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 and My BLOG] [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 and My BLOG] [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 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.

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

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".

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.
This shows that for both quasars and galaxies this effect is observed of preferential orientation towards surrounding matter.

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.

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?

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.

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).

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?

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".

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.

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.

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:
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.

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.

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.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.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.Which are they?

Please provide references that readers of this thread may be able to check for themselves.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.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.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.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.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).

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):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)