Summations Only

Let me get this straight. Someone points out that your understanding is ten years out of date and you're trying to rebut that with a 21 year old article?That's the stupidest argument I've ever seen.Oh, BTW, your understanding is ten years out of date and your reference is too.

There's also a good article at Solving the Mystery of the Missing Neutrinos:

quote:

---

On June 18, 2001 at 12:15 PM (eastern daylight time) a collaboration of Canadian, American, and British scientists made a dramatic announcement: they had solved the solar neutrino mystery...

​

Combining the SNO and the Super-Kamiokande measurements, the SNO collaboration determined the total number of solar neutrinos of all types (electron, muon, and tau) as well as the number of just electron neutrinos. The total number of neutrinos of all types agrees with the number predicted by the computer model of the Sun. Electron neutrinos constitute about a third of the total number of neutrinos.

​

The smoking gun was discovered. The smoking gun is the difference between the total number of neutrinos and the number of only electron neutrinos. The missing neutrinos were actually present, but in the form of the more difficult to detect muon and tau neutrinos.

​

The epochal results announced in June 2001 were confirmed by subsequent experiments. The SNO collaboration made unique new measurements in which the total number of high energy neutrinos of all types was observed in the heavy water detector. These results from the SNO measurements alone show that most of the neutrinos produced in the interior of the Sun, all of which are electron neutrinos when they are produced, are changed into muon and tau neutrinos by the time they reach the Earth.

---

What participant's word for what? Are you seriously proposing that a newspaper article written in 1991 is evidence for what happened in 2001?IMHO, the author of the 2001 article did not know at the time what was going to happen in 2001. Do you think he/she did know, in 1991, what was going to haqppen in 2001? I have no idea what that's supposed to mean. In this forum, presenting sourced and verifiable evidence that the Solar neutrino problem was solved in 2001 proves that your claim of an existing Solar neutrino problem is falsified and that your citation of an irrelevant article written in 1991 as support is incredibly foolish and reflects extremely poorly on your knowledge and capabilities. Do you now accept that there has been no Solar neutrino problem since 2001? Sorry, not my problem. That's your problem. I quoted enough of the article to refute your claim that there is a solar neutrino problem now. But you can try this link.

Excessively pedantic perhaps, but my link was to the Nobel Prize website, to an article written by physicist John Bahcall.

I don't remember. Tom Bridgman has some very informative if somewhat technical blog posts on the subject.

You should have done more than skimmed Dr. Bridgman's article, and you should have read the articles to which he linked.Brief summary: He did get some of Hartnett's claims wrong, and apologized for it, but he demonstrated by Fourier analysis in several ways that there is no quantized redshift. The human eye is definitely not a useful tool in statistical analyses. Pareidolia and Apophenia are well known phenomena.

Indeed? Please cite evidence that this is the case. Boy oh boy, you just love out-of-date information!! Google it up and post it without thinking, that's you. Yes, there used to be some controversy about whether or not redshifts were quantized. That controversy is settled; redshifts are not quantized. A few researchers (mostly creationists) still hold on to the idea but the evidence against it is overwhelming.Anything published before 2000 (the first data release from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey) is definitely out of date. (Wikipedia notes in its list of major papers claiming redshift quantisation that "All of these studies were performed before the tremendous advances in redshift cataloging that would be made at the end of the 1990s. Since that time, the number of galaxies for which astronomers have measured redshifts has increased by several orders of magnitude." Please remove all links to papers published before 2000. It would be best to question papers published before 2007 (the fifth data release of the SDSS) What do you have left?From No Periodicities in 2dF Redshift Survey Data (2002):

quote:

---

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 Critical Examinations of QSO Redshift Periodicities and Associations with Galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey Data (2005):

quote:

---

We have used the publicly available data from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and 2dF QSO Redshift Survey to test the hypothesis that QSOs are ejected from active galaxies with periodic non-cosmological redshifts. For two different intrinsic redshift models, namely the Karlsson $\log(1+z)$ model and Bell's decreasing intrinsic redshift (DIR) model, we do two tests respectively. First, using different criteria, we generate four sets of QSO-galaxy pairs and find there is no evidence for a periodicity at the predicted frequency in $\log(1+z)$, or at any other frequency. We then check the relationship between high redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies, and we find the distribution of projected distance between high redshift QSOs and nearby active galaxies and the distribution of redshifts of those active galaxies are consistent with a distribution of simulated random pairs, completely different from Bell's previous conclusion. We also analyze the periodicity in redshifts of QSOs, and no periodicity is found in high completeness samples, contrary to the DIR model. These results support that QSOs are not ejected from active galaxies.

---

In On the investigations of galaxy redshift periodicity (2006) Bajan et. al. found weak indications of quantization but concluded:

quote:

---

In our opinion the existence of redshift periodicity among galaxies is not well established. The earlier results are based on a very small fraction of objects extracted from the large databases. At the early stage of investigations such approach was the correct one, errors of individual measurements were great. Presently. the radial velocities of galaxies are determined in an industrial manner. The accuracy of radial velocity determination is good enough for considering all galaxies. Therefore, we chose this manner of data treatment. As we considered all galaxies, our samples are greater. Measurements with lower accuracy could smear out the regularities, but regularities are not introduced.

​

The previous result, based on selected samples showed the existence of the periodicity in the galaxy redshift distribution at a very high significance level. We found that at the 2σ significance level some effect was observed. We think that the solution of this curious phenomenon may be solved in near flame using large database. which together with such correct method as PSA will allow one to estimate the significance of the effect at a sufficiently convincing level. We think also that after clear and convincing demonstrating of the existence of the effect, theoretical explanations of this phenomenon can be performed.

---

From The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog IV. Fifth Data Release (2007), section 5 (pg 12):

quote:

---

Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006).

---

You really need to read Delusions of Geocentric Quantization...Edited by JonF, : Fix erroneous date

Woopsie.

Obvious truth. Ah, I see that you don't understand what quantized redshift is. Please read the Wikipedia article, especially the parts about QSOs, and then retract your claim. Perhaps so, but it provides little support. Gibberish. My next argument was:

quote:

---

From The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog IV. Fifth Data Release (2007), section 5 (pg 12):

​

quote:

---

Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006).

---

​

You really need to read Delusions of Geocentric Quantization...

---

Now, earlier I did write:

quote:

---

Anything published before 2000 (the first data release from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey) is definitely out of date. (Wikipedia notes in its list of major papers claiming redshift quantization that "All of these studies were performed before the tremendous advances in redshift cataloging that would be made at the end of the 1990s. Since that time, the number of galaxies for which astronomers have measured redshifts has increased by several orders of magnitude." Please remove all links to papers published before 2000. It would be best to question papers published before 2007 (the fifth data release of the SDSS) What do you have left?

---

But that's not an argumentum ad novitatem (not novitam, if you're going to do Latin get it right). The SDSS results are not better simply because they are newer; they are better because they contain orders of magnitude more data and significantly higher accuracy for objects over a very wide range of redshifts. You are rejecting incredible increases in dataset size and accuracy because it's new, something of a reverse argumentum ad novitatem.Remember:

quote:

---

Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006).

---

You cite:Rutgers University Department of Physics and AstronomyDoes not use the SDSS data, therefore irrelevant. You should, however, read it; it discusses the QSOs that you claim are irrelevant in great detail.http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294Does not use the SDSS data, therefore irrelevant.http://arxiv.org/abs/0711.4885At last, someone actually uses the SDSS data! But wrongly. See John Hartnett's Cosmos. 1. Introduction:

quote:

---

Hartnett makes numerous erroneous statements on properties of PSD, suggesting he is relying on his 'intuition' on how the PSD works instead of actually testing the claim. Most researchers, myself included, must demonstrate that our test protocols work for datasets of known content before making such grandiose claims when applying the test to datasets of unknown content. In the abstract for Paper I, Hartnett states that his results "indicate that this is a real effect and not some observational artifact." Yet he has apparently conducted no tests to determine which characteristics of his results are analysis artifacts.

---

and John Hartnett's Cosmos. 2. Methodologies:

quote:

---

The quantized redshift (QR) 'community' has become increasingly insular and isolated - generally referencing only papers of other advocates and avoiding rigorous tests of their methodologies. Hartnett continues this 'tradition' by only referencing older works which have since been superceded. The 'tests' of his methods which he mentions in his papers are also particularly weak. The key issue is that a 1-D power spectrum installs an implicit assumption of spherical symmetry in a dataset, since is it only measuring radial separation. It is no surprise that such a method implies concentric shells centered on our galaxy…

​

Methodologies for analyzing these power spectra in full 3-dimensional form were quickly developed, Baumgart & Fry (1991) and Feldman, Kaiser & Peacock (1994) were some of the earliest in this efforts. One of the more important issues which these tests needed to deal with was the fact that even the most recent sky surveys did not uniformly sample the sky, in terms of direction, and even distance. This issue created 'window functions' which could alias power into other frequencies, creating problems for interpretation (Feldman Kaiser & Peacock 1994). More recently, tutorial-style publications have described more details of the 3-D analysis process (Hamilton, 2005a,b).

​

The basics of the proper methods have been around over a decade.

​

Hartnett completely ignores these modern tests.Why does Hartnett limit his work to a one dimensional analysis when he has read the documentation (Kaiser & Peacock 1991) of the flaws in his methodology??…

​

Others have completed these power spectra calculations on the 2dFRS and SDSS 5th data release using modern methods (Cole et al 2005, Percival et al. 2007). Not surprisingly, their results show no evidence of claimed periodicity.

---

Ain't no quantized redshift.

Nope, I already explained why the SDSS data is better, for objective and easily verified reasons, so there is no such argument. There's much more SDSS data and it's higher quality than available before. Any analyses that don't use SDSS data are obsolete, no matter when they were published. Your claim of a fallacy is refuted. Don't post it again. Sorry, not all the post 2006 articles used the SDSS, as I already pointed out. I'll take a look at your link from which you didn't provide any quote.OK, I've looked. They state:

quote:

---

We then visually compare the SDSS redshift distribution to the quasi-periodic values predicted by equation 1 to demonstrate that the peaks found are not only in good agreement with the fundamental periodicity, but also with the sub-components predicted by eqn 1...

​

The resulting redshift distribution curve, after subtraction of the smooth baseline curve, is shown by the lower curve in Fig 5. However, because the shape of this smooth baseline curve is somewhat arbitrary it is conceivable that its removal may have introduced some spurious features. This is especially true near z = 2.5 where the curve ends abruptly. Therefore we also used a second, more objective, method to remove the broad, low-redshift selection effect. In this method, after obtaining the Fourier components for the entire sample, the first four non-DC Fourier components were then set to zero. This effectively filters out all long-period fluctuations. The inverse Fourier transform was then obtained and the result is plotted in the upper curve in Fig 5...

​

Close examination of Fig 5 reveals that not only are there peaks associated with all harmonics of 0.62 below z = 4, there is also reasonable agreement below z = 2 with the predicted redshift sub-components. For example, the peaks at .31 and 1.1 coincide with regions where there is a high density of preferred redshift components. Also, the double peaks at z = 1.55 and 1.85 agree well with the predicted preferred redshifts of 1.488 and 1.798, if a small cosmological component is present.

---

Questions:

• Why did they perform a one-dimensional analysis of a 3D dataset? Dr. Bridgman's comments, at which you scoff, applies here.
• Why did they not use statistical techniques to estimate the significance of the sample? Parts of Fig. 5 look like peaks near the predicted values, parts look like troughs near the predicted values, parts look like peaks far from the predicted values. Visual evaluation of such data is notoriously suspect.

It's an article you posted, so if you want to defend your position you can find it. Browse back to the message in which you posted it. I saw claims of "smearing the data", in your messages and some of the papers to which you linked. Nowhere have I seen any demonstration that this alleged "smearing" exists or is a problem. Yup, it's a commentary, by an expert in the field. It's hard to find recent peer-reviewed papers debunking quantized redshift; the vast majority of astrophysicists aren't interested in wasting time addressing crackpot ideas.It seems to me that Dr. Bridgman provided a valid and powerful criticism, peer-reviewed or not. Do you have any response?

And leave us not forget that your Bell & McDiarmid paper has already been debunked in the peer reviewed literature, quoted back in Message 75. Here's an expanded quote and figure:

quote:

---

Repeating the analysis of Richards et al. (2006) for the DR5 sample reveals no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been included (see lower histogram in Figure 3); this is in contrast to the reported redshift structure found in the SDSS quasar survey by Bell & McDiarmid (2006). To construct the lower histogram we have partially removed the effect of host galaxy contamination (by excluding extended objects), limited the sample to a uniform magnitude limit of i < 19.1 (accounting for emission-line effects), and have corrected for the known incompleteness near z ~ 2.7 and z ~ 3.5 due to quasar colors lying close to or in the stellar locus. Accounting for selection effects significantly reduces the number of objects as compared with the raw, more heterogeneous catalog, but the smaller, more homogeneous sample is what should be used for statistical analyses.

---

(click to enlarge)(from The Sloan Digital Sky Survey Quasar Catalog IV. Fifth Data Release). no structure in the redshift distribution after selection effects have been includedI've taken the liberty of adding the predicted peaks, in blue, from Bell & McDiarmid Figure 5 to Schneider et. al. Figure 3, above. What periodicity do your see in the lower histogram of Figure 3? Would you care to comment on the relationship between the blue predictions and the lower histogram results?

See the blue "PDF" link in the upper right corner, the one that links to the full paper? Yes. Do you see "periodic non-cosmological redshifts"? For anything not contained in that paper, you'll have to ask them. Do you have any reason to doubt their capabilities? For anything not contained in that paper, you'll have to ask them. Do you have any reason to doubt their capabilities?I see you are ignoring sonme critical questions: So what's the definition of "smearing the data" and how is it an issue? I take it you have no response?From Bell & McDiarmid.:

• Why did they perform a one-dimensional analysis of a 3D dataset? Dr. Bridgman's comments, at which you scoff, applies here.
• Why did they not use statistical techniques to estimate the significance of the sample? Parts of Fig. 5 look like peaks near the predicted values, parts look like troughs near the predicted values, parts look like peaks far from the predicted values. Visual evaluation of such data is notoriously suspect.

I see that you can't support your claims.Ain't no periodic non-cosmological redshift (quantized redshift is a misnomor).

Yes, you cited several out-of-date papers and a couple of recent ones, both of which have serious failings.Number of papers cited doesn't mean much, especially when almost all of them are obsolete. What really counts is the validity of the arguments. You haven't established any validity, and those papers have not either. You have a lot of questions to answer.Don't waste bandwidth pontificating. Answer the questions.

quote:

---

I see you are ignoring sonme critical questions:

​

I addressed this problem as smearing the data remember?

​

I saw claims of "smearing the data", in your messages and some of the papers to which you linked. Nowhere have I seen any demonstration that this alleged "smearing" exists or is a problem.

​

So what's the definition of "smearing the data" and how is it an issue?

​

The paper you cite criticizing Hartnett is not even a paper (it is a commentary) and is below peer review. How is it that I provide the more reasonable arguments and all you can say is Ain't no quantized redshift. It is because if quantized redshifts are real the Milky Way is near the center of the universe. Indeed, we are a special creation in God’s site.

​

Yup, it's a commentary, by an expert in the field. It's hard to find recent peer-reviewed papers debunking quantized redshift; the vast majority of astrophysicists aren't interested in wasting time addressing crackpot ideas.

​

It seems to me that Dr. Bridgman provided a valid and powerful criticism, peer-reviewed or not. Do you have any response?

​

I take it you have no response?

​

From Bell & McDiarmid.:

​

• Why did they perform a one-dimensional analysis of a 3D dataset? Dr. Bridgman's comments, at which you scoff, applies here.
• Why did they not use statistical techniques to estimate the significance of the sample? Parts of Fig. 5 look like peaks near the predicted values, parts look like troughs near the predicted values, parts look like peaks far from the predicted values. Visual evaluation of such data is notoriously suspect.

---