies.

Perhaps a thorough review of the observations Tifft used as inputs, the methods he (and co-authors) used in their analyses, and the theoretical assumptions etc they relied upon (explicitly or implicitly) would be the most appropriate place to start examining these ATM ideas?

From your collection of Tifft papers, could you please:

a) select what you consider to be a representative sample
b) note the tables (or references) listing the galaxies whose redshifts were observed (that were used as inputs)
c) note the methods used, by the relevant observers, to measure these redshifts
d) reference the stated uncertainties and errors in the listed redshifts

and, finally:
e) state as precisely as you can what redshift period(s) will be found in this set of observational data
f) what classes of analyses are appropriate to use, to derive statistically significant redshift periods from such observational data.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
IIRC, you have, earlier in this thread, stated that you yourself did not do any checking of any of the results presented in any of the Tifft papers (or any others). If you actually did any such checking, would you please state which checks you performed.
  #209 (permalink)  
Old 01-September-2007, 06:05 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Before a response, a restatement of the BAUT ATM rule seems to be in order, as there seems to be a misunderstanding of 'the rules of discussion' (shall we say) for this section.
Quote:
13. Alternative Concepts and Conspiracy Theories

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, or think UFOs are among us, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST {link}. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream {link} or Conspiracy Theory {link} threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

As with the other sections of the forum, we ask you to keep your topics about space and astronomy. We will close down any thread which doesn't have anything to do with space and astronomy immediately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
As rtomes has discovered in the course of this thread, and as Ari Jokimaki already knew, the number of papers on the general topic - large-scale structure, (galaxy and quasar) redshift quantisation, redshift periods, redshift periodicities, etc - in enormous.

Wrt quasars, the rtomes ATM case ended pretty much here (post #91):Later parts of this thread have started heading down a similar path: selective quoting from selected papers, misunderstanding of basic terms, blindness to the need for consistency (let alone any independent effort to perform consistency checks), failure to recognise (much less consider) the effects of errors/uncertainty in the observations and analyses (even when these are clearly described in the papers from which the selective quote are taken), and so on.

Underlying this is, I think, a failure to appreciate just how dramatically extra-galactic astronomy has progressed in the last decade or two.

In particular, the impact of the two surveys 2dF and SDSS, combined with the many medium-deep and deep surveys, has been tremendous.

In an earlier post I (think I) gave a link to an SDSS PR, dated 27 October, 2003; it's worth repeating.

The title is "3D Map of Universe Bolsters Case for Dark Energy and Dark Matter", and it includes a popularised version of a P(k) chart (here, in hi-res form). The SDSS team paper that a key part of the P(k) chart is based on is "The 3D power spectrum of galaxies from the SDSS" (here is the arXiv abstract). It's worth copying the abstract:A much bigger team wrote the landmark paper "Cosmological parameters from SDSS and WMAP" (ADS abstract link here; this paper has been cited by 879 others!), which presents, to the scientific community, the story behind what's in the SDSS PR.

So here's the general challenge to those BAUT members who wish to (continue to) present a case for revisiting "quantized redshift": at the very least, back up your claims with references to papers that do at least as good a job as the two above in terms of addressing selection effects, biases, consistency, and handling of errors and uncertainties. Make sure too that the observations on which your ATM claims are based are clearly cited, that you understand the limitations of those observations (selection effects, biases, consistency, etc), and are prepared to address relevant questions about them.

Re the Arp-Narlikar VMH, which I understand to be the theoretical basis of rtomes' ATM case: as quasars are no longer on the table, if rtomes (or any other BAUT member) is prepared to answer questions and challenges to this, please say so. Please note that if you do say you are so prepared, then all key aspects of the hypothesis will be open to question and challenge ... both consistency with all relevant observations as well as theoretical considerations.

Note that there are but few days left for this thread; given that, I would recommend focus.

Oh, and if you want to know more about P(k), pseudo-Karhunen-Loeve eigenmodes, redshift-space distortions, window functions, artificial red-tilt caused by luminosity-dependent bias, flat scale-invariant adiabatic cosmological models, ... and large-scale structure in general, why not avail yourself of BAUT's excellent Q&A section?
I abandoned the quasar discussion because your questions were pointless.
The questions were direct and pertinent to the ATM claims you presented, as you presented them.

It is entirely your choice which of the ATM claims you choose to present you later choose to abandon.
Quote:
My selection of material included anything that I found that had periodicity measurements.
I believe the name for this kind of (very fundamental) scientific error is "confirmation bias".

IOW, if you deliberately seek papers on the results you are looking for, you will (likely) find them.

An unbiased method would be to look for all relevant papers, whether they reported finding periodicities or not.

Of course, you may have actually done that; however, IIRC, you presented only those papers which support your claim, and none of those which do not.
Quote:
Actually I have a number more that show the same periods of 72, 36, 24, 18 and 12 km/s.
Which are they?

Please provide references that readers of this thread may be able to check for themselves.
Quote:
No new values other than ones already mentioned by Tifft. So I have not been selecting material that suits my case. You OTOH didn't bother to select material but made up some of your own periods. Is that supposed to be the moral high ground?
I think you are referring to post #185 and subsequent ones which referred to it; are you?

If so, then I shall gladly return to that part of my challenge to the ATM claims presented in this thread.
Quote:
I am fully aware that observation of redshifts has made huge advances in the last decade or two. This is wonderful stuff.

However the analysis has not made the same advances. I have already pointed out several times, first with some hesitancy but lately quite directly, that the methods used in almost all analysis effectively removes any possibility of detecting periodicity as reported by Tifft. You have never answered these objections. I will state them again clearly and perhaps this time you will answer.
My previous post addresses this directly ... I feel that unless and until we get to examine the way in which Tifft arrived at the conclusions stated in his papers, we will get nowhere.

For the record, I expect such a detailed examination will reveal some serious inconsistencies between your claims and what's actually in the relevant papers ... but we won't know until we actually roll up our sleeves and get stuck into the intricacies of extra-galactic observational astronomy.
Quote:
From the abstract of paper that you reference:
Quote:
We measure cosmological parameters using the three-dimensional power spectrum P(k) from over 200 000 galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS) in combination with Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) and other data.
This three dimensional power spectrum uses the difference between pairs of galaxies in 3D. To calculate the distance, the assumption is made that the distance is directly proportional to redshift.
The paper does make this assumption?

Hmm ... I think the preprint is available for free, from the arXiv server; perhaps you could look at it and tell us where, in the paper (not the abstract) this assumption is made?

For the record, I think you will find the authors spent quite a bit of effort dealing with how to relate observed redshift to distance ... it was not an assumption.
Quote:
This is OK for checking big bang for errors, but cannot detect Tifft type periodicity which is present only in the redshift and not the other two dimensions.
We've been over this before, and we'll go over it again, but the only analysis that will detect "Tifft type periodicity"* is one which uses the same (or similar) sets of (theoretical) assumptions ... concerning 'redshift states'.

That no one today uses 'Tifft theory' is not really surprising.
Quote:
By combining these other dimensions the periods are totally washed out. To demonstrate this, consider two galaxies with a radial distance determined by redshift of r1 and r2, with the other two dimensions being x1, y1 and x2, y2. In Tifft's analysis there is periodicity in r1-r2 but the other measurements are irrelevant as long as they are nearby in the sky. In this analysis they use ((r1-r2)^2+(x1-x2)^2+(y1-y2)^2)^(1/2). Now take r1-r2 as the distance corresponding to 72 km/s redhsift distance and try plugging in values for the other variables and see how quickly that period gets destroyed.

The reason that no-one finds Tifft type periods in this data is very simple - no-one looks for it.
That is, indeed, a statement I can fully agree with!

However, I think you yourself said you don't use Tifft methods ... at least one reason why is you don't agree with the theory that is an essential part of finding the periods.

Surely a better point to make would be that rtomes analyses of (relevant) redshift (observational) data show periods such as {list}?

But wait ... no results from any such analyses have been presented ....

*Not just one ~72 km/s one, but the full range (or a large subset of it).
  #210 (permalink)  
Old 01-September-2007, 10:16 PM
Nereid Nereid is offline
Order of Kilopi
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 10,940
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rtomes View Post
The graphic that I produced by colouring their graphic is not what the paper was about. All I was doing was showing that this graphic has a clear 4330 km/s periodicity, and that this is one of the strong harmonica that I predicted.

Perhaps you will explain in what way you think I misunderstood the figure?

It is a histogram showing frequency of occurrence of various redshifts.
Let's see now ... the 'clear 4330 km/s periodicity' you state you showed exists, per the chart in your post, only with respect to the green 'smooth curve'. Figure 1 in the Giovanelli and Haynes paper does not have this 'smooth curve' in it.

Given that, what (cosmological) theory did you use to derive this 'smooth curve'? Alternatively, what - in the Giovanelli and Haynes paper - leads you conclude that any arbitrary 'smooth curve' is consistent with the paper?

The reference in the text of the paper to Figure 1 is as follows (my bold):
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 [...]
Earlier in this thread, rtomes stated that the frame in which the redshift periodicities occur is the CMBR frame, not the heliocentric one*.

Other apparent inconsistencies include:
-> rtomes' redshift periodicities relate to the HT 'galaxy scale', which is ~0.9 Mpc and refers only to 'typical spiral galaxies' (see post #160 in the HT ATM thread). I rather doubt that the ~30,000 galaxies whose redshifts are incorporated in Figure 1 are overwhelmingly 'typical spiral galaxies'
-> no hint, by rtomes, on how the obvious clustering of the ~30k bright galaxies relates to the theory-based "4330 km/s periodicity"
-> no account, by rtomes, of how (HT) theoretical predictions should take account of "the inhomogeneity of the data base and of its incompleteness".

*In post #13, for example: "The large surveys done over the whole sky will not show these effects if they do not correct for our motion relative to the CMBR." (my bold)
Closed Thread


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Index to the Arp Thread antoniseb Against the Mainstream 16 18-April-2009 12:30 AM
New Policies Regarding Against the Mainstream section Fraser Forum Introductions and Feedback 232 27-March-2007 06:37 PM
Quantized Redshifts Astronomy Against the Mainstream 117 05-December-2006 11:13 PM
ColdCreation Cosmology: the Ultimate Theory Coldcreation Against the Mainstream 128 09-January-2006 11:27 AM
Redshift category terminology iantresman Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers 50 19-November-2005 05:21 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today