Summations Only

You've picked a difficult topic to debunk, at least to the satisfaction of a difficult audience.There are a number of papers written on the subject of red shift quantization/periodicity. The most famous ones are by Napier, Tifff, Arp.Of course there are papers debunking these claims. The debunking papers are far fewer and there simply does not seem to be much interest in debunking the already debunked. Mainstream astronomers are seem about as interested in quantization as they are in astrology.I'd be suspicious of a recent supportive paper that does not address the analysis in contemporary papers debunking the old analyses or that simply repeat the old analyses using those same methods or the same small data sets.An example debunking paper:Tang, S. M.; Zhang, "Critical examination of QSO Redshift periodicities and associations with galaxies in Sloan Digital Sky Survey, Data"ShieldSquare CaptchaABE:As Jar has pointed out the article is dated 2005.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

2205?or maybe 2005?

Show me. This is hilarious. More data causes the results to be lost. A perfect response to claims that the original studies used too little data because that was all that was available.

Woopsie.

NoNukes my friend...

quote:

---

In general papers finding no preferred redshifts do not consider Earth’s motion in the Milky Way (this problem tends to smear the data). In addition, preferred redshifts are sensitive to accuracy in the distant galactic redshift measurements so large numbers of very distant galaxies (that tend to be less accurate) cause accumulated measurement errors also smearing the data.

​

Me

---

Actually, this is one of the papers that I could not locate any point at which the authors subtracted the relative motion of the earth in our galaxy. I have looked over the calculations and the data sets, I even tried to search any reference to earths relative motion. As far as I can tell the calculations neglect the earths Doppler shifting effect.

Son Goku my friend The Higgs field is essential to the Big Bang and if it missing, (it is a myth) then the Standard Model for particle physics will certainly be downgraded or it will collapse altogether. You have no idea of the repercussions of the missing Higgs.

quote:

---

Named after Peter Higgs, an Edinburgh University physicist, the Higgs boson is crucial to understanding the origin of mass. Shortly after the big bang, it is thought that many particles had no mass, but became heavy later on thanks to the Higgs field. Any particles that interact with this field are given mass.

​

What is the Higgs boson? | Higgs boson | The Guardian

---

JonF my friend Complete nonsense my friendThis next article you cited has nothing to do with the periodic redshifts I am talking about but the hypothesis that quasars are ejected from centers of distant galaxies. The next article you cited has a lot of doubt about the reality of Q-Redshifts but still finds them in the data to the order of 2 sigma (about 77.7% certainty of Q-redshifting). I think this article ends up in my camp. Your next argument is a very common fallacy of ARGUMENTUM AD NOVITAM. That kind of argument can only be made if significant evidence to the contrary is obtained. No such evidence has become known to reject the original discovery.You make the following statement: Some current evidence for Periodic Redshifting
Napier 2006 Rutgers University Department of Physics and AstronomyPaper submitted 2006 (K. Bajan, P. Flin, W. Godlowski, V.P. Pervushin)
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294Hartnett (2008) Galaxy redshift abundance periodicity from Fourier analysis of number counts N( z) using SDSS and 2dF GRS galaxy surveys - NASA/ADSTo Google this properly you need all the names for these phenomena

quote:

---

"Redshift quantization" has also been called redshift periodicity,[8] redshift discretization,[9] preferred redshifts,[10] and redshift-magnitude bands.

---

Preferred Redshifts are real.

Nonsense.We can positively rule out your relative motion proposal as a cause for the Tang, Zhang study finding a null result. On page 7-8 of the paper, the authors reproduce the periodicities found using the smaller data set and then show that the periodicities are absent in the larger set.

quote:

---

After smoothing off the sharp edges in the lowest and highest redshifts, a periodicity around ∆z = 0.67 is detected in the full sample of SDSS QSOs, as shown in Fig. 9; however a periodicity of ∆z = 0.67 0.05 or any other frequency is not found in the 2dF QSOs, as shown in Fig. 10. Such a difference between these two surveys is not surprising since the redshift-dependent spectroscopic completeness is relatively flat in 2dF (Croom et al. 2004), while in SDSS the spectroscopic completeness varies drastically at some redshifts (Richards et al. 2002). It is therefore improper to use all QSO redshifts in SDSS to probe any intrinsic periodicity without addressing selection bias.

---

Given the ability of the authors to reproduce the original results, the explanation cannot lie in the kind of methodology mistake that you describe. Selection bias seems to the best explanation for the apparent periodicities in the smaller study.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : Remove some snippiness

Maybe it will help if I point out your obvious mistake...

quote:

---

Shortly after the big bang...

---

If the Higgs boson was essential to the big bang, then it wouldn't be only applicable to particles after the big bang.Are you unable to see that your own quote doesn't support the Higgs boson being connected to the big bang?
Can you not see that it actually says the opposite?

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.

Actually I do. Currently we know that something generates an electroweak charge in empty space that essentially splits the electroweak force in two (into the weak force and the electromagnetic force). The Higgs is nothing more than the simplest mechanism for doing this. So, if it isn't found, we begin looking at the other mechanisms. Nothing will happen to the Big Bang model.

What if there is no such thing as an electroweak force?, only electromagnetic forces and weak nuclear forces? What would happen to the big bang theory then? For that matter, what would happen to the big bang theory if dark matter and dark energy were myths as well?

Well...the electorweak epoch occurred after the Big Bang.
Knowing that, are you now able to figure out what affect it would have on the Big Bang? Dark Matter and Dark Energy have both been observed.
Your question is similar to asking "What would happen to cowboys if horses were myths?".
Sure, we can waste some time discussing an imaginary scenario - but it is not an actual argument.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

How do you know that? That all depends on whether the Big Bang was responsible for producing the electroweak force. Observed or just wrongly concluded by misinterpreting the evidence? No it isn't. Why do you say it is imaginary? It is no more imaginary than the big bang itself. I didn't know that I was trying to make an argument. I was asking questions about the validity of certain claims that everybody seems to accept as true.

Because that is where the evidence leads us.
To quote Wiki:
"The physics of the electroweak epoch is less speculative and much better understood than the physics of previous periods of the early universe. The existence of W and Z bosons has been demonstrated, and other predictions of electroweak theory have been experimentally verified."No it doesn't. Observed. Yes it is. When you make something up in your head, it is called imaginary. Correct.
Horses are no more imaginary than the Big Bang. Good. We are agreed that you have produced no arguments against the Big Bang.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.