My error was that I claimed the x-axes were incorrectly labeled when Hartnett converted them from 'frequency space' to his '\Delta_z space'. These graphics were NOT mislabeled.
I've deleted the content of the original post and set a link to this post, since the great majority of the post was on the erroneous graphic plotting claim. Other issues with HH2007 will be examined in a future post.
How did I make the error?
- This error was one of those 'flashes' of 'insight' that occurred only about a week before I wrote the post. That in itself should have made it suspect. It did not receive the: idea - examine - walk away for a few weeks - reexamine - chat about with others - repeat (2 or more times) that other material in HH2007 had received.
- I have read HH2007 at least 3 or 4 times. ALL the other critiques of the HH2007 analysis have actually been under development for several years, going through the analysis cycle above several times for verification. If the Delta_z problem had been real, the idea that I would not have noticed it earlier is a bit unlikely. I should been bothered by that.
- Customarily, plots are posted with the low value to the left end of the axis, whereas Hartnett (correctly) plotted the large value of Delta_z in Figure 5 of HH2007. The prejudice of the customary axis direction was reinforced in casual examination of the graph on a small laptop screen where font antialiasing made some of the exponents in the axis scale unreadable and I failed to zoom-in on the graphic for a better look. Several other non-standard notations for cosmology and power spectral in HH2007 contributed to confusing the underlying concepts as well.
- Having read so many redshift-space analysis papers it is entirely possible that some of the graphics actually became confused with graphics in other papers and a quick examination of HH2007 graphics failed to fully register.
- I hurried the analysis, trying to meet a self-imposed schedule of one post per week. I allowed that to rush me into preparing the post without carefully checking the graphics in question beforehand.
- No more one-post-per-week schedule, especially for detailed analysis posts. This blog is a part-time project and some of the ideas explored cannot be examined quickly but require careful examination. Note that it is the pseudo-scientists in the comments of this blog who often try to push me to adhere to their time frame and in this case I foolishly took their bait.
- I've wanted to do this for a time and have numerous individuals whom I have consulted on occasion for reviewing material and ideas. I'm going to explore making that a more regular practice.
I suspect there are some who will attempt to exploit this admission, so why am I doing this? I work in a technical field were there are absolute standards of success and failure. Those who learn from their mistakes and continue on, who don't dogmatically hang on to delusions that they are always right when the evidence is against them, have far more professional success.
Depending on reactions, I may apply some different standards to comment moderation for a time.