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.

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] [Nimblebrain forums]

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.

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.

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.

(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.

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.
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.
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?

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.]

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?

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.

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.
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?
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?
Well this is just as mischievous, but I will ignore it.
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?
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.
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.
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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

The Morikawa paper I mentioned previously says in it's abstract:

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] [Nimblebrain forums]

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.

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.

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