Application of Fractal Analysis To Space Experiment Data Processing:batse Data.
Arkhangelskaja, I. V.
EGS XXVII General Assembly, Nice, 21-26 April 2002, abstract #2310

In present work the possibility of the fractal analysis application for BATSE experi- ment data processing was studied.

The fractal index is a time profile characteristic which is sensitive to change of shape and indentness of an event time profile. Many experimental signals are fractal in na- ture, and, importantly, fractal dimensions must be different for time profiles of events which are caused by different physical processes.There are two important featuries of the fractal index for our proposed project: 1) the fractal indexes of Poisson statistics- dominated sets are equal to 1.5; 2) invariance of fractal index to event duration: if there are two bursts with the same form of time profile but different duration, the fractal indexes of these bursts will be the same.

The change of the background fractal index for Poisson statistics-dominated sets with different coefficients of error in counting ( up to 20) was studied. The fractal index for such statistics-dominated sets is equal to 1.5. Thus, the data from various devices can be prosessing as one uniform dataset by using fractal analysis if the background indexes for these devices are equal and and events with very different durations can be procesiing as uniform dataset too.

The combined data processing for two different types of BATSE data is presented as an example. We try to separate some additional types of Gamma-Ray Bursts(GRB) using fractal analysis of GRB time profiles (now 3 classes of GRB are known : short, middle, long with mean durations t90 0.7s, 3s and 25s correspondingly). We used LAD discriminator (DISCLA) data with 64 ms time resolution for bursts with t90 > 2s from the 5B BATSE catalog and time-tagged event (TTE) data (in this data, time of registration of first 32767 photons recorded with 2 mks time resolution) for bursts with t90 < 2s. TTE and DISCLA are very different types of data and we can use both types in one dataset because these data have the same background fractal indexes - 1.5 for both dataset. We analyse time profiles of 2000 GRB from 5B BATSE catalog by fractal analysis and obtain some new additional sybclasses of GRB.

You will have to excuse my ineptness, I am still an amateur. Anyways:

OK, I think that study that was posted in the post before this one has nothing to do with the fractal distribution of GRB's. Although there appears to be GRB's spread in an isotropic manner, that doesn't disprove the SDSS fractal distribution of galaxies. They are two different data sets. If anything, this shows that, since they are disparate observations, there is something wrong with our view of the structure of the universe. Obviously, in my POV, the fractal distribution of galaxies redshift means that intrinsic redshift + doppler redshift is fractally distributed, although this says nothing of their distance from us and their actual structure. I don't think there's a study that uses Arp's methodology to understand the large scale structure of the universe.

All your study says is that regardless of the distance, which your study didn't measure (which thus doesn't disprove the fractal observation), the sources of GRB's which could range from quasars, to AGN, to supernovas, are isotropically distributed over the sky two-dimensionally. I don't think this affects Halton Arp's studies or methodology except for the fact that nearby morphologically disturbed galaxies, seyferts and AGN's there are sources of GRB's along the axes of these galaxies and AGN's. Perhaps in a two-dimensional portrait they are isotropically distributed, although a 3-d picture, which the SDSS measured, is fractal, at least in the Big Bang cosmology. In my cosmology the SDSS has nothing to do with distance and moreso to do with the distribution of quasars and high and low redshift galaxies regardless of distance.

TL;DR: Your study has nothing to do with the claims of Halton Arp, and even moreso has nothing to do with fractal distribution of galaxies.

Also, do you even know the range that the BATSE sees in the sky? As in, the angle?

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 17 2012 03:29am

It would be cool if we could reverse this. If you could, present the problems with the Cosmological principle and hopefully I can assuage them.

page 48 ~ has anything constructive happened yet?

Evidence for Intrinsic Redshift:
The Tully-Fisher Relationship (TFR) is utilized to identify anomalous redshifts in
normal spiral galaxies. Three redshift anomalies are identified in this analysis: (1)
Several clusters of galaxies are examined in which late type spirals have significant
excess redshifts relative to early type spirals in the same clusters, (2) Galaxies of
morphology similar to ScI galaxies are found to have a systematic excess redshift relative
to the redshifts expected if the Hubble Constant is 72 km s-1 Mpc-1, (3) individual
galaxies, pairs, and groups are identified which strongly deviate from the predictions of a
smooth Hubble flow. These redshift deviations are significantly larger than can be
explained by peculiar motions and TFR errors. It is concluded that the redshift anomalies
identified in this analysis are consistent with previous claims for large non-cosmological
(intrinsic) redshifts.
Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
David G. Russell
Owego Free Academy, Owego, NY 13827 USA
The issue of periodicity in quasi-stellar object (QSO) data sets is re-examined in the light of the failure to detect a periodicity in the 2dF QSO Redshift Survey, and of a recent clam that edge effects might have generated a spurious periodicity of 0.089 in log_10 (1+z) in earlier data sets. A new methodology is described by which the contribution of which edge affects may be assessed. It is shown that they have not induced a spurious periodicity in the earlier data sets. Several possible factors are discussed which may tend to mask the periodicity in the 2dF Survey. Thus the earlier evidene for the periodicity in QSO redshifts is unaffected, although new constraints on astrophysical models may be imposed.

The detection of periodiity in QSO data
W.M. Napier and G. Burbidge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

n the Great Observatories Origins Deep Survey, 243 redshifts of objects fainter than 25.5 mag. were observed. Remarkably, two of them turned out to be very high redshift at z = 4.800 and z = 4.882. Even more remarkably these two fell only 3 and 1.5 arcsec on either side of an emisssion line galaxy of z = .733. (The ESO Messenger No. 118, p.49 and Vanzella et al. astro-ph/0406591.) The picture shown below is probably sufficient to convince most people that this is another pair of ejected, intrinsic redshift quasars.


But if we compute once more the probability of the author’s redshifts falling this close to a given galaxy, alignment, similarity of redshifts etc. one gets 3.5 chances in 10 million of being accidental! This is hardly "a posteriori" since my Catalogue of Discordant Redshifts (Apeiron 2003) lists many similar pairs with even less probability of being chance. Then in the same Messenger issue on p.36 there is a GRB/Supernova of z = .691 connected to a host galaxy of z = .472. They hasten to inform us that the latter is a "foreground galaxy" but as the picture below shows, there is a continuous luminous connection between the two (Masetti et al. 2003, A&A 405, 465..)

They do not reference the paper Geoffrey Burbidge published titled "The Sources of Gamma-Ray Bursts and their Connections with QSO’s and Active Galaxies" (ApJ 2003, 585, 112.)

Since, as usual, none of the above authors reference the voluminous evidence that quasars are intrinsically redshifted objects ejected from lower redshifted galaxies, there is very little chance of conventional astronomy correcting a huge error in their fundamental assumptions. The consequences for astronomy, and science in general, are discouraging to contemplate.

This post was edited by AEtheric on Aug 18 2012 02:48am

Yah some chit chat about Games Workshop and physics beyond what I studied my sophomore year of college.

Relevance to the thread???

Omg...

The Qur'an is wrong because the big bang never happened.

You asked how can something come from nothing. People are posting different explanations for how the universe and life began. It's completely on-topic.

says about 1% of some people. You can't say that sentence as a fact. And I already tried to convince you your studies don't prove the Big Bang wrong but you are defiant.