(my bold)

Here's what Giovanelli & Haynes say, on p3 of their paper: "Figure 1 displays a heliocentric radial velocity histogram, in 500 km s^-1 bins, [...]".

Hmm, I seem to remember having quoted this before ... ah yes, in post #210 in this very thread.

So, it would seem then that the answer to my first question ("Did you transform the ~30,000 data points in Figure 1 from the heliocentric to the CMB frame, before you presented it?") is a resounding no. An especially interesting oversight, I might add, given the obvious anisotropic distribution of the galaxies in relevant bins (per the paper's various Figure 2's).

Please show, with an appropriate degree of rigour, and references to relevant published papers, that Tifft's rule of thumb has statistical validity, when applied to astronomical datasets such as that in Figure 1.

Please show, with specific reference to the highly anisotropic distribution of the objects within the relevant (redshift 500 km s^-1) bins, that, a priori, the bin size, for this particular Figure, is irrelevant.

Would you also please answer the two other questions?

In case I have not made this clear enough already, I do think that the situation with regard to quasar periodicity is less certain. I am not sure that periodicity in ln(1+z) is the correct way to go nor that the peaks at 1.23 ratios are real. There is room to study this more.

I think that galaxy studies can show periodicity at small scales as a temporal periodicity is of fundamental importance and I want to work on that. If 72 km/s exists over the whole sky at p<.000001 in large data sets then that ought to be a wake up call to astronomers. It will prove the presence of non-cosmological redshifts and lead to new physics.

When it comes to quasars, and a lesser extent galaxies, the presence of substantial larger internal redshifts by showing excessive number of associations in the sky of objects with large redshift differences is a possible route. The big surveys are a chance to do that clearly.

If there are steps in redshift as Arp claims, then taking (1+zq)/(1+zg) equals (1+zi) should show this. Where zq= quasar redshift and zg=galaxy redshift of very closely associated objects, and zi= imputed internal redshift of quasar. A histogram of zi should be fascinating. I can do the statistics of such analysis if I have help on selection criterion. The data volume is a problem though - do they sell this data in 100 DVD sets?

Sorry, I think I need to get away from the computer for a while.

The conclusion stands though, as the 380 km/s maximum error is still less than 10% of the 4300 km/s cycle.
Yes, quite right I did not transform the data which I do not have. I simply annotated the graphic.

If you start from a distribution in a histogram that has a single peak 500 km/s wide in a 4300 km/s cycle, and you then introduce an error of 0 to +/-380 km/s in all data, we may say that the average error is of the order of 200 km/s with half plus and half minus. This will cause about 20% of the contents of each bin to be moved one bin to the left and 20% to move 1 bin to the right and the other 60% to stay in the same bin. If you repeat this for all bins, then the effect is to reduce the single highest bins surrounded by two lower bins by 40% of the difference between the high one and the others. If there are two high bins then they will be reduced by 20% relative to the two adjacent ones. This will slightly reduce the amplitude of the cycle but not the location of the peaks. Remember that we are looking at the result after that amplitude reduction, so the CMBR frame data would likely have stronger peaks by about 20%.

(my bold)

Indeed, and that may be an appropriate assumption ... if the galaxies in the relevant redshift bin(s) were distributed across the sky isotropically.

However, as even a cursory glance at the various Figure 2's will show, much less a skim of the associated text, they are not.

(my bold)

If you have been reading Arp's papers over the years, on quasars, and taking careful note of the areal density of these objects - as stated in his papers - you will have noticed a curious thing ... while the universe has not (so it seems) changed, that density has increased ... dramatically.

If you had read Arp's quasar papers with a, shall we say, healthy dose of scepticism, you might have concluded that "selection criteri[a]" may be the hardest part of your task; it is certainly true that unfounded assumptions on Arp's (and Burbidge's, and ...) part have made some of their older papers textbook examples of how not to do astronomy.

What is the rtomes ATM view of the nature of quasars?

In particular, how many of the 'obscured AGNs' in the Chandra Bootes field 'quasars', according to rtomes' definition?

I think that bias is to be found in all quarters.

I am open minded about the nature of quasars and wish to do a study with correct selection methods from a comprehensive survey to find out whether or not Arp is right that quasars are ejected from galaxies. This is an important issue because its makes clear whether redshifts really are able to be non-cosmological.

I must admit to tending to think that Arp may be right. Why? Simply because his analysis lead Narlikar and him to ideas about variable mass and the light speed contact with other matter that accord with my own views that I arrived at from an entirely different path (HT and WSM). Such convergence is an indication of an underlying truth. However I admit that there is some contrary evidence, so further study should sort out under which circumstances each aspect manifest.

I can see that you like exact and clear cut results. To me it is quite clear that a correction of maximum 380 km/s will not affect the 4300 km/s cycle in any material way. Especially when we note that we will be making the data more accurate so we understand that the truth has a stronger cycle.

Tifft did actual tests with various errors added to quantized data to get his rule. What I know as a statistician is that adding noise to a signal may lose the signal, but that adding noise to noise will not make a signal. That appears to be your claim. Can you back that up? (Really don't bother - just accept that this data does show a 4300 km/s period).

A further note re your comment on Tifft's change in reference frame. Suppose that there is a reference frame in which there is a strong 72 km/s periodicity over the whole sky that is all in phase. Now take another frame which is moving relative to that frame by exactly 72 km/s.

The galaxies straight ahead and behind and within say 20 degrees of that are affected by 72 km/s or very close to it as cos(20)=.94 so the average effect will be about .03*72 km/s = 2 km/s displacement and the binning method will not pick this up. That is about 2500 square degrees of sky. Galaxies at right angles to the direction of motion will not have any effect on their redshifts. Now consider the zone withing 10 degrees of that and the average errors is about 8% or 5.5 km/s. Again most binning will not pick that up. That is 7200 square degrees of sky. The remaining sky will have essentially random changes in the redshift. I can see that such a frame will reduce the effect, but a local maximum result may be obtained near 72 km/s multiples from the true and correct frame.

Added to this, things like our galaxy rotation shows a 3*72 km/s = 216 rotation rate. It would be interesting to look at a histogram of the typical flat parts of galaxy rotation rates in km/s and see if the 72 km/s period is there.

If you make an ATM claim, you should expect that the claim will be questioned and challenged.Another BAUT member may say something like "To me it is quite clear that a correction of maximum 380 km/s will affect the 4300 km/s cycle in a material way, especialy given the highly anisotropic distribution of the galaxies.".

rtomes, this is a science-based forum, and this is the ATM section.

You have already said you did not transform the ~30k redshifts to a CMB frame.

You have provided a general account of why you think such a transform would not change the result much, under the assumption the objects are distributed isotropically (or nearly so). They are not so distributed.

Please provide a quantitative account to support your assertion.I don't understand this - could you clarify please?There are three other questions on your ATM claim, as presented; please answer them.

Here they are again:

* Please show, with an appropriate degree of rigour, and references to relevant published papers, that Tifft's rule of thumb has statistical validity, when applied to astronomical datasets such as that in Figure 1.

* 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"?

Just one quick set of questions.What is the size of the dataset (number of independent galaxy redshifts) used in paper 1? How many of the galaxies in the dataset used in paper 1 are dwarf galaxies?

Ditto, paper 2?

Ditto, paper 3?

Ditto, paper 4?

Ditto, paper 6?

Ditto, paper 7?

More generally, what is the composition of the datasets, in each paper, by type of galaxy?

"[F]rom a theoretical point of view in HT", how many classes of galaxy are there? What are they? How are they distinguished from one another?

Selection effects for GRBs, of both classes, are still quite poorly understood - for example Fiore et al, "Selection effects shaping the gamma ray burst redshift distributions", 2007.

How do you intend to address selection effects in your analysis?

Surfing gr-qc can be exhilarating, exhausting, frustrating, ... hundreds, even thousands of new ideas, fleshed out in a form worthy of publication!

Unless and until a firm "basis for HT production of standing waves" is developed - involving internal consistency, consistency with GR and QM (in the relevant domains) - and fleshed out so that at least OOM estimates of phenomenology can be made, how could any of these ideas be tested?

Of course these are just ideas. What I find encouraging is that there is a recognition that the production of waves is needed in cosmology and people are looking for answers.
I have given a firm basis of the production of HT waves within GR and since there was no criticism of this I thought that meant that you accepted it. Here it is from post #201:

Selection effects might make some ranges of redshifts more easy to observe than others. But there is no way that they will cause the observation of z=0.8349, 0.8424, 0.8463 and then blot out everything between there and 0.9578 and 0.9662 and so on. This is a red herring argument. Even more, selection effects will not cause the appearance of a delta z=.131 periodicity in most of the events. The events are clearly not random to anyone who is not already comitted to an irrationally held belief, whether or not there are selection events. If you dispute that, then make a selection model that can produce similarly clumped observations and I will show you where you built a periodicity into your model.

You are well aware that HT does not classify galaxies. I leave that to astronomers as I leave deciding what are quasars. Your continued harping on these things does you no credit. I will explain once more.

Harmonics theory predicts the distance scales at which similar structures will be formed in the universe. It predicts the period of common cycles and these are related to the distance scales through the fact that both result from the same waves. More energetic/massive objects can be expected to form on the larger scale harmonics. and to a lesser extent on the harmonics predicted to be stronger ones.

HT does not (at this time) predict the appearance of the particular objects. It does not make classification schemes. However it is expected that where astronomers have managed to agree sensible classification schemes then there will be a correlation between the classifications and the particular period harmonics that the objects fall on.

The following is an example of a possibility, not a prediction. It might be that G and K stars fall mainly on a 4.45 LY wave, F type stars fall mainly on a 8.9 LY wave, A type stars fall mainly on a 11 and 22 LY waves, and B and O type stars fall on a 44 and 89 LY waves. It might be that binaries form where two of the wave types meet. It might be that large elliptical galaxies fall on a 144 km/s wave, spiral galaxies fall on a 72 km/s wave, dwarf galaxies on a 24 km/s wave and irregulars on a 6 km/s wave. I would expect something like these to happen, but until the analysis is done we will not know which classes mostly line up with which waves.

Incompleteness does not create periodicity. If you look at the regions that I coloured in green and connect from one green region to the next, you will see that this line makes an envelope above all the other data. The only exception to the regular 4330 km/s period is the peak marked X. It doesn't matter how you draw the smooth curve that result will be true.

If you want to know how to do such curves, Edward R Dewey was an expert. He used moving averages of about the same period as the cycle and then subtracted that from the original data. In this case that would mean averaging 9 bins together plotting at the central bin, then moving along one bin and repeating.

It is difficult for me to be sure whether you really cannot see that this cycle is obvious or are simply being perverse.

(my bold)

To what extent has this expectation been quantified (in HT)? For example, is there even an OOM prediction concerning P(k), or similar, that can be derived from HT?

IIRC, from the other ATM thread, the correspondence between 'strong harmonics' and anything else is essentially arbitrary, even to the extent that 'harmonics' within a narrow range can't be readily compared, even in a relative sense, much less in terms of anything in any physicists toolbox.

Are the "[m]ore energetic/massive objects" expected to be 'cold' (i.e. moving at non-relativistic speeds, wrt the CMB), according to HT ideas?

As there is no inconsistency between GR and HT (I think that's what I understand the claim to be), to what extent can gravitational lensing be used to determine the presence of these "[m]ore energetic/massive objects"?

From your analysis of astronomical papers on galaxies, as well as predictions from HT, how does the spectrum/distribution of estimated masses of galaxies align with the predicted HT distance harmonics?

I'm pretty sure you will have done this kind of analysis, because, in the part of your post I quote, it's not the appearance of a galaxy which matters, but its mass ... and as the relevant literature on galaxy masses is extensive ...Why?

Unless HT predicts some new form of mass that does not emit or absorb photons, or introduces a new form of hot mass/energy, then it should be straight-forward to proceed directly from "[m]ore energetic/massive objects can be expected to form on the larger scale harmonics" to something quite definitive about these objects' appearance. After all, the relevant physics has been done quite thoroughly ... several decades ago.Now I'm confused.

"More energetic/massive objects can be expected to form on the larger scale harmonics" is pretty unambiguous, and the estimated masses of the various classes of stars and galaxies you note pretty well constrained*.

What am I missing?

*Unless, of course, you throw out GR and/or QM

I think we have reached, in this thread, much the same point in the other ATM one, concerning the nature of astronomy and cosmology, as sciences, and the rtomes view of the same.

That there is a rather large gap between mainstream astronomy and cosmology, as sciences, and rtomes' ATM view of science is pretty clear in this post ... it would seem that, in this alternative science (pseudo-science?), when analysing observations an astronomer does not need to consider:
* how the objects observed were selected
* the consistency of those selections, between observations
* the extent to which the objects observed were complete (among all objects which meet the selection criteria)
* how blended objects should be treated
* the precision of the observations
* the reproducibility of the observations, across instruments, telescopes, etc
* data reduction techniques
* and so on.

Alternatively, perhaps this ATM science is not really about astronomy? Perhaps all that's being studied is patterns in what's in papers? Instead of forming hypotheses and going to look at things in the sky, perhaps this ATM approach would be better done by data mining astronomers' papers, and reporting on all 'cycles' contained therein? A key part of such an endeavour would seem to be suppression of all data in such papers that is inconsistent with the 'cycles' (i.e. confirmation bias is a core principle of this pseudo-science) ... Maybe that's a bit too strong; perhaps it's simply an acceptance of inconsistency - a 'cycle' found in an old, incomplete, inhomogeneous, badly done piece of research is kept, even though no such 'cycles' can be extracted from a wealth of later research (which addresses selection effects, completeness, biases, etc in a transparent way)?

Anyway, we have too little time, I suspect, to even ask a sufficient number of pertinent questions about these ATM ideas, as presented ... this thread will close automatically in just days.

So, perhaps just one direct question: please give references, to papers (by Edward R Dewey, rtomes, or anyone else) published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, on the validity of (or applicability of) drawing smooth curves (as rtomes did) ... independently of the completeness (or lack of it), homogeneity (or lack of it), all selection effects and biases, for astronomical data.Actually two questions.

Please select any one of the early papers which report periodicity in quasar redshifts. Please design a statistically valid analysis of a much more complete selection of quasar redshifts, and present it here. Please state - in as unambiguous a way as you can - what redshift periodicity would be found if the analysis you presented were performed. Please be prepared to answer direct, pertinent questions about the analysis you present, especially concerning the extent to which it would be consistent with the one in the early paper you choose.

Please list all the effects which affect the detectability of a GRB in a waveband where its redshift can be observed. Please identify which effects are based on models of GRBs, which on waveband-redshift detectability, and others.Here is the entire Bloom abstract:I want to be quite clear on this ... are you claiming that there is a model-independent* statistically significant "delta z=.131 periodicity" in the redshift data of these 26 GRBs?

*Selection effects are models.

This is a not-uncommon device among those who present ATM ideas in this section of BAUT.

For avoidance of doubt, the absence of a comment (whether criticism or not) by Nereid, on any aspect of any part of any ATM idea, as presented here in this ATM section of BAUT, does not constitute acceptance, by Nereid, of said aspect.

In any case, here is "post #201", in its entirety:But perhaps you meant a different post #201?

In any case, here are some posts, by Nereid, asking questions about point 6 (and also, in some cases, challenging aspects of it): here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here (not commenting directly on rtomes' posts), and here.

The Tifft paper was in the list of references that I gave. You can read his method there. I simply state is that I know from understanding statistics that he is right.
I used my eye which is not a cosmological theory. I gave a method from Dewey if you want to do it yourself. I have already pointed out to you that it does not matter how you draw the smooth curve because the parts marked in green are the highest peaks. Your repeated asking of silly questions is simply your refusal to face facts.
I do not know what this refers to, please clarify.

Yes, I mean the post #201 in the Harmonics Theory thread.
which states:
These posts do not address the issue that I raise at all. The mere fact that the term GR is used in a post does not mean it is relevant to my stated logic as regards the production of harmonics in standing waves in GR. I was specifically asking for any disagreement that anyone might have with the logic of point 6 a through f. They are biggish steps, but I can expand any that are not clear. The posts in my blog do expand these matters and I referred to these in my very first post on HT. But I would like a clear answer on whether this logic is accepted or not, and if not why not.

You have given me one answer that you do not think standing waves can exist in GR and I have given you a link to huge quantities of such evidence. Are there any additional matters?

But if you do have further comments please make them in the HT thread.

In relation to the 4330 km/s periodicity that I claimed is present in a galaxy sample.
The issue is whether the data presented shows a periodicity in the vicinity of 4330 km/s. Why do you repeat all this drivel? Rather than me answer two totally irrelevant questions, why do you not answer one simple relevant question. It is a yes-no question. Do you accept that the graph with the green peaks marked shows a significant periodicity?

If you make a clear statement on this it will end the matter. You will either admit that these questions are nothing but evasion of fact of periodicity, or you will show that your command of statistics is very weak. In that case I will spend the time and prove the significance including the allowance for lack of CMBR frame but I will expect an apology and withdrawal afterwards because I do object to wasting time on all these silly statements that you make and silly questions that have no connection to the topic at hand.

I have made a statement about what HT does. Why do you not test that? You always look to test the part that I said it doesn't do. Stop wasting both our time. When you want to bang in a nail do you try to do it with the screwdriver? I told you very clearly many times that HT tells the spacings and periodicities that the will be predominant in the universe. Test that!
You do not remember correctly. In a narrow range the harmonics can be compared directly. In a wider range they cannot be compared for the exact energy of waves but certainly can for how dominant they will be at their respective scales.
Any technique that can detect any type of objects reliably and consistently can produce data that can then be analyzed by spectral analysis techniques (FFT, Kotov method etc) and the results of many such studies with show common periods which will be related to each other by simple prime ratios, predominantly 2 and 3.
I have clearly stated a number of times that HT predicts periodic distances and cycle periods. I further added that it is relevant to masses in only two cases where mass is strictly related to one of these properties. Those two cases are particle masses where Compton frequency is proportional to energy/mass, and black holes where mass is proportional to radius, which can serve as a wavelength in various ways. You should be able to answer this question yourself from there.
The appearance of objects depends on the small scale properties of the object. These do derive ultimately from the large scale properties but the connection is very convoluted. HT is predicting the appearance of large quantities of energy at strong large harmonics, but the exact form is not a solved problem.

In one case only, a connection has been shown from the waves that form objects (gas giant and terrestrial planets) and the small scale constituents (isotope masses present in those planets). The post that I made on this was entirely ignored by you, as have been all posts that show very clearly where HT works. Why is it that you repeatedly ignore the successful predictions but harp on about trying to get predictions of things that I have clearly stated are not made?
I will answer the question "what am I missing?" in the HT thread.

If I might interject for a moment...

Not to be pedantic (though I suppose I am): what is the selection function for those galaxies? As I described above to Ari, it is possible to get a reduction in the number of sources at a given redshift, due to selection effects. Re-read my comments here for one example. Those comments were specifically for quasars, but there are similar problems when selecting galaxies for spectroscopy.

What are the error bars on that graph? To roughly quote my advisor: "I won't do chi-by-eye without errorbars!" It looks to me like many of the "peaks" that you see are just statistical fluctuations. How did you draw the "smooth curve?" I don't recognize the function (too curvy for a log-normal), and it doesn't look like a chi-squared minimized fit to me. It looks like it runs too high above the data.

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

This kind of ad hom attack is intolerable. I expect you to reword this post in a way consistent with the friendly nature of discourse around here. I also think you should consider the amount of time that Nereid has put into reading your posts, and thinking through responses as an amazingly friendly gesture that is giving you attention you can get nowhere else, and be respectful and thankful.

This is also an official warning. The next time you make this kind of statement, you will get some time off.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Let's start with a. "Fundamental physics theories are all non-linear wave theories, in particular GR."

Please show that GR is a "non-linear wave theor[y]".

Please start with an appropriate definition of a "non-linear wave theor[y]"

Let's continue with c. "any standing wave in a non-linear medium will develop harmonics and lose energy from the fundamental to its harmonics".

Please show that space-time manifolds are "non-linear medi[a]".

If a. cannot be established, does the whole case (quoted above) collapse?

If c. cannot be established, does the whole case (quoted above) collapse?

Even if a. to f. can be established, isn't it also necessary to show that the phenomenology of any standing waves are observable, in a universe dominated by dark energy and (cold) dark matter? Or even one dominated by radiation, or one dominated by (cold) baryonic matter, or even one dominated by neutrinos?

Thank you for the clarification.

Could I ask that you take more care, in future, to state what you actually mean?Please present an appropriate quantitative analysis of the data in "the graph with the green peaks marked".

In the absence of any such analysis, please state how "significant periodicity" can be determined?

FWIW, the only "significant periodicity" that I think could be claimed, in the absence of a quantitative analysis, is 500 km/s.rtomes, you chose to write a post which includes that chart.

You chose to make (ATM) claims about what it shows.

BAUT members are permitted, even encouraged, to attack the (ATM) arguments you make, "with glee and fervour".

If you choose to clarify your claims, you are welcome to do so (as you did with your claim that "[i]ncompleteness does not create periodicity").

However, you are not free to refuse to answer direct, pertinent questions about the ATM claims you present, as presented. Of course, you may ask for clarification of those questions; you may say "I don't know" (or similar); and so on.

Perhaps this is another good illustration of the (apparent) difference between rtomes view of science (as it applies to astronomy and cosmology) and the mainstream.

I think it's called 'appeal to authority', and is, I think, a common fallacy. It is certainly common in ATM threads.

Please provide a detailed analysis of Tifft's methods, with direct reference to standard texts on statistics, to support your claim.

Note: I am not claiming "that Tifft's rule of thumb has statistical validity, when applied to astronomical datasets such as that in Figure 1"; nor am I claiming that it doesn't. All I am doing is asking a direct, pertinent question about a claim you have chosen to make, as you made it.Which chart are you referring to? The one in post #223 (and at least one other post)?

If so, then the two "highest peaks" are those on either side of 5000 km/s. The next five or six are the 4.0-4.5k (km/s) bin, and the four/five to the right of the highest peak. Only one of "the parts marked in green" is included in these seven or eight peaks.

Indeed, only two of "the parts marked in green" appear to be peaks in any sense at all ... unless the 'smooth curve' has relevance.

In which paper, by Dewey, published in a relevant peer-reviewed journal, is the applicability of the method you used to draw the 'smooth curve' presented?Riccardo Giovanelli and Martha P Haynes, in the paper from which the underlying Figure is taken, state this (I presented this in post #210):The authors have stated that the "data base" is incomplete and inhomogeneous, wrt that "expected of a sample [of galaxies] with a limiting magnitude of mpg ~15, and a depth of about 75 h-1 Mpc" These are quite explicit and unambiguous.

In your analysis, which you claim shows a 4330 km/s periodicity, how did you take account of the authors explicit characterisation of the data base?

Yes please do.
As I understand it they combined together several catalogs to try an make a fully comprehensive sample as possible. I think that these catalogs all predate the use of fibers, so that is not an issue.

I do not deny that there will be selection effects. Why I claim is that selection effects will produce a smooth curve with a maximum of 2 or 3 inflections. They will not produce 7 evenly spaced peaks.
There are no error bars, but in bins with 100, 400 or 1600 items the expected sampling errors amount to 1/10, 1/20, 1/40 of the numbers in the bins or 10, 20, 40. The early peaks are about 400/40 or 10 s.d. (where the data will be the best) and the later ones about 30/10 or 3 s.d. The result is very significant when all the data is taken together.

I simply drew a curve that follows the trend so that about equal amount of space shows between the curve and the line. Its shape is not important and even without it you can just test the difference between the peaks and troughs of the claimed 4330 km/s cycle.