The point of the Virgo cluster section of the paper was to provide a better test of the arguments presented by Arp (1988) . Notice in that paper no distances were provided for individual galaxies. The galaxies were simply grouped by morphology and mean redshifts for each group were provided.
My idea was simply to test that the galaxies were actually members by calculating TFR distances. The TFR distances also allow you to determine if the mean distance of the ScI's is different than the other types.
This issue of the error analysis has been explained. Let me summarize one last time:
1. The uncertainty in the parameters was available in LEDA and therefore anybody who wished could check the uncertainty on the distances.
2. TFR papers I used as references frequently did not include uncertainty for data published in other sources, so I followed that lead. The referee did not have any objections in that regard. As an independent researcher I look at what other researchers have done and the suggestions of referee's.
3. While the uncertainty in distance and PV72 values was not published in the tables, the uncertainty in the TFR data was evaluated by myself and clearly was insufficient to explain what was found. Do not confuse the lack of a column in the data tables listing the uncertainty with a lack of investigation into the uncertainty. In fact, the major focus of the subsequent papers (including the current paper using the K-band TFR) was uncertainty in the TFR. Additional tests were provided in those papers.
4. In other sections of the paper uncertainty in the distance moduli were provided.
5. Since this is an issue you are raising, I have provided in my last post an example of the uncertainty in TFR distances for several of the galaxies as an illustration.
The point here is that if you want to show that the result can be explained as noise, then feel free to show that the result can be explained as noise. The data and data uncertainty is available to you in the literature. Unless you intend to go forward and provide such an analysis, there is nothing more to be said about the data uncertainty. I have explained above what was done and how it is consistent with what other researchers have done. Unless you have something new to say on this, I have nothing more to add. You would find that a significant amount of discussion in the subsequent papers is on this very issue.
The uncertainty in PV72 is directly connected to the uncertainty in the distance, uncertainty in the redshift, and uncertainty in the hubble constant.But more important: using only the paper's inputs' stated uncertainties, what would the uncertainties in PV72 be? How would any such compare with 166 km/s?
Since PV72 is for a Hubble constant of 72, changing the Hubble Constant would change the PV values. How big could this effect be? Well if we went to the extreme and changed the Hubble constant to 50 km s-1 Mpc-1, then NGC 4501 (using last post's numbers) would have PV50= +1453 km s-1.
But if we stick with H0=72, and consider that redshift uncertainty is small, the uncertainty then is largely determined by the uncertainty in distance. So for a distance uncertainty of +/- 0.8 Mpc (range 0.5 Mpc to 1.1 Mpc in examples in last post depending on galaxy and band), the uncertainty in PV72 becomes +/-58 km s-1.
Now you might object, wait ... that's much smaller than the difference between the published distance to NGC 4254 and the distance to NGC 4254 with the latest LEDA update. And guess what ... you're right. That's a problem with error analysis. Published uncertainty in a data measurement is not always correct. That can go both ways. Sometimes the uncertainty for the data set is much larger than the observed scatter of the relation. Other times the uncertainty of the data does not overlap with new measurements.
So figure it out. The data is available to you. K-S tests were performed.Or, stating this another way, if one leaves aside all questions about selection criteria, inter-dependencies in the inputs, etc, should one read 718 and -868 km/s and go 'wow! look at that! a difference which is >25σ!' or 'ho hum, it's not even above the noise, at only 1.2σ'? Or should one say 'too bad there was no work done to estimate the uncertainties, I have no way of knowing if this is little more than noise'?
Alternative explanations were discussed in the conclusion of the paper. You also write this as if the entire basis for concluding there may be intrinsic redshifts was based upon the Virgo cluster results. That's nonsense. I never would have written the papers if that was all there was.Further, since such a finding, if confirmed, would be dramatic, in terms of its implications for physics, that even a simple error analysis was not done (or, if done, not written up), much less a careful, nay thorough, examination of systematics, alternative explanations, and so on, seems ... strange.