Footnote to my previous post: the Giovanelli and Haynes paper cited by rtomes includes reference to two papers (as examples) that do not see to be included in any of rtomes' or Ari Jokimaki's lists. Here is the extract in which these two papers are mentioned:ETA: one of the papers which cites Sharp (1990) is one in 1994 by Newman et al ("Redshift data and statistical inference", The Astrophysical Journal, Part 1, vol. 431, no. 1, p. 147-155). This includes a discussion of the pitfalls of periodicity analysis based on frequency histograms (such as that which seems to have been used by rtomes, using Figure 1 of the the Giovanelli and Haynes paper).

I should correct my statement. A number of people have done Tifft type analysis. They have reported finding the same periodicities: 72, 36, 24, 18 and 12 km/s. We have already had at least 5 reports referenced by different authors that confirmed these results.

A correct statement would have been that all the people that do not find Tifft's periods as listed here have done an analysis that is a different method and that is guaranteed to destroy that periodicity. This is a very sad state of affairs, because this good work of Tifft's is being sidelined for totally invalid scientific reasons.

Would please clarify?

This part of your post seems to claim that:
* (at least) five papers, with no overlap in authors, each report finding redshift periods of "72, 36, 24, 18 and 12 km/s"
* all these (at least) five papers report finding at least these five periodicities
* the analysis reported in each of these (at least) five papers is "Tifft type analysis".

Is this what you are claiming?

Also, to what extent is Tifft's idea of 'redshift states' an essential part of any "Tifft type analysis"?
Who are "all the people that do not find Tifft's periods as listed here" (the ones who "have done an analysis that is a different method")? Specifically, please provide references to the papers all these people published (in relevant, peer-reviewed journals).

Please show that the methods used by all the people who did not find all these periods cannot, ever, find such periods.

I would say that Tifft's work is central to the published results for smaller scale periodicity. However other people's results confirm most of his findings, so they are not dependent on Tifft.
I will try to assemble a list of papers by Tifft and others. Some of these issues are dealt with in the papers, such as the fact that if redshifts are not sufficiently accurate then periodicities will be washed out. I doubt that I will address all thee issues, but I will assemble something that shows that multiple people who have followed similar procedures get similar results, and that those that follow a different procedure get a different result. I will also explain as clearly as I can why that is true.
It is not possible to check the calculations without the full data. I do not think that Tifft's analysis needs redoing, as multiple other people with different data sets got the same results. The only data that I have tried to obtain was the 128 Mpc/h data and I received no replies after trying to trace down the authors. I do regard this as unsatisfactory because I understood that peer review paper's data is supposed to be made publicly accessible. The reason why I want that data set id to see whether it has additional periodicities and to what extent they match with other harmonics. In particular, if the 11th and 22nd harmonics of the original period are present that would clinch the case for the 585 million year geological being the same wave. This will happen in time anyway as the Hubble constant converges on my value.

You repeatedly asked me my basis for quasar selection. I repeatedly told you that I have never selected quasars, never done analysis and never checked analysis. I regard this as poor form and a diversionary tactic from the real issues.

My claims are not made on the basis of my analysis but on the basis of other people's peer reviewed published analysis.

My original concern about both the galaxy and quasar analysis was that people use analysis that compares all pairs of galaxies by computing distances based on 3D positions after assuming that redshift measures distance accurately. This will destroy the type of periodicity that Tifft reports. I have confirmed that this is true of most (if not all) galaxy survey analysis that does not find periodicity. I still think that it may be true for quasars, but I have stopped looking at that because it is pointless when all you do is ask what my selection criterion for quasars is.

There are some genuine articles that do attempt to explain the quasar periodicity as due to selection effects based on brightness as affected by ho large the red shift is. They are valid concerns which need to be addressed. I have not tried to follow that up to see if others have addressed it.

Hi Nereid

You asked me why not use the two point correlation function in the HT thread. I have already mentioned that this function destroys the redshift periodicities because of its assumptions. Here is a paper that states much the same thing:

arXiv:astro-ph/9710207v1 1997 Oct 20, Regularity in the distribution of superclusters, Martin Kerscher
"Using a measure of clustering derived from the nearest neighbour distribution and the void probability function we are able to distinguish between regular and clustered structures. With an example we show that regularity is a property of a point set, which may be invisible in the two point correlation function. Applying this measure to a supercluster catalogue we conclude that there is some evidence for regular structures on large scales."

So I am not the only one coming to this conclusion.

Histograms are OK for looking at data, but statistical tests are best done other ways. It is true that bin size should be kept as large as practical when using histograms, of the order of 1/3 or 1/4 of the period. You can use 1/2 if you know the phase exactly, otherwise not.

One proper way to test significance of a period is by calculating the phase of each galaxy or whatever (it can be done with histogram peaks but is much better done with the individual data) on the basis of the period identified. You can then plot a point on a 2D plot using sin(phase) and cos(phase) as the two co-ordinates. Once this is done for all items you have a scatter diagram. The null hypothesis is that the points are scattered about the origin. If there is a significant difference then the null hypothesis is rejected. This is an excellent test not subject to any oddities of the analysis method. It is also very easy to implement in a spread sheet and the test period can be adjusted slightly and the maximum periodicity found. The best fit phase is then also given directly.

A similar technique is used in the cycles analysis by taking the phase and amplitude of each individual wave of a cycle and plotting it. Again, if the scatter is significantly different from the centre as mean then the null test is rejected and the cycle is significant. This is the standard test for cycle significance and is called Bartels Test. With discrete data it is better to use the data directly into the test without identifying peaks or histograms.

Of course if many periods are being tested then there is a much increased chance that some will be significant at p=.05 and so a stricter significance like .001 is advisable. The exact difference will depend on the range of data and the range of periods tested. However if a prestated period is tested for then a lower significance is acceptable. I have worked as a statistician and done a lot of work in cycles analysis and it is something I am en expert on, unlike defining quasar properties.

I have seen a few papers that give statistical arguments against periodicity and some the other way. Many of these are just hand waving exercises such as pointing out that if there are present random sized voids then false positive test for periodicity is more likely (this one is true, some others are rather weak). However proper testing allowing for this has been done on the 128 Mpc/h periodicity and it is still significant.

A number of the 72, 36 etc km/s periodicity paper authors are fully aware of the pitfalls of statistics and have taken all these things into account. I am still preparing a list of papers and conclusions and will post this in the near future.

Thank you for the clarification.

Indeed, it seems that I have quite misunderstood the ATM idea being presented in this thread, at least in respect of quasars.

For example, I now understand that the extent to which any particular paper published on the distribution quasar redshifts (including periods and quanta) is only relevant, in terms of the ATM claims being made, with respect to the specific quasars in the (input) dataset considered in the paper.

Specifically, the extent to which the selection of objects to include in the (input) dataset is representative of 'quasars' is out of scope for the ATM claims being made.

If that is so, it does indeed remove all questions and challenges concerning things such as consistency of definition of 'quasar', and consistency of selection criteria, from relevance.

However, if this is so, then doesn't it reduce the ATM claim to near-pointlessness? I mean, a result about a trivial number of trivial subsets of 'quasars' (however defined) cannot be generalised without assumptions (or assertions) about how representative those subsets are, can they?

Thank you for the earlier comments, it seems that this clears some obstacles. I am not concerned with definitions of what are quasars leaving that to experts, but I am concerned with the methodologies of analysis as I have some skills in that area. And I disagree about the pointlessness. I will address this shortly when I present a summary. But just for now:

1. People that look at small parts of the sky where the Solar System motion is common to all the redshifts, pretty consistently find periodicity in redshifts.

2. People that look at wider parts of the sky and reduce to either the galaxy centre frame or the CMBR frame find redshift periodicity over the whole sky. There have been less of these studies but several.

3. People who use functions that assume redshift equals distance and compute distances of all galaxy pairs in 3D generally do not find periodicity at small scales but often do at the larger scales.

Please do not ask me for references, these will come shortly. I had some problems with pdf download - windows is a crappy system - but now solved.

I think that these points are important. There is a tendency for people who disbelieve in the internal redshift (i.e believe the bulk of redshifts are cosmological) to use the 3rd method of analysis as it sweeps the problem under the carpet. However my whole objective in this thread is to highlight these above points. It shows that significant periodicity exists in redshifts at all scales and over the whole sky. This casts a very big shadow of the big bang because you cannot explain a whole sky periodicity in redshift as velocity without making us at a very special place and claiming that all galaxy groups motions are co-ordinated so as to look special to us.

Do you accept that if the above 3 points can be shown to be true that this analysis is correct? If not, can you please explain how the big bang can explain whole sky redshift periodicity?

I will, of course, wait for the summary, but for the life of me I cannot begin to understand how you can avoid dealing with the many different definitions of quasars ... if only because there is, shall we say, considerable variation between experts, across time.

So one of the most obvious questions to ask, about any paper you present on redshift periods in quasars, is "what lead you to conclude that the objects included in the study are a) consistently defined, and b) selected in a manner that permits an objective evaluation of the extent to which the selection criteria themselves could lead to the appearance of a redshift period?"

And that's just a start!I'm quite confused ... this post was, I thought, about quasars; in point 3 you introduce galaxies.

To what extent do these three statements refer to a) galaxies? b) quasars? c) some mixture of both? d) the ATM claim you are (will be) making is blind to the nature of the extra-galactic objects studied?So you've said at least once before ... yet I don't recall that you answered the challenge I raised to this assertion .... perhaps it will come when you present the list of papers, and analyses.

However, there is also the matter of 'confirmation bias' that I raised earlier ... if all you present are papers supporting 1, 2, and/or 3, surely you've only done half the job? I mean, suppose there is a single paper which powerfully and comprehensively shows all the approaches used by all the papers you cite are fatally flawed. If you didn't even reference that killer paper, what validity would your case have?

More generally, I don't think you have even the smallest piece of a viable alternative cosmology, in the sense of a self-consistent model (or set of theories) which are quantitatively consistent with even a significant subset of the relevant observational results. But perhaps that's something you'll present in future?As I indicated above, I don't even understand these three points, much less begin to know how you'd go about showing them to be "true" (whatever that means).

It may be a bit like your 'Tifft-Tomes chi-squared test question' - there are, potentially, far too many points of basic misunderstanding for the question to make any kind of (astronomy as a science) sense.

My mistake. The first two refer to galaxies/
You have overstated you case, but disregarding that, the main point to be taken from this thread us that no-one has viable cosmology. There are bits that fit this and bits that fit that. The first step in getting to a viable cosmology is to look at the established facts. Because of the confusion over redshift periodicity, which is actually well established, many cosmologists are working with only half the data. I think that redshift periodicties and HT each have something to contribute towards a viable theory.

Perhaps the points will be clearer now that you understand that the first point mainly apply to galaxies, and the second exclusively to galaxies. The key fact here is that in the first two only redshift is examined for periodicity whereas in the third distances derived from redshift combined with differences in position in the sky are combined to make a distance vector. I will prepare some diagrams to make it clear why this destroys the redshift periodicity found in 1 and 2.

With the clarification concerning the scope of 1, 2, and 3 being galaxies (not quasars), it is appropriate (I think) to ask:

Which of the following techniques can be used to obtain estimates of distance, independent of measured redshift (the Hubble relation), for galaxies (or clusters of galaxies)?

* Cepheids
* Type Ia supernovae
* Tully-Fisher relation
* Fundamental plane for elliptical galaxies
* Surface-brightness fluctuations
* Type II supernovae
* Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
* Time delay for gravitational lenses

As there are so few days left for this thread, you may wish to consider the extent to which distance can be, and has been, estimated using a technique other than the Hubble relation, for the galaxies whose redshifts are included in the papers you will be citing in your summary.

Here I make a summary of the case for periodicity by listing a selection of papers. This is by no means a comprehensive list nor in any sense a representative one, but it simply includes some papers that I have looked at that argue both for and against periodicity in redshifts. I discuss the methods used, the degree of checking with other samples and why there are differences of opinion about periodicity.

According to reference 16 "Correlation function is the most widely used in studies of large scale structure" and I see no reason to dispute this. It does seem that some large scale periods are found with this method, but at smaller scales the method will wash out the Tifft type periods when done in 3D. This claim will be fully addressed in a following post. I simply note that surveys that simply analyze redshift for periods generally find significant results. However when these other methods are used, particularly at smaller scales then periodicity may not be found. The conclusion is that the periods are there but that the assumption that redshift can be mixed with other dimensions to test for small scale periodicity is invalid as demonstrated by Tifft's results that have been consistently verified,

A. Small scale galaxy periodicity

This includes the 72 km/s quantization and related periods. Almost all of the periods found have been simple ratios to 72 km/s. Most of these have appeared multiple times in papers by different authors. The periods that I contend are real include 144, 72, 36, 24, 18, 12 km/s and perhaps additional smaller ones, but I will just concentrate on this list. It is clear from the papers (and is also expected by HT) that dwarf galaxies have smaller periods than larger galaxies. The periods relate to galaxy pairs, galaxy groups, and whole sky consistency in either the milky way centre frame or the CMBR frame or similar frames to these determined by Tifft. Others have checked for these frames and confirmed them. I have not found any paper that used Tifft's method and reported none of these periodicities.

1. APJ 221:756-775 1978 May 1, The absolute solar motion and the discrete redshift, W G Tifft.
Dwarf galaxies, after removing the solar motion, show 72 km/s periodicity and various multiples of 12 km/s including 36 km/s and 24 km/s. The determined values are 72.135 km/s and 12.0225 km/s. R Tomes notes HT predicts 72.153 and 12.0255 km/s. Many later papers get 72.45 km/s and fractions thereof.

2. APJ 268:56-59 1983 May 1, Redshift Quantization in compact groups of galaxies, W J Cocke and W G Tifft
Compact galaxy groups show a significant 72 km/s periodicity. With less significance 144, 90 and 36 km/s periods also found.

3. APJ 291:88-111 1985 Apr 1, Analysis of groups of galaxies with accurate redshifts, Halton Arp and Jack W Sulentic
Following Tifft's findings of differences withing groups tending to be multiples of 72 km/s, this paper examines that issue. It finds that the differences do indeed tend to be low multiples of 72 km/s. It also finds that the main galaxy in a group tends to have a lower redshift than its companions. This is an argument for internal redshifts. Arp made an error in his statistics, but the result is still true. R Tomes notes this is somewhat similar to the O and B type stars having an offset in redshift relative to other stars.

4. APJ 345:72-83 1989 Oct 1, Periodicities in Galaxy Redshifts, Martin R Croasdale
Using new data Croasdale tests for Tiffts periods of 72, 36 and 24 km/s. He uses Monte Carlo simulations to check on the statistical probabilities, so the paper is very solid statistically. He also checks for the difference between periods in z and in ln(1+z) and finds that the periods are present only in z. The sample is deeper than Tifft's and so this conclusion should over-ride Tifft's. He uses a whole sky frame and Tifft's bases of reduction to that frame based on our motion. The estimates of the errors in the measured values are 72.45+/-0.3, and 24.15+/-0.1 km/s. R Tomes notes that these error margins place Tifft's values at 1 s.d. from HT predictions. R Tomes further notes that the periodicty in z and not ln(1+z) also shows up in some other places and leads to the conclusion that this idea of Arp, Tifft and Tomes should be revised. It would appear that some aspect of development of the universe is over-riding this natural assumption.

5. 1991MNRAS 253 533-544, Evidence for Redshift Periodicity in nearby filed galaxies, B N G Guthrie amd W M Napier
Set out to check Tifft's findings. Find 37.2 km/s periodicity at p~10^-5 level. Whole sky periodicity with results in the galaxy frame.

6. APJ 385:32-48 1992 Jan 20, Velocity Differences in Binaary Galaxies I...., Stephen E Schneider and Edwin E Salpeter
Performing a check on Tifft's binary galaxies using new data, they found multiples of 72 km/s at low multiples only 0, 72, 144 km/s), then a smooth curve with no peaks at 216 km/s and beyond.

7. J Astrophys Astr 1997 18:415-433, Redshift quantization in the CMBR frame, W G Tifft
Tifft finds that by using the CMBR frame the periodicities are visible over the whole sky. In addition to the 72 km/s period he finds 36.6 km/s, 18.3 km/s, 10.67 km/s, 9.15 km/s, and some shorter periods.

8. J.Astrophys.Astr. 1997 18:455-463, Quantized Redshifts: A Status Report, W M Napier & B N G Guthrie
71.5 km/s in Virgo Cluster p<10^-4 and 37.5 km/s global p<10^-3 to galaxy frame, V=213 km/s 93 d, 2 d.

B. Large scale galaxy periodicity

The most commonly reported and discussed periodicity is 12,800 km/s (often referred to as 128/h Mpc or z=.043). Other related periods are found such as 4,300 km/s which is 1/3 of that figure. I have often found 4,300 and 8,600 km/s periodicities in galaxy samples, but this is unpublished analysis. The 12,800 km/s period in particular has been shown to produce a near cubic lattice of galaxy superclusters.

9. ARAA 1991 29:499-541, Redshift Survey of Galaxies, Riccardo Giovanelli and Martha P Haynes
Shows in Figure 1 the histogram distribution of a large number of galaxies in 500 km/s bins up to 30,000 km/s. My analysis of the histogram shows a clear 4,300 km/s periodicity.


10. arXiv:astro-ph/9710207v1 1997 Oct 20, Regularity in the distribution of superclusters, Martin Kerscher
"Using a measure of clustering derived from the nearest neighbour distribution and the void probability function we are able to distinguish between regular and clustered structures. With an example we show that regularity is a property of a point set, which may be invisible in the two point correlation function. Applying this measure to a supercluster catalogue we conclude that there is some evidence for regular structures on large scales."

11. 1992A&A 257 1M, Typical scales in the distribution of galaxies and clusters from the unnormalized pair counts., H J Mo, Z G Deng, X Y Xia, P Schiller, G Borner
Conclusions: At around 130, 60, 25, 16 Mpc/h significant periodicities found. They use a method that avoids some problems with previous methods in finding periods.

12. Nature 385, 112 - 113 (09 January 1997), The Universe as a lattice, Robert Kirshner
I cannot access this paper. The title is interesting. Perhaps this is related to the following one.

13. arXiv:astro-ph/9701018 1997 Jan 6, A 120 Mpc periodicity in the three dimensional distribution of galaxy superclusters, J. Einasto, M. Einasto, S. Gottl¨ober, V. M¨uller, V. Saar, A. A. Starobinsky, E. Tago, D. Tucker, H. Andernach, P. Frisch
Shows 3D lattice of 120 Mpc (+/-20) in galaxies in a near cubic lattice.


14. THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 519:441È455, 1999 July 10, STEPS TOWARD THE POWER SPECTRUM OF MATTER. I. THE MEAN SPECTRUM OF GALAXIES, J. EINASTO, M. EINASTO,E. TAGO, A. A. STAROBINSKY, F. ATRIO-BARANDELA, V. MU. LLER, A. KNEBE, P. FRISCH, R. CEN, H. ANDERNACH, AND D. TUCKER
"We calculate the mean power spectrum of all galaxies using published power spectra of galaxies and clusters of galaxies." ... "Their mean power spectrum has a spike at wavenumber k=0.05+/-0.01 h Mpc^-1, followed by an approximate power-law spectrum of index n~=1.9 toward small scales." R Tomes notes that the k=.05 translates to a ~126 Mpc/h period, and that the whole spectrum changes at this peak. In other words above that scale the power law changes dramatically.

C. Quasar, absorption systems etc

There have been reports of a z=.06 quasar peak and periodicity as well as a periodicity in delta ln(1+z)~1.23 and while there are multiple reports on this there are claims based on later samples that the periodicity is not present. This period is therefore uncertain.

15. APJ 359:L33-36, 1990 August 20, The Redshift peak at z=0.06, G Burbidge and A Hewitt.
Refers to past studies finding quasars at regular intervals of delta ln(1+z)=0.206 which I note is equivalent to ratios 1.229 in 1+z. The first peak is at z=0.06 and so the series goes: z=0.06, 0.30, 0.60, 0.96, 1.41, 1.96, 2.63, 3.45. The authors explain that emission line groupings have been shown to not explain the groupings. The average for all the 89 objects in the peak is z=0.0597 and the probability of so many values in one bin is 10^-11. They state that the possible components in a redshift are:
1+z = (1+zc)*(1+zr)*(1+zi) where xc=cosmological redshift, zr=random motion redshift and zi=internal redshift. This is a useful notation because in big bang zi=0 is assumed. The authors note that the Broadhurst find is equivalent to delta z=0.044.

16. APJ SS 75:273-295, A new survey for quasar clustering, Patrick S Osmer and Paul C Hewitt,
Correlation function is the most widely used in studies of large scale structure. They use this and state that no significant periods are found in the sample. However R Tomes notes that in fig 8B repeated peaks clearly occur at 175 Mpc intervals (they do not have a /h and do not specify a Hubble constant, so this is unclear in its meaning).


17. J.Astrophys.Astr. 1997 18, 441-447, Periodicity in the Redshift Distribution of Quasi Stellar Objects, Debiprosad Duari
Finds significant periodicity at delta z=.0565 and delta z=.0128 (less certain). Compares to HT .0577 and (?).

18. THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL SUPPLEMENT SERIES, 122:355-414, 1999 June, CLUSTERING PROPERTIES OF LOW-REDSHIFT QSO ABSORPTION SYSTEMS TOWARD THE GALACTIC POLES, DANIEL E. VANDEN BERK, JAMES T. LAUROESCH, CHRIS STOUGHTON, ALEXANDER S. SZALAY, DAVID C. KOO, ARLIN P. S. CROTTS, J. CHRIS BLADES, ADRIAN L. MELOTT, BRIAN J. BOYLE, THOMAS J. BROADHURST, AND DONALD G. YORK
The absorption systems do not show the 128 Mpc/h periodicity found in galaxies, but do show a peak in multiple different samples as 41.5 Mc/h. R Tomes notes that this period is 1/3 of the other and predicted by HT as 43.


19. MNRAS 2007 Mar 12 = arXiv/astro-ph0703277, The redshift distribution of absorption-line systems in QSO spectra, A. I. Ryabinkov, A. D. Kaminker ?, and D. A. Varshalovich
Shows regular absorption line systems at delta z=0.20 intervals for 18 intervals from z=0 to z=3.6, n=2003 with significance at sigma=4.5 s.d. They also discuss time intervals in the vicinity of 600 MY as relevant.

20. 2002IAUS 199 56M, The Luminosity Periodicity of Galaxies and Quasars in the Decametric Range, A P Miroshnichenko http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002IAUS..199...56M
Significant periodicity in z was found at 2.222, 1.124, 0.448, 0.224, 0.200, 0.192, 0.048, 0.0125. He notes that .048 is close to .043 of Broadhurst and .0125 is close to Duari, Gupta, Narlikar finding. R Tomes notes that these periods show many near or exact harmonic ratios.

21. A&A 242:1-12 1991, Against the delta ln(1+z) ~=.205 periodicity in quasar redshifts, D Scott
He examines the Arp, Burbidge etc argument that quasars show peaks at 1+z=1.06*1.227^n and finds no support for this with a larger database. Although he claims that the prior quasar claimed periods have no consistency, there is actually some.

continued from previous post...

D. Other related matters

The concept of internal redshift is that there is another component to redshift other than cosmological, velocity and gravity. This component is called internal because the galaxy is considered to have a different redshift to one at the same distance, of the same mass and with no relative velocity. The fact of 72 km/s periodicity in galaxy pairs actually means that there is no motion and an internal 72 km/s difference in redshift. Because the system can be looked at from any angle, any other explanation does not work unless we are at a very very special place in the universe.

Related matters to this are that O and B type stars have displaced mean redshifts by 10 km/s relative to other stars in the same structures. There is no reasonable explanation for this except that O and B type stars have an internal 10 km/s redshift.

Again, Burbidge and Arp have reported that the largest galaxy in a group has lower redshift than the average of the group, and very often the lowest of the group. Thois makes no sense except that there is an internal redshift component.

22. 1996IAUS 168 407B, Redshifts of unknown origin, G Burbidge
Addresses the various possible components of redshift: cosmological, velocity, gravitational, intrinsic
The K term referes to the fact that O and B type stars consistently show a 10 km/s or z=.00003 redshift which is an internal component. This is generally ignored in matters relating to cosmology, but shows that the understanding of the components of redshift is not complete and that an internal component is needed. This is confirmed in the Magellanic clouds.
The existence of tight galaxy groups with members having discrepant redshifts is addressed. The large majority of these (75%) cannot be explained as line of sight objects. The discrepancies are of the order of 3,000 to 20,000 km/s. R Tomes also notes that there is evidence of tight clumping within the discrepancies which further proves it is a real effect.
Burbidge has a table with 7 different evidences for internal redshifts including mentioning several of the periodicities found elsewhere.
He also explains that if there is an internal component of redshift then virial theorum over-estimates velocities and therefore mass, leading to missing mass problems.

23. The Astronomical Journal, 125:2865–2875, 2003 June, IS THE REDSHIFT CLUSTERING OF LONG-DURATION GAMMA-RAY BURSTS SIGNIFICANT?, J. S. Bloom http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003AJ....125.2865B
Out of 26 events, 8 occur at very similar redshifts. This indicates that similar events in entirely different parts of the sky are happening at very similar times. R Tomes notes that the harmonics theory expects such results as standing waves cause this synchronization over the whole universe. However only objects at common distances from us will have the signal arrive at the same time. It is natural to look for periodicity in this data. I have done so and will report this separately.

24. arXiv:gr-qc/980801 1998 Aug 4, Oscillating universes as eigensolutions of Cosmological Schr¨odinger equation, S. Capozziello, A. Feoli, and G. Lambiase
"We propose a cosmological model which could explain, in a very natural way, the apparently periodic structures of the universe, as revealed in a series of recent observations. Our point of view is to reduce the cosmological Friedman–Einstein dynamical system to a sort of Schr¨odinger equation whose bound eigensolutions are oscillating functions. Taking into account the cosmological expansion, the large scale periodic structure could be easily recovered considering the amplitudes and the correlation lengths of the galaxy clusters." R Tomes notes that though this is speculative it would give a basis for HT production of standing waves. There are various other ideas on forming waves.

25. APJ 379:19-36 1991 Sep 20, Superclustering at High Redshifts, Michael J West
Radio emmission from distant quasars and radio galaxies is not randomly directed, but has preferred orientation with the major axis towards neighbours at up to 45 Mpc/h. A similar effect occurs at smaller scales with galaxies and largest cluster members. R Tomes notes that these facts are consistent with the Arp Narlikar idea that communication at light speed is important between objects for determining their mass. Clearly a close massive object will play a greater part in the mass growth of these objects and this can be expected to reflect in the direction of the massive objects. This is all consistent with HT description of particles as standing waves of e/m in a non-linear field.

Hi Nereid

I just made a mistake and posted my list of references and comments to the harmonics theory thread by mistake. Could you please move it to this thread where it belongs?

I don't think that I have time to get into discussions on the distance ladder. My mention of this was simply that cycles and waves is a possible means to bypass it. There may be other means, but they may be far more big bang theory based for all I know.

Regards
Ray

In post #227 in the other ATM thread, you included a link to one of your webpages.

On that webpage, dated 26 May 2005, you state:It would seem that there is some inconsistency between what's on a webpage of yours, that you yourself put on the table, and the post of yours I have just quoted.

Would you please clarify?

To some extent the challenges and questions which follow are repeats of ones made earlier in this thread.

In particular, in #166, #175, #177, #185, #186, and #203.

Starting with #203: "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."

Rather odd, to me, is the inclusion of the three Tifft papers in this list (1, 2, and 7). After all, the only way one can reproduce Tifft's results is to include Tifft's 'redshift state' model. Further, there seems to be a particularly sharp inconsistency: the same ~"72 km/s periodicity" (and others) are claimed, by Tifft, in both galactocentric and CMB frames!

Paper 3 was introduced much earlier in this thread too, and post #177 contains a question on consistency (with Tifft) that remains un-answered. I will ask the question again. Please answer it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Please state the consistency between "redshift periodicity" published in papers by Tifft and by Arp.

In your reply, please be sure to include, at minimum, the following:

* the frame(s) within which the reported "redshift periodici[es]" exist

* the classes of objects for which each report such "redshift periodici[es]" (be as specific as possible)

* the number of objects for which each report "redshift periodici[es]"

* the stated estimates of uncertainties of the reported "redshift periodici[es]", both random and systematic.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Paper 4 was briefly discussed in #166 and #168. I think it's time to resume that ... starting with the sample size and selection criteria. Croasdale's sample is 157 and 144 (he uses two different cuts). Section III of that paper goes into some detail about the galaxies selected, and some of those go directly to the question of consistency between different papers listed above. For example, one/two sub-class of galaxies that Tifft used was not among the 144/157 Croasdale used ("narrow profile"/high-luminosity intermediate profile). Then there's the degeneracy in Croasdale's conclusions - one periodicity? or several? If several, is their significance independently determined, or jointly?

Paper 6 is interesting because it should be, per rtomes, the purest test ... yet the authors conclude that only one periodicity (~72 km/s) is significant, and explicitly rule out all the others Tifft had reported previously. Their sample size is 107 pairs of (isolated) galaxies.

Paper 5 can be ignored; paper 8 is by the same authors, more recent, and explicitly includes the findings in 5. Pace rtomes, paper 8 does report null findings; for example (p458) "No significant periodicity was found for the sample of 77 irregular galaxies."

Two quotes from my previous posts seem appropriate:

#185: "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?"

#186: "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."

While the list quoted at the head of this post begins to address some of the consistency questions, it clearly only barely scratches the surface. In particular, even for the ~72 km/s value, paper 8 reports a null finding!

Perhaps it is thus apt to close with two comments.

First, that there are, today, vastly more high-quality galaxy redshifts, freely available. Further, these observations are from a variety of telescopes, programs; in different wavebands; and so on. Surely it makes more sense to do a rigourous test of the 'redshift quantization', using selection criteria and analysis techniques very clearly stated beforehand (maybe even a double blind test?), using more modern data than to engage in archeology in astronomy papers?

Second, E. E. Salpeter, co-author of paper 6, in 2005 published the following paper: "Fallacies in astronomy and medicine". The abstract reads, in part:OK, not quite the end; here's a question for rtomes: for what set of observational techniques (including waveband), classes of galaxies observed, frames, and statistical significance do all 8 papers above report a consistent result?

More specifically, for the ~72 km/s redshift period, which classes of galaxies, observational techniques, and frames are common to all 8 papers (where a statistically significant result is reported)?

Reference(s) please.

[ETA: not to worry, it seems to be paper 22.]

All these papers were published before the 2dF (both 2dFGRS and 2QZ) and SDSS surveys released even their first sets of data.

In light of this, and the complementary and extensive nature of these two surveys, I have but one question for you, rtomes, with regard to the observations: to what extent is any of this material inconsistent with 2dF and/or SDSS results?

Wrt inconsistencies with mainstream extra-galactic work, on large-scale structure, which - if any - of these papers is inconsistent with LCDM models and simulations, such as the Millennium simulation?

Wrt the rtomes chart produced from ref 9:
* per your earlier posts, the HT prediction is wrt the CMB frame. Did you transform the ~30,000 data points in Figure 1 from the heliocentric to the CMB frame, before you presented it?
* what cosmological theory did you use to derive the 'smooth curve'?
* how did you address the authors' statement concerning "the inhomogeneity of the data base and of its incompleteness"?

This collection is somewhat similar to the B (above), except that it includes at least two papers published after the relevant survey data started to become available, and also because of the Hubble Quasar Absorption Line (QAL) Key Project (paper 16 seems to have been published in 1991).

With the exception of 19 and 20 (which I have not read), the papers here either work with far smaller, and inhomogeneous, datasets than those from 2dF, SDSS, and QAL, or present results consistent with LCDM cosmological models.

So, same question: wrt inconsistencies with mainstream extra-galactic work, on large-scale structure, which - if any - of these papers is inconsistent with LCDM models?

While the dataset seems somewhat limited, in light of what is available from more controlled surveys, the authors' conclusions would seem to be strongly inconsistent with the rtomes ATM idea, as outlined in more detail in the other ATM thread.

For example, on p22: "Thus we have found no traces of consistency between our results and the hypotheses of non-cosmological “intrinsic” redshifts of QSOs.", and (p25) "Let us note that our treatment of the results obtained does not contradict to the existence of the Large Scale Structure (LSS) of the matter distribution in the Universe [...]"

What it is that they have found, if indeed it holds up when examined further, may well be quite interesting ... but it is 'redshift quantization' only in a very loose way ...

Thank You! (for moving the pages).

Yes, this needs clarification.

The tight relationship between various other measures and redshift of galaxies shows that redshift is strongly correlated with distance for galaxies, but there is room for wiggle at the scale of intergalactic distances. If the Arp-Narlikar idea of particles changing in mass is correct and the redshift periodicities are interpreted as redshift steps in time rather than steps in distance then the results are:

1. The distances of galaxies are measured correctly by redshift at above the scale of say 100 km/s in the bulk of cases. There are still a few discrepant redshifts as found in the odd member of small galaxy groups and proven statistically to not be merely line of sight objects. This is an interesting topic for further study.

2. The periodicities such as 72 km/s are not actually measuring quantized distances but jumps in time, so as we change our direction of observation (by imaginarily whizzing around the universe) the difference in redshift between a pair of galaxies will not change continuously as a trig function of the angle, but will suddenly take steps of 72 km/s (or others) as we cross through the traveling wave fronts of these jumps in time.

3. This incidentally explains why the two point correlation function destroys redshifts because it pollutes steps in time with calculations involving spacial dimensions and trig functions (effectively). More on this later.

4. Because the time taken for light to come here is proportional to the distance to that galaxy the redshift will measure the distance accurately apart from a single error of the order of 72 km/s.

5. If Arp is right about quasars then a much larger proportion of their redshifts is not cosmological. This explains the huge scatter in their redshifts plotted against brightness.

Although the publication date is 2002, the paper is actually a 1999 conference presentation ... and thus is, yet again, based on a much smaller sample than is available today from more recent radio surveys.

I think that it is worth stating clearly that the large scale structure such as the 12800 km/s (z=.043 or 128/h Mpc) periodicity is clearly visible in 3D as in the lattices shown and we should treat it as real distribution of matter as affected by waves. This applies also to other related waves such as 4300 km/s.

But the smaller scale periodicities in the vicinity of 72 km/s are not detected by 3D studies only by redshift variations. Therefore, although there may be distance periodicities associated with them, they are not organized as a lattice and the long scale redshift co-ordination found by Tifft and confirmed by others should be taken as an argument for redshift steps in time as described by Arp-Narlikar or some other basic physics property that we do not fully understand yet.

Indeed it almost seems that the galaxies actually have to be not moving at all and these are really internal variations in frequency. The idea that galaxies are not moving is very counter to what we might expect but would account for these observations. There are other possibilities that involve the fading in and out of galaxies over various time periods while they move as suggested by the cymatics experiments on my web site. Again, that galaxies might brighten and fade on some long cycle is not one that has been widely considered AFAIK. My main purpose in this thread is to have people see that there is overwhelming evidence for redshift periodicity at the 72 km/s scale and to get people to open up their minds to the difficult task of reconciling this fact with our normal view of things so that a new way of seeing things emerges. As people in QM knew almost a century ago, you sometimes have to embrace the apparently crazy to achieve understanding at a deeper level.

I did a Kotov type analysis on the redshift data for these 26 events. Unfortunately this does not allow total freedom for the phase of the cycle assuming that 0 is the base of the cycle. To somewhat avoid this problem I used (1+z) rather than z. There are a number of periodicities, of which delta z = 0.13108 (39,300 km/s) is the strongest. Most of the events fit this period, and of those that do not, several are values that clearly have less accuracy being quoted to only 2 decimal places. This prohibits a good fit.

The total deviations from integers is expected to be 26*0.25 = 6.5 with +/- s.d. about 0.15*26^0.5 = 0.76. This means that the observed 3.775 sum is about 3.58 s.d from the mean.

This is probably not the optimum period because it constrains (1+z)=0 to being the base point. However this is how the period looks next to the determined redshifts.

I simply point out that it is conceivable that both of these statements are correct. Tifft originally found a series of locations for a frame in which all sky periodicity is seen. He choose one near the galaxy frame (bearing in mind that at the time this was not known that accurately). Later he chose one near the CMBR. From my cymatics studies I can confirm that although such things are a bit counter intuitive, they can be true.
Not sure that I understand this. Both have studied redshifts in galxy pairs and small groups. AFAIK Arp has not looked at whole sky systems or frames that achieve this.
When a tight group is studied then there is no need to look at the frame used as all the objects are similarly affected by our motion. Many more surveys have been done with such samples and report 72 km/s periodicity. Only when whole sky studies have been done is a frame needed. Tifft has done much work on this and I already mention in the list part A which other studies repeated this type of work.
I have done this already in section A. Most studies simply say "galaxies". Tifft does mention "dwarf galaxies" as noted, and this study does show smaller harmonically realted periodicity, consistent with HT expectations.
Most of the samples are not large, but this simply means that greater consistency is required to achieve significance. A level of significance of .001 is equally valid in a sample of 200 as in a sample of 20,000. But of course bigger samples are better because there is the possibility of getting .000001 significance.

In most cases no stated errors are given for the periodicities. Tifft states that 72.135 km/s has an accuracy of close to .01 km/s but later changed the value to 72.45 km/s which may have made him wary of quoting error margins after that. Croasdale does examine this issue thoroughly and concludes that the 72.45 km/s value of Tifft has an accuracy of about 0.15 km/s. That places it 1 s.d from HT prediction of 72.153 km/s. I think that the Croasdale is a model one for statistical treatment (and this is an area that I have some expertise). He uses Monte Carlo methods to establish just how likely apparent periodicities are to appear in samples. He considers carefully the use of degrees of freedom and whenever he can uses parameters derived from past studies (such as Tifft's frame) in testing new frames. He further considers that with better data the frame may need to move a little.
He quotes separate significance for the 36 and 72 km/s periods. However he also looked at the interrelationship between the periods. For example, when a 12 km/s period can be found with a 72 km/s one then it can help to get a tight fix on the 72 km/s one.
Yes, there are variations in the findings, although the 72 km/s is nearly always found. The individual differences may be due to several reasons, and I can only mention on some of them. Tifft has shown, and I agree with this, that the accuracy of redshifts is very important because an uncertainty of 25% of the period will cause the peaks to be washed out. That means that with an accuracy of say 10 km/s you can detect the 72 km/s period but not the 36 km/s and smaller ones. One of the papers (Arp?) has a look at this issue by comparing several surveys measurements of the redshifts of the same galaxies and finds that accuracy is getting to around 3 to 9 km/s. This means that the 12 km/s period is very often going to be not found even if it is real.
Are these smaller galaxies? If so, then I would expect the periodicity to be a smaller cycle (like 12 km/s or 6 km/s) and the data may not be accurate enough to detect this. Tifft is clear about the need to work with different classes of objects separately. I would concur with this from a theoretical point of view in HT. If the data had unlimited accuracy this would not be a problem. Smaller irregular galaxies in the local group do seem to show a spacing of ~180,000 LY or 50-60 kpc (or multiples) from larger galaxies and each other. I have not seen an analysis of this published, but have observed this of the data. This observation is partly derived from a variety of sources. There will not be time to find all the references but want to raise this as something to watch for because such a common spacing is useful in the cosmic distance ladder.
By the consistency of the periods found. The 72 km/s period is found in a faviety of ways and is pretty solidly supported by many studies. The 36, 24, 18, 12 and 144 km/s periods have been found varying numbers of times each but look to be real enough even if not able to be found every time.
I have not seen any paper that uses Tifft's method (of a rest frame) and does not find at least one of the periodicities. I cannot remember any study of small groups of galaxies (or pairs of similar) that uses redshift only (not correlation functions in 3D) that does not find at least one of the periods mentioned, and nearly always the 72 km/s period. Certainly if there are such papers they are few and far between compared to those that do find the periods/
I totally agree that the newer data is a great resource for this. One of the questions that I asked was how to download some of this data without getting gigabytes. I did succeed in getting some, and doing some analysis of smallish samples. Looking at the redshift differences between galaxies in one part of the sky, it does show peaks at 72, 144 and 216 km/s (and some other places). Having established this, I think that I can go on to get further samples from various directions over the sky and look really hard at the issue of frames in which the various periodicities are universally present. I also want to look at different categories of galaxies to do this, such as dwarf galaxies. Obviously this needs redshifts accurate to around 1 km/s to get the best results, and a smaller sample is more acceptable than less accurate data. I need to learn more about galaxy classification so that I select samples sensibly. However I expect to be able to get results that are not p<.05 or p<.01 but more like p<.000001 which I think are more likely to make people have a hard look. If periodicity is real then with more data such significance must be achievable.
Unfortunately I cannot access this without paying. However I can read the abstract and agree with it. As a lone researcher this is a potential problem and for a group it is still true. That is why p<.000001 results are so useful because if you get a string of them they show that you are either on to something or doing millions of studies.
As mentioned, most papers just state "galaxies". However there may be selection of types happening for a variety of reasons. I would think that good redshift measures are easier for brighter objects. Therefore larger / brighter galaxies are more likely to dominate at the limits of surveys while dimmer / smaller ones may dominate at the closer range of a sample.

I agree that this is an important point, and Tifft certainly seems to be on to it in his later papers even if everyone else is not.

I just note that a couple of redshift periods are produced in just one paper and then not found again. These probably are really just chance statistics as in a hundred papers we would expect 1 to 5 false positives at the .01 to .05 level. This sort of thing is certainly true in cycles research, and that is why the method that Dewy uses of collecting many periods and looking for common ones is a good idea. When they also have a common phase in seemingly unrelated things then you know that it is a real phenomenon. I would really like to see more scientists take a wider interest in cycles because the interdisciplinary connections are so great. From the 1930s there were a series of interdisciplinary cycles conferences which continued when Dewey and others formed the FSC in 1941, but following Dewey's death in the late 1970s this sort of thing died out. But even cycles study has cycles in it and it seems there might be a resurgence coming.

Geology has recognized the relevance of long astronomical cycles such as the 410,000 year orbital change cycle (Milankovitch cycle) in affecting climate. If astronomy also recognized the geological cycles as related to the large scale structure periodicities then it would work well the other way also in getting an accurate fix on large scale periods. This in turn would allow very precise measures of the rate of evolution of the universe over cosmological time.

The bin size is 1000 km/s, so it would be very little affected by a 380 km/s change as approximately equal number would move each way between bins. The rule of thumb that Tifft came up with is that accuracy is needed to at least 1/4 of the cycle for it to be visible. Because 380 km/s is less than 10% of a 4300 km/s cycle, it is not a problem.

This simulation is very impressive. I favour simulations over logical arguments wherever possible for this type of problem.

In figure 6 of the pdf file it shows the various frequencies in the expected distance scales. By inverting the k values at which there are peaks in the graphs you get Mpc/h values of 60, (30), 14, 7 and a few more smaller wobbles. Clearly these do show a tendency to be a series at ratios 2. The 30 Mpc peak is not as pronounced as the others. The graph stops at 100 Mpc so we do not know if there is a peak at 120 Mpc which would match the Broadhurst one. One of the papers that I quoted did find 60 Mpc and some others.

I regard this as very encouraging. Here is evidence that non-linearity leads to period doublings in simulations. Note that gravity (as distinct from GR as a wave model) is very highly non-linear, being an inverse square law.

My intuition tells me that quite subtle changes could make this sort of simulation produce harmonics theory type patterns on down to 72 km/s periodicity and beyond.