"We have used the publicly available data from the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey and the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that there is a periodicity in the redshift distribution of quasi-stellar objects (QSOs) found projected close to foreground galaxies. These data provide by far the largest and most homogeneous sample for such a study, yielding 1647 QSO-galaxy pairs. There is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in log(1+z), or at any other frequency."
From the Results section:
"...it is apparent that there is no significant periodicity in the data at P ~ 0.09, or, indeed, at any other frequency. An analysis of the QSOs' heliocentric redshifts revealed a simi- lar absence of signicant periodicities. Given that there are almost eight times as many data points in this sample as in the previous analysis by Burbidge & Napier (2001), we must conclude that the previous detection of a periodic signal arose from the combination of noise and the effects of the window function."
So you agree that when Napier's work is expanded to a much large sample, the apparent quantization of red-shift disappears?
Then why did you cite Napier's older, smaller, study in your post 101 to support red-shift quantization?
TB prefers the older data-set, too:
quote:(post 113) You are completely ignoring the recent studies in 1997 forexample stating that 'redshifts are strongly quantized in the galactic frame'. WM Napier & BNG Guthrie J Astophys Astron 18, 455 (1997))
Please read my posts that the shells can only be statistically discovered.
Statistically, the quantization is shown by Hawkins(2002) to be an artifact of small sample size.
quote: (post 119, responding to J. Meert when he brought up the same Hawkins paper) I suspect that Napier et al only used the subset of data with very accuate redshifts. I like that kind of selectivity. The quantization is very fine. They got quantization with very high statistical significance for their subset of galaxies. The statistical significance is the key to this.
Apparently he didn't realize that Hawkins et al were, in fact, using Napier's selection criteria... just on a larger segment of sky surveyed. They made the study at Napier's suggestion... and with his help and advice.
The last bit of TB's post 119 is a classic bit of projection...
quote:Only someone with an agenda would 'hope' that this result will 'go away' after analysis of more data.
Now that the quasar data is in... lots more data... eight times as much... the quantization does 'go away'. It was a statistical artifact of the small sample size. "Only someone with an agenda" would ignore/dismiss the update of the data that they previously cited in support of their position... now that it no longer supports their position.
Since the Napier/Hawkins dataset contains only quasars, Tifft's data indicating quantization of visible galaxies is still an open question. I think a passage from Stewart's article is extremely revealing...
quote:Several well-studied galaxies, including M51 and NGC 2903, exhibited two distinct redshifts. Velocity breaks, or discontinuities, occured at the nuclei of these galaxies. Even more fascinating was the observation that the jump in redshift between the spiral arms always tended to be around 72 kilometers per second, no matter which galaxy was considered. Later studies indicated that velocity breaks could also occur at intervals that were 1/2, 1/3, or 1/6 of the original 72 km per second value. http://www.ldolphin.org/tifftshift.html
Stronger evidence of an observational effect could not be found, in my opinion. There is no way to simultaneously argue that galaxies are arranged in concentric shells centered around the Milky Way while the [b][i]arms[/b][/i] of those same galaxies show 72 km/sec red-shift differences.
Same problem for the studies of pairs of galaxies. In this case, the quantization observed from Earth is a measure of their orbital velocity around their common center of gravity... not their apparent distance from Earth using Hubble's constant. If the quantization were real, and not an observation artifact, then all it proves is that galaxies orbit each other with a discrete set of possible velocities.
I'm sorry if I missed any other data sets that show quantization... it's a long thread... but with a pattern of 3 cases of quantizations observed that emphatically DO NOT indicate the existence of concentric shells, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that the 72 km/sec quantization is not a violation of the Cosmological Principle at all, and is, instead, due to some as yet unexplained observational effect common to all these dat sets.
Yes... and Percy almost but not quite got through to TB on the part about the quantization in orbital velocities of pairs of galaxies back in post 18 to 30-some. Maybe TB will catch on this time. I like to think I'm pretty good at explaining things - even to PhD physicists.
quote:Originally posted by Tranquility Base: ^ Your 2002 paper DOES concern only the case of paired galaxies/quasars in lines of sight. As such IT is a very small subset of the all sky studeis. The 1997 paper concerns whole sky and finds 'strong quantization'.
And how many galaxies were sampled in the 1997 paper (by Guthrie and Napier, I presume)?
Wasn't it just a few hundred?
The Hawkins(2002) paper measured about 1700 quasars. It found that small number statistics explained the previous findings of quantization in quasars. When only a few hundred data are analyzed for power spectra, patterns can appear from randomness. More data resolves the issue. It seems entirely reasonable to wait for additional data ... as Hawkins provided for the quasar quantization... before proclaiming galactocentrism proven.
quote:The early paired glaxay stuff may have been anomolous but you can't argue that for Napier.
This is extremely clear cut.
I agree. Clear cut examples of quantization exist that cannot logically be construed as galactocentric shells. Even if global quantization survives the accumulation of additional data, the non-Dopplerian implications of what has been observed to date makes Humphrey's galactocentric 'shells' untenable. One certainly can argue that whatever makes the two arms of the same galaxy appear to be in two different 'shells' can also make whole galaxies fall into the same pattern of segregation by redshifts. Same argument for galaxies that are orbiting each other (their orbital velocities measured along our line of sight is quantized) - how can co-orbiting galaxies be in different 'shells'?
quote:Originally posted by Tranquility Base: ^ Wehappy
Tell me more about the spiral arm quantization - it's not due to the fact that one arm is moving towards and the other away in those cases?
You're starting to worry me, TB. Have you been reading any of the links in this thread? Are you following any of the subtleties of redshift quantization discussed here?
Percy brought this up a long time ago...
quote: The next step involved examining the rotation curves of individual spiral galaxies. Such curves indicate how the rotational velocity of the material in the galaxy's disk varies with distance from the center.
Several well-studied galaxies, including M51 and NGC 2903, exhibited two distinct redshifts. Velocity breaks, or discontinuities, occured at the nuclei of these galaxies. Even more fascinating was the observation that the jump in redshift between the spiral arms always tended to be around 72 kilometers per second, no matter which galaxy was considered.
quote:However, when it is considered that the quantum jumps in redshift values have been observed to even go through individual galaxies [Tifft, 1977, p.31], it becomes apparent that the redshift can have little to do with either space-time expansion or galactic velocities through space...