1: % ******************************************************************
2: % *********** start of ms.tex ***********
3: % ******************************************************************
4: % TITLE: Bias Properties of Extragalactic Distance Indicators XII:
5: % Bias Effects of Slope Differences and Intrinsic Dispersion
6: % on Tully-Fisher Distances to Galaxy Clusters with
7: % Application to the Virgo Cluster
8: %
9: % AUTHOR: Allan Sandage, Obs. Carnegie Inst. Washington
10: %
11: % 46 pages, 11 figures (*.eps), 8 tables
12: % ******************************************************************
13: % DATE: 30.10.2007 *** Version 1.00 ***
14: % ******************************************************************
15: \documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
16: % ******************************************************************
17: % local defs
18: \newcommand{\kms}{{\,\rm km\,s}^{-1}}
19: \newcommand{\ksm}{{\,\rm km}\ {\rm~s}^{-1}\ {\rm~Mpc}^{-1}}
20: \newcommand{\nodatr}{\multicolumn{1}{r}{$\cdots$}~~}
21: \newcommand{\nodatl}{\multicolumn{1}{l}{~~~$\cdots$}}
22: \def\la{\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\hbox{\lower4pt\hbox{$\sim$}}}\hbox{$<$}}}}
23: \def\sun{\hbox{$\odot$}}
24: \renewcommand{\mag}{\mbox{$\;$mag}}
25: % ******************************************************************
26:
27:
28: \begin{document}
29: % ******************************************************************
30: \title{%\uppercase{%
31: Bias Properties of Extragalactic Distance Indicators XII:
32: Bias Effects of Slope Differences and Intrinsic Dispersion
33: on Tully-Fisher Distances to Galaxy Clusters with
34: Application to the Virgo Cluster}%}
35: \author{Allan Sandage}
36: \affil{The Observatories of the Carnegie Institution of Washington,\\
37: 813 Santa Barbara Street, Pasadena, CA 91101-1292}
38: %
39: % TODO: citation within affil
40: %
41: \affil{What seems so simple is often highly complex in its dreadful
42: detail:\\ {\rm Nilo Negge in the Book of Wisdom, 1619}}
43:
44: % ******************************************************************
45: % Abstract
46: % ******************************************************************
47: \begin{abstract}
48: The Teerikorpi incompleteness bias in the distance modulus
49: of a galaxy cluster that is determined from incomplete data using
50: the Tully-Fisher (TF) method is discussed differently than has
51: been done in earlier papers of this series. A toy cluster is made
52: with zero intrinsic TF dispersion but with slopes that differ
53: between the calibrators and the cluster data, showing the bias
54: caused by incorrect slopes. Intrinsic dispersion is added to the
55: model and two strategies are used to analyze the data; first by
56: binning the data by line width and then by apparent magnitude
57: (the direct method), and second by binning by magnitude and then
58: summing over all line widths (the inverse method). To illustrate
59: these strategies, a composite cluster is made by combining the
60: observations of Virgo~A and B subclusters with those for the Ursa
61: Major I and II clusters, corrected to the Virgo~A distance. The
62: cluster data are calibrated using Cepheid distances to 25
63: galaxies that have adequate TF properties. Different moduli
64: calculated with varying completeness limits are displayed. The
65: cluster modulus derived from the complete cluster sample gives
66: $(m - M)^{0} = 31.42\pm0.2$ (external) for Virgo~A, $31.80\pm0.16$
67: for Virgo~B, $31.26\pm0.13$ for UMa~I, and $31.58\pm0.17$ for UMa~II.
68: Combining the Virgo~A distance ($D = 19.2\;$Mpc that has a range
69: from 17.5 to 21.1$\;$Mpc) with its expansion velocity of
70: $1175\pm50\kms$ as tied to the remote kinematic frame gives a Hubble
71: constant of $61\ksm$ with a range from 53 to 70.
72: \end{abstract}
73: %
74: \keywords{Research --- Tutorial --- Galaxies --- Data Analysis and Techniques}
75: % ******************************************************************
76:
77:
78: % ******************************************************************
79: % 1. Introduction
80: % ******************************************************************
81: \section{INTRODUCTION}
82: \label{sec:01}
83: %
84: The literature on the effect of bias in the measurement of
85: extragalactic distances is extensive. Taken is a whole it seems
86: comprehensive and exhaustive. Why then propose again an expos{\'e}
87: of parts of the subject? The problem is not so simple in
88: different situations, and new illustrations of the details can be
89: useful.
90:
91: A significant review, complete to 1996, is by
92: \citet{Teerikorpi:97}. He treats many aspects of the problem beginning
93: with the early insights of \citet{Kapteyn:14}, and then proceeds to
94: the classical \citet{Malmquist:20,Malmquist:22} and \citet{Scott:57}
95: effects.
96:
97: The Malmquist calculation only concerns the bias integrated
98: over a total sample. It does not show how the biased distance
99: errors change as the truncation level is made fainter. Therefore,
100: the classical Malmquist bias is not useful in correcting
101: individual distances at various magnitude levels above the
102: truncation level. For that, more complicated correction
103: procedures mentioned below, are needed.
104:
105: An equally complicated problem is to analyze the bias effects
106: for individual galaxy distances using the Tully-Fisher line width
107: (LW) method applied to field galaxies chosen in different ways,
108: such as from magnitude-limited catalogs, or by imposing apparent
109: diameter limits on 21-cm lists before measuring the radio line
110: widths, or by restricting line widths at either the high and/or
111: low LW limit, etc.
112:
113: The literature on the use of the 21-cm line as a distance
114: indicator began with the discovery of the correlation of LW with
115: absolute magnitude by \citet{Roberts:69}, \citet{Gouguenheim:69}, and
116: \citet{Bottinelli:etal:71}. The correlation was then developed as
117: a distance indicator by \citet{Tully:Fisher:77}.
118:
119: The bias properties of individual TF distances for field
120: galaxies, chosen from magnitude-limited, or apparent
121: diameter-limited samples, is clearly summarized by Teerikorpi in his
122: important review. Correction procedures for bias can be made
123: either by (1) the method of ``normalized distances''
124: \citep{Teerikorpi:84,Teerikorpi:90,Bottinelli:etal:86,Theureau:etal:97a,Theureau:etal:97b}
125: where a ``plateau'' is seen in an $M, (m - M)$ diagram that is
126: calculated using TF distances and when all galaxies not on the
127: plateau are discarded, or (2) corrected by a method such as the
128: ``triple entry'' procedure \citep{Sandage:94a,Sandage:94b} or by the
129: equivalent method of Spaenhauer diagrams
130: \citep{Sandage:88a,Sandage:88b,Sandage:94a,Sandage:94b,Sandage:99,FST:94,STF:95}.
131:
132: The problem of bias for {\em cluster\/} galaxy samples using the
133: TF method would seem at first to be simpler than for TF field galaxy
134: samples. Occasional early comments in the literature stated that bias
135: problems for clusters do not exist because all members of the sample
136: are nearly at the same distance. This is incorrect. Bias still exists
137: when a cluster luminosity function is sampled incompletely.
138: \citet{Teerikorpi:87,Teerikorpi:90} has called this the
139: ``cluster population incompleteness bias'', of which there is now a
140: significant literature.
141:
142: A listing of the central papers on the incompleteness bias
143: include those by
144: \citet{Bottinelli:etal:87},
145: \citet{Bottinelli:etal:88a,Bottinelli:etal:88b},
146: \citet*{Kraan-Korteweg:etal:88},
147: \citet{Fouque:etal:90},
148: \citet{Willick:94},
149: \citeauthor*{FST:94} (their Figs. 5, 6, \& 8),
150: \citeauthor*{STF:95} (their Figs. 2, 3, \& 10),
151: \citet{Giovanelli:etal:97a,Giovanelli:etal:97b},
152: \citet{Teerikorpi:etal:99},
153: \citet{Masters:etal:06}
154: although we disagree with part of their analysis of the bias
155: \citep*{TSR:07}, and by others cited therein. Why then is
156: another paper on the cluster incompleteness bias useful, and what is
157: the justification of this one?
158:
159: Clarifications can be made on several points that include
160: these. (1). Bias will exist with incomplete cluster sampling due
161: to two separate effects, and it is useful to separate them.
162:
163: (a). Applying an incorrect TF slope from the calibrating
164: galaxies to the cluster sample is the principal reason for bias.
165: Only when the adopted slope for the {\em calibrators\/} is the same as
166: that of the {\em sample\/} can a slope bias be eliminated even if the
167: cluster luminosity function is sampled ``completely'' in a certain
168: way. This is true both for the ``direct'' and the ``inverse'' TF
169: formulation, i.e.\ reversing what is the independent and dependent
170: variables in the least squares regressions of LW on apparent
171: magnitude.
172:
173: The direct and inverse slopes will always be different in
174: any correlation of two independent variables if there is
175: intrinsic dispersion in the correlation
176: \citep[cf.][]{Seares:44,Feigelson:Babu:92}.
177:
178: For the Tully-Fisher correlation it turns out to be crucial
179: to use the correct slope in analyzing the data in either the
180: direct or the inverse mode. However, there is the question of
181: whether we should use the direct slope, the inverse slope, or
182: something in between, sometimes called the compromise slope, in
183: comparing the observed TF relation with any particular TF
184: calibration.
185:
186: (b). The second but related problem is the effect of the
187: intrinsic dispersion of the TF correlation itself in the presence
188: of incomplete sampling, even if a ``correct'' slope is used. The
189: inverse formulation is free from bias in a sampling to different
190: apparent magnitude limits
191: \citep{Schechter:80,Tully:88,Hendry:Simmons:94,Ekholm:Teerikorpi:97,Teerikorpi:etal:99}
192: if the LW distribution is complete (not truncated). However, this
193: is true only if the inverse slope is used for {\em both\/} the
194: calibrators and the cluster sample rather than the more usual
195: practice of using the {\em direct\/} (or the compromise) slope that
196: has been determined from the sample but which is then imposed
197: upon the calibrators (\S~\ref{sec:04} below) in using the inverse
198: method for the sample. Rather, the inverse slope must be used for both
199: the calibrators and the sample.
200:
201: (2). It has sometimes been written that the incompleteness
202: bias would disappear if the scatter in the observed TF cluster
203: LW-magnitude correlation (i.e.\ either an intrinsic TF dispersion
204: or a back-to-front depth effect, or both) would be zero. This
205: would only be true if the correct slope for the calibrators is
206: used. However, such a slope is never known because of errors in
207: the calibrator distances, giving a dispersion in the TF
208: calibration solutions. This is the reason for the difference
209: between the direct and inverse least squares solutions for the
210: calibration. One of the purposes of this paper is to explore the
211: effect of this dispersion both in the calibration and in the
212: galaxy sample using a variety of TF slopes.
213:
214: The effect of calibrator dispersion on the derived TF slope,
215: especially in the direct mode, can be made particularly
216: transparent using real calibration data from the HST Cepheid
217: database for TF calibrating galaxies. We set out in \S~\ref{sec:04} a
218: new Tully-Fisher calibration using our HST Cepheid distances
219: \citep{Saha:etal:06}. These are the basis of our 2006 distance scale
220: with its determination of the Hubble constant
221: \citep{Sandage:etal:06,TSR:07}.
222:
223: (3). A different formulation of the TF bias problems can be
224: made and can be compared with earlier discussions that may seem
225: to have been unnecessarily opaque \citep[eg.][Paper~II]{Sandage:94b}.
226: The present paper aims to clarify the TF bias problem, recasting
227: the discussion in Paper~II of this series by retracing the steps
228: this author recently took in considering the subject again. The
229: purposes here are fivefold.
230:
231: (A). A simplistic toy (zero intrinsic dispersion) model is
232: set out in \S~\ref{sec:02} showing what happens to the calculated
233: distance moduli when an incorrect slope is used for the Tully-Fisher
234: correlation for either the calibrators or the cluster data. A
235: restriction to avoid a bias is stressed requiring that the depth
236: of the magnitude sampling must be faint enough to be symmetrical
237: about a ``crossing point'' in the $B_{T}^{0,i}$-LW correlation between
238: the direct and the inverse regressions if the slope is incorrect.
239:
240: (B). A more complicated toy model with intrinsic dispersion
241: is discussed in \S~\ref{sec:03} with and without the correct slopes
242: for the direct and inverse regressions.
243:
244: (C). Real data are used in \S~\ref{sec:04} to make a mock
245: (composite) cluster by combining observations for the spirals in the
246: Virgo~A and B cluster cores with similar data for the Ursa Major I and II
247: spiral aggregates, corrected for the small distance differences.
248:
249: (D). \S~\ref{sec:05} sets out a new calibration of the TF relation
250: using our HST metallicity-corrected Cepheid distances
251: \citep{Saha:etal:06,Sandage:etal:06}. This calibration using various
252: slopes is applied to the composite cluster for both the direct
253: and inverse regressions in \S~\ref{sec:06}.
254:
255: (E). The resulting distance to the Virgo Cluster A spiral
256: core is set out in \S~\ref{sec:07}. The Hubble constant derived from this
257: distance, using the cosmic expansion velocity of the cluster,
258: freed from all local non-cosmological flows by tying to the
259: distant cosmic kinematic frame, is set out there.
260:
261:
262: % ******************************************************************
263: % 2. MODEL OF THE BIAS CAUSED BY INCORRECT TF SLOPES FOR THE CASE
264: % OF ZERO INTRINSIC TF DISPERSION; THE IMPORTANCE OF
265: % SYMMETRICAL SAMPLING OF THE MAGNITUDE INTERVAL
266: % ******************************************************************
267: \section{MODEL OF THE BIAS CAUSED BY INCORRECT TF SLOPES FOR THE CASE
268: OF ZERO INTRINSIC TF DISPERSION; THE IMPORTANCE OF
269: SYMMETRICAL SAMPLING OF THE MAGNITUDE INTERVAL}
270: \label{sec:02}
271: %
272: As said, even if the intrinsic TF dispersion (and/or an appreciable
273: depth effect) would be zero, there would yet be a bias in a derived
274: mean cluster distance if (1) an incorrect slope for the TF correlation
275: is used, and (2) if the sampling is either incomplete at faint
276: magnitudes or is non-symmetrical about the cross-over point of the
277: direct and inverse slopes in the TF diagram. We illustrate these
278: points using the simplistic model shown in Figure~\ref{fig:01} that
279: has a zero TF intrinsic dispersion.
280:
281: % **********************************************
282: % ---> Figure 1: Model of a toy cluster
283: % **********************************************
284:
285: The insert in Figure~\ref{fig:01} shows a dispersionless TF
286: correlation for an imaginary cluster that has a true slope of
287: $dm/d\log w_{20}=-7$ and that is normalized at $B_{T}^{0,i} = 11.5$
288: for $\log w_{20} = \log W/\sin i = 2.50$. A calibration of the TF
289: relation with a slope of $-7$ that gives $(m-M)=31.5$ for the toy
290: cluster is in the main body of the diagram, normalized at absolute
291: magnitude $-20$ for $\log w_{20} = 2.5$. Two deviant slopes for the
292: calibration are shown with slopes of $-9$ and $-5$. These cross the
293: true slope at $M = -20$ and $\log w_{20}=2.5$ by construction.
294: These imitate (albeit with exaggeration) the inverse and direct least
295: squares regressions for real calibration data (Figs.~\ref{fig:05} and
296: \ref{fig:06} in \S~\ref{sec:04_1}). For real clusters the inverse
297: correlation is always steeper than the direct.
298: (The actual slopes for the 25 galaxy Cepheid calibration in
299: \S~\ref{sec:06} are $-6.161$ for the direct regression and $-8.475$
300: for the inverse, from Table~\ref{tab:07} later).
301:
302: We can illustrate the bias on the calculated cluster moduli
303: by using each of the calibration (incorrect) slopes of $-9$ and $-5$.
304: Consider first the calibration slope of $-9$ applied to the toy
305: cluster. This steep slope gives too bright an estimate of the
306: absolute magnitude for all line widths larger than the cross-over
307: point at $\log w_{20} = 2.5$, and hence the distance moduli are too
308: large for all $\log w_{20} > 2.5$ and too small for line widths that
309: are smaller than $\log w_{20} = 2.5$. The opposite is true for a slope
310: of $-5$; galaxies with $\log w_{20}$ larger than 2.5 will be
311: incorrectly calibrated too faint, giving smaller (incorrect) distances
312: for $\log w_{20} > 2.5$ and too bright giving larger (incorrect)
313: distances for $\log w_{20} < 2.5$.
314:
315: In a complete sampling for LWs above and below
316: $\log w_{20}=2.5$, and if the number of galaxies along the line in
317: the insert diagram is constant, then the average distance modulus for
318: the complete sample will be correct at $(m-M)=31.5$. But this is true
319: {\em only if the summing over all apparent magnitudes is carried out
320: for magnitude limits that are symmetrical about the cross-over
321: point\/} at $\log w_{20}=2.5$ (or $B_{T}^{0,i}=11.5$ in the toy
322: model). Said differently, a correct mean modulus will only be obtained
323: by summing over magnitudes that go to equal limits above and below
324: 11.5, i.e.\ say from 10.0 to 13.0. If the magnitude boundaries are
325: not symmetrical about this cross-over point (here at
326: $B_{T}^{0,i}=11.5$), or if there is a population gradient with
327: magnitude, then the derived mean modulus will be incorrect. Of course,
328: also if the summing over magnitude is incomplete (say only over the
329: restricted interval of 10 to $12\mag$), an incorrect mean modulus will
330: be derived if the wrong slope is used.
331:
332: This is the classical ``population incompleteness'' bias, but
333: we see here that it is more complicated than simple incompleteness. It
334: depends on slope errors and the necessity for symmetrical sampling
335: above and below the cross-over point of the direct and inverse least
336: squares solutions even if there is no gradient in galaxies numbers
337: along the ridge line. This crucial point (see \S~\ref{sec:06}) is
338: illustrated in Table~\ref{tab:01} for the dispersionless toy cluster
339: that has been put at a true distance modulus of $(m-M)=31.5$.
340:
341: % **********************************************
342: % ---> Table 1: Derived Distance Moduli of the Toy Cluster of Fig. 1
343: % **********************************************
344:
345: The first half of the table gives the calculated modulus at
346: the fixed magnitudes in column~(1) using arbitrary TF slopes that
347: range from $-9$ to $-5$. Fixing all cross-over points of these lines
348: to be $M=-20$ at $\log w_{20}=2.5$ gives the equations of the assumed
349: lines in the main body of the diagram as $M=-9 \log w_{20} + 2.5$ to
350: $M = -5 \log w_{20}-7.5$, etc., and $B_{T}^{0,i}= -7 \log w_{20} +
351: 29.00$. All entries for $(m-M)$ at the stated apparent magnitudes in
352: column~(1) of Table~\ref{tab:01} follow in an obvious way from these
353: equations.
354:
355: The calculated moduli for the slopes of $-9$ and $-8$ with
356: apparent magnitudes brighter than 11.5 (the cross-over point) are
357: larger than the true modulus of 31.5 and visa-versa for fainter
358: magnitudes. The opposite trend exists for slopes of $-6$ and $-5$.
359: These results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:02} (top). Of course, for
360: the ``true'' slope of $-7$, all calculated moduli are 31.5 by
361: construction.
362:
363: % **********************************************
364: % ---> Figure 2: Calculated (m-M) of Toy Cluster
365: % **********************************************
366:
367: Using the calculated moduli that are valid {\em at\/} the
368: specified apparent magnitudes, we can sum the entries to obtain the
369: average modulus value for all galaxies that are {\em brighter\/} than
370: any particular limiting magnitude into the cluster luminosity
371: function, shown in the bottom panel of Figure~\ref{fig:02}. These
372: moduli are, of course, those that would be obtained in a real case by
373: averaging the modulus values for all galaxies in the sample that
374: is complete only to brighter magnitude limits. This is the
375: incompleteness bias.
376:
377: The effect of an incorrect slope on the bias using incomplete
378: sampling is set out explicitly in the second half of
379: Table~\ref{tab:01}, and shown in the bottom panel of
380: Figure~\ref{fig:02}. The points to note are these.
381:
382: (A). For steeper slopes than the ``true'' slope (i.e.\ for $-9$ and
383: $-8$), the derived mean distance moduli decrease as the sampling is
384: done deeper into the cluster luminosity function. The bias effect
385: from $B=10$ to 13 is $0.4\mag$ in the modulus differences for the
386: slope of $-9$ and $0.2\mag$ for the slope of $-8$.
387:
388: (B). The opposite is true for the shallow slopes of $-6$ and $-5$.
389:
390: (C). The correct modulus is obtained only by sampling to
391: $B=13$. This is three magnitudes into the cluster luminosity
392: function.
393:
394: (D). Sampling fainter than $B=13$ gives incorrect modulus
395: values (except for the $-7$ case using the ``true'' slope). This is
396: the effect of ``non-symmetrical'' sampling about the cross-over
397: point.
398:
399: Of course, this toy model is too simplistic because there is
400: no dispersion in the TF calibration nor in the TF correlation
401: for the cluster galaxies.
402:
403: % ******************************************************************
404: % 3. A MODEL OF THE BIAS DUE TO AN INTRINSIC TF DISPERSION AND/OR
405: % INCORRECT SLOPES FOR THE TF RELATION
406: % ******************************************************************
407: \section{A MODEL OF THE BIAS DUE TO AN INTRINSIC TF DISPERSION AND/OR
408: INCORRECT SLOPES FOR THE TF RELATION}
409: \label{sec:03}
410: %
411: To understand the bias properties of the cluster TF data it is
412: useful to analyze the LW-apparent magnitude data in two ways. The
413: first is to bin the data into intervals of $w_{20}$ and then, within
414: each interval, to order the listings by apparent magnitude. The second
415: is to bin the data by apparent magnitude and then to order by line
416: width within each magnitude interval.
417:
418: The first way is illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:03} where the
419: intrinsic dispersion (plus any back-to-front variation) is shown
420: by the dotted envelope lines placed symmetrically about the
421: ridge line and where three line-width intervals are drawn for
422: illustration. An arbitrary magnitude limit is put at $m = 11.5$,
423: which is about $1.5\mag$ fainter than the brightest galaxy in the
424: cluster in this example.
425:
426: % **********************************************
427: % ---> Figure 3: Apparent Magnitude Cut
428: % **********************************************
429:
430: All galaxies in the line-width interval farthest to the right are
431: brighter than the magnitude cut-off, whereas galaxies at smaller LWs
432: to the left are progressively lost to the sample at smaller and
433: smaller LWs. This causes the bias.
434:
435: Consider first the unbiased LW interval to the right. Due to the
436: dispersion, some galaxies are brighter than the central ridge line and
437: some are fainter. If the position of the ridge line has been
438: calculated by a least squares regression using magnitude residuals at
439: fixed $w_{20}$, i.e.\ in the ``direct'' solution, there will be equal
440: numbers of galaxies above and below the calculated ridge line. This
441: line is the most probable apparent magnitude at that $w_{20}$,
442: although, because of the dispersion, no galaxy will have the
443: ridge-line apparent magnitude unless, of course, it is on the ridge
444: line.
445:
446: Consider next how the data in this LW-interval are used to
447: obtain a system of distance moduli using some absolute TF
448: calibration such in Figure~\ref{fig:08} later in \S~\ref{sec:05}. The
449: calibration will, itself, have a dispersion that will be a combination
450: of the intrinsic dispersion due to the physics that governs the TF
451: correlation and the measuring errors in the distances of the
452: calibrating galaxies.
453:
454: When the ridge-line calibration (i.e.\ the central line in
455: Fig.~\ref{fig:08} later) is applied to the ridge line of the {\em
456: observed\/} cluster TF relation such as in Figure~\ref{fig:03}, a
457: modulus value is obtained of each galaxy in that $w_{20}$
458: interval. But, as said before, the calculated modulus of any given
459: galaxy so obtained {\em is incorrect}, unless it is on the ridge line.
460:
461: In detail, consider the unbiased $\log w_{20}$ interval from 2.70
462: to 2.75 for the right-hand strip in Figure~\ref{fig:03}. Suppose that
463: all galaxies in the cluster are at the same distance
464: (no back-to-front effect) and there are no errors of measurement
465: either in $w_{20}$ or magnitude. For this case, galaxies near the
466: upper envelope line are those that are actually overluminous for their
467: line width due to an intrinsic dispersion (i.e.\ from the physics) of
468: the TF relation. Hence, applying the most probable calibration
469: (which is fainter here than these particular galaxies) from the
470: ridge-line calibrator relation to such {\em intrinsically\/} bright
471: galaxies will give too small a calculated distance modulus for
472: them, and visa-versa for galaxies that are actually underluminous
473: (i.e.\ below the ridge line). Nevertheless, if the strip is filled
474: symmetrically above and below the ridge line, and if the slope of
475: that line has been determined by the ``direct'' least squares
476: regression, then the mean modulus found by averaging the
477: individual moduli in the strip (all of which are incorrect except
478: for those on the strip) will be the correct modulus, to within
479: statistics.
480:
481: However, if the strip is not sampled completely, as in the
482: second and third strips in Figure~\ref{fig:03} where a magnitude cut
483: truncates the distribution, the average of the individual moduli will
484: be progressively in error at the smaller line widths as LW intervals
485: move toward the left. The average of modulus values for galaxies
486: above the magnitude limit line will then be too small by amounts
487: that will decrease as the fraction of the accessible sample (the
488: ratio to the complete sample) increases as the magnitude limit
489: lines are moved fainter. {\em This is the incompleteness bias}.
490:
491: Nevertheless, averaging over all line widths and to a
492: sufficiently faint apparent magnitude will give the correct
493: distance modulus if, of course, the strips are filled
494: symmetrically above and below the most probable ridge line.
495:
496: This bias effect produces an error in the calculated
497: {\em slope\/} determined from incomplete data in the direct
498: regression. The error will be a function of the depth of penetration
499: into the cluster luminosity function. This is obvious from
500: Figure~\ref{fig:03}. The slope appropriate for the unbiased LW
501: interval at the right ($\log w_{20}$ between 2.70 and 2.75) is the
502: correct direct slope (except for statistics) that would be determined
503: from the complete sample using the complete luminosity
504: function. However, if we use only data brighter than any brighter
505: magnitude cut, here put at $11.5\mag$, the midpoint average magnitudes
506: for the biased LW intervals (all to the left of the unbiased interval
507: in Fig.~\ref{fig:03}) are all brighter than the true ridge line
508: (unbiased) points shown by the three dots in
509: Figure~\ref{fig:03}. Hence, the slopes that would be determined
510: by calculation using only data brighter than any magnitude cut-off,
511: {\em will all be too shallow}, approaching the correct slope only
512: when the magnitude limit is so faint so as to include the
513: complete sample.
514:
515: Hence, because of the incompleteness bias, the calculated
516: mean modulus using the direct slope should vary progressively
517: with cut-off magnitude. This is the explanation of why in our
518: earlier discussion (\citeauthor*{STF:95}, Figs. 2, 3, 6, and 10)
519: the calculated slope of the observed TF correlation in the direct
520: formulation varies with cut-off magnitude. This effect on the
521: slope will be demonstrated in \S~\ref{sec:04_1} (Fig.~\ref{fig:07})
522: using actual data.
523:
524: The ideal schematic model of Figure~\ref{fig:03} is still too
525: simplistic because the effect of using an incorrect slope for the
526: ridge line has been ignored. We mean by this that the (direct) slope
527: shown in Figure~\ref{fig:03}, as it would have been derived from the
528: complete sample, is assumed to be without error.
529:
530: With this in mind, consider the inverse correlation where
531: the calculated TF slope is independent of the depth sampled into
532: the cluster luminosity function, in contrast to the direct slope
533: calculated from incomplete data. The strategy of analysis for
534: the inverse calculation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:04}.
535:
536: % **********************************************
537: % ---> Figure 4:
538: % **********************************************
539:
540: In Figure~\ref{fig:04}, as in Figure~\ref{fig:03}, the scatter of
541: the cluster data at a given apparent magnitude is shown for a TF
542: correlation that has intrinsic and/or back-to-front scatter. The
543: inverse ridge line (marked I) is made to go through the midpoint of
544: each shaded magnitude interval, because that is what the least squares
545: regression gives by its procedure of using residuals in the LWs
546: {\em at given magnitudes\/} rather than visa versa.
547:
548: If the distribution of $w_{20}$ within each magnitude interval is
549: symmetrical about the ridge line, the average distance modulus of
550: all the galaxies within each magnitude interval will be the true
551: modulus to within statistics. This average at every magnitude
552: interval will be bias free. However, as is evident in
553: Figure~\ref{fig:04}, this will only be true if the inverse slope is
554: used. It will {\em not be true if the direct slope is used\/} with the
555: inverse method.
556:
557: Using either the I or the D ridge lines, and imposing in
558: turn their slopes on the calibrator sample, gives individual
559: modulus values for each galaxy in any of the individual strips in
560: Figure~\ref{fig:04}. Again, as before, these individually are
561: incorrect, except for galaxies precisely on the ridge
562: line. Nevertheless, if the distribution of modulus values within each
563: magnitude interval is symmetrical about the ``I'' ridge line, then the
564: average of the individual modulus values within each magnitude
565: interval will be the true value provided that the I slope {\em has
566: been forced on the calibrators themselves}. Clearly, as seen from
567: Figure~\ref{fig:04}, the same is not true using the direct
568: slope. There are more galaxies to the small LW side of the TF
569: distribution for magnitudes brighter than the cross-over point, and
570: fewer galaxies to the left of the D line for fainter magnitudes than
571: the crossover point. This produces the bias in the average modulus using
572: the direct slope for all magnitude cut-offs brighter than the
573: limit at $B = 14$. This is the cluster incompleteness bias in the
574: direct formulation if the sampling is incomplete.
575:
576: In the inverse method we need only average all the modulus
577: data in a {\em given magnitude interval\/} to get the correct cluster
578: modulus, in contrast to the direct method where we need to
579: average over the whole of luminosity function, or we must apply
580: the correction methods in the direct formulation derived either
581: from the ``normalized distance'' method of the French workers
582: \citep{Teerikorpi:97}, or by the method of Spaenhauer diagrams
583: \citep{Sandage:94a,Sandage:94b}.
584:
585: Figure~\ref{fig:04} also shows the effect caused by an error in
586: the adopted slope in the inverse method. This will cause a bias in
587: the derived distance for the reason just described of using the
588: direct slope when the inverse slope should be used.
589:
590: Consider this effect of using the direct slope with the
591: inverse method and summing the data only to a given apparent
592: magnitude. Consider first all magnitude intervals that are
593: brighter than the cross-over point at $m=11.5$ and $\log w_{20}=2.5$.
594: An average modulus that is too small will be calculated at each
595: of the bright magnitude intervals because there will be more
596: galaxies to the left of the adopted ``D'' ridge line than to the
597: right (i.e.\ giving moduli values that are too small compared with
598: the ridge line average). The opposite will be true for all
599: magnitude intervals that are fainter than $m=11.5$ (seen also in
600: the top part of Table~\ref{tab:01} for a toy cluster with no
601: dispersion). Only by summing the total data over all magnitude
602: intervals can the correct true modulus be obtained.
603: However, as in Figure~\ref{fig:01} and Table~\ref{tab:01}, the sum
604: over all magnitudes in a complete sample must be made no fainter than
605: the magnitude level that is {\em symmetrical\/} about the cross-over
606: point, showing again the need to adopt a symmetrical magnitude limit
607: about the cross-over point in both the direct and inverse solutions.
608:
609: Hence, on both accounts of the effect of (1) incomplete
610: sampling using the direct TF slope as in Figure~\ref{fig:03} and then
611: summing over all magnitudes (usually such completeness is not
612: available), or (2) of summing over LW to given magnitude limits
613: (Fig.~\ref{fig:04} for the inverse method), the conclusion is that the
614: true inverse slope must be used to avoid both (a) the error in the
615: adopted slope and (b) the incomplete sampling effects. These
616: conclusions will be demonstrated in \S~\ref{sec:06} using real data
617: for a composite (artificial) cluster.
618:
619: % ******************************************************************
620: % 4. A COMPOSITE CLUSTER MADE TO ILLUSTRATE THE INCOMPLETENESS BIAS
621: % ******************************************************************
622: \section{A COMPOSITE CLUSTER MADE TO ILLUSTRATE THE INCOMPLETENESS BIAS}
623: \label{sec:04}
624: %
625: % ******************************************************************
626: % 4.1 Construction of the composite catalog
627: % ******************************************************************
628: \subsection{Construction of the Composite Catalog}
629: \label{sec:04_1}
630: %
631: To demonstrate the points made in the last two sections it is useful
632: to analyze real LW and magnitude data for a galaxy cluster. Only a few
633: catalogs exist that are complete enough for real clusters to be useful
634: for such a demonstration. The most complete are for the Virgo~A and B
635: subclusters and for the Ursa Major ``cluster'', early called the Ursa
636: Major Cloud by Hubble and identified as such by \citet{Humason:etal:56}
637: in the Mount Wilson redshift list.
638:
639: However, the number of spirals that are suitable for a TF
640: analysis (inclinations greater than $30^{\circ}$ and adequate
641: photometry to derive fully corrected apparent magnitudes) in these
642: three aggregates is so small that small-number statistics can mask the
643: bias effects we are seeking. To increase the size of the sample we
644: have created a composite cluster by combining the data for the
645: Virgo~A and B subclusters with those for the Ursa Major cloud to
646: form a single catalog. Corrections have been made to the apparent
647: magnitudes of the galaxies in the Virgo~B cluster and the Ursa
648: Major Cloud to compensate for the small differences in the
649: distances of each aggregate relative to Virgo~A.
650:
651: The data for the Virgo subclusters are taken from the
652: listings by \citet{FTS:98} in their Table~3.
653: Membership for Virgo~A and B are based on the Virgo Cluster Catalog of
654: \citet*{Binggeli:etal:85} as reanalyzed for cluster members by
655: \citet*{Binggeli:etal:93}. Only galaxies with inclination greater than
656: $30^{\circ}$, and only those assigned either to subclusters A and B
657: are used. There are 43 galaxies in Virgo~A and 16 in Virgo~B in the
658: composite catalog.
659:
660: The Ursa Major Cloud has been studied in the past by
661: \citet{Sersic:60},
662: \citet[][especially his Figs. 8 \& 9]{deVaucouleurs:75}
663: in his review of groups,
664: \citet{Tully:Fisher:87},
665: \citet{Pierce:Tully:88},
666: \citet[][his Fig. 7 in chapter 4 of his thesis]{Verheijen:97},
667: \citet{Tully:etal:96},
668: \citet{Peletier:Willner:93},
669: \citet{Federspiel:99}, and undoubtedly others.
670:
671: We use here the cluster membership of \citeauthor{Federspiel:99}
672: from his Table~3.2 for the spirals that are suitable for the TF method
673: where he lists the necessary $B_{T}^{0,i}$, line width, and $v_{220}$
674: radial velocity data (to test membership). Federspiel's membership
675: criteria, similar to those of \citeauthor{Verheijen:97} and of
676: \citeauthor{Pierce:Tully:88}, are (a) heliocentric redshift interval
677: from 700 to $1500\kms$, and (b) angular distance within $7.5^{\circ}$
678: of RA(1950)$=11^{\rm h}54^{\rm m}$, Dec(1950)$=+49.5^{\circ}$.
679:
680: The radial velocity distribution in $v_{220}$, corrected for
681: Virgo infall by the model of \citet{Kraan-Korteweg:86}, shows a
682: bimodal character with means at $1060\pm29\kms$ and $1485\pm38\kms$,
683: indicating an appreciable depth effect along the filament connecting
684: the cloud with the Virgo complex that is shown so remarkably in Figure~6
685: of \citet{Klypin:etal:03}. We treat separately the two distributions,
686: assigning galaxies with $v_{220}<1250\kms$ to be members of an Ursa
687: Major I aggregate, and those with $v_{220}>1250\kms$ as members of
688: Ursa Major II. There are 18 spirals suitable for the TF method in
689: UMa~I and 15 in UMa~II.
690:
691: Hence, there are 92 galaxies in the artificial composite
692: cluster (43, 16, 18, and 15) from Virgo~A, Virgo~B, and UMa~I
693: and UMa~II.
694:
695: The $B_{T}^{0,i}$ magnitudes used here, corrected to a ``total''
696: magnitude, are within a few hundredths of a magnitude of the RC3
697: \citep{deVaucouleurs:etal:91} system. (Slight differences at the
698: few hundredths mag level exist because no K redshift corrections
699: were applied here, differing from the RC3, and some updating was
700: made). The LW data for the four aggregates are on the homogeneous
701: line-width system used by \citeauthor*{FTS:98},
702: taken from the Lyon-Meudon Extragalactic Data Base (the LEDA).
703: These LWs average $0.033\pm0.002\;$dex smaller than the LWs that are
704: calculated from the RC3 with the RC3 inclinations calculated from
705: the $\log R_{25}$ values listed there.
706:
707: Small magnitude corrections between the four groups are
708: needed to reduce all data to the distance of Virgo~A. These were
709: determined by comparing the zero points of the least squares TF
710: correlations of Virgo~A with those of Virgo~B and UMa~I \& II. To
711: calculate these corrections, the Virgo~A TF slope is imposed on
712: Virgo~B and UMa~I \& II. These gave zero point magnitude
713: differences such that the $B_{T}^{0,i}$ magnitudes for Virgo~B are
714: made brighter than the \citeauthor*{FTS:98} listings by
715: $0.38\pm0.16\mag$ (Virgo~B is more distant). The correction for UMa~I
716: (the smaller velocity aggregate) is $0.16\pm0.13\mag$ made fainter
717: than the magnitudes listed by \citet{Federspiel:99} (UMa~I is closer
718: than Virgo~A), and the \citeauthor{Federspiel:99} magnitudes for
719: UMa~II (the larger velocity aggregate) were made brighter by
720: $0.16\pm0.17\mag$ (UMa~II is more distant than Virgo~A) so as to put
721: the magnitudes on the distance system as Virgo~A.
722:
723: Using these magnitude corrections we have made an artificial
724: cluster catalogue from which the TF correlation of $\log w_{20}$ with
725: the $B_{T}^{0,i}$ magnitudes can be made. The result is in
726: Figure~\ref{fig:05} where all 92 galaxies of the artificial composite
727: cluster are shown. A more select subsample of 84 galaxies is shown in
728: Figure~\ref{fig:06} where a magnitude cut is made at
729: $B_{T}^{0,i}=14.0$, eliminating the eight faintest galaxies.
730:
731: % **********************************************
732: % --- > Figure 5: Composite cluster (n=92)
733: % **********************************************
734:
735: % **********************************************
736: % --- > Figure 6: Composite cluster (n=84)
737: % **********************************************
738:
739: The slopes of the direct and the inverse least squares
740: regressions with the cluster data are shown in parentheses in the
741: diagrams. The equations of the regression lines are:
742: \begin{equation}
743: B_{T}^{0,i}(\mbox{RC3})=-6.622\log w_{20}\;(\mbox{LEDA})+28.195\pm0.103,
744: \label{eq:01}
745: \end{equation}
746: for the direct regression using all 92 galaxies in Figure~\ref{fig:05}, and
747: \begin{equation}
748: B_{T}^{0,i}(\mbox{RC3})=-8.032\log w_{20}\;(\mbox{LEDA})+31.598\pm0.114
749: \label{eq:02}
750: \end{equation}
751: for the inverse correlation for the same sample.
752:
753: The equations for the more restricted 84 galaxy sample (cut
754: at $B_{T}^{0,i}=14.0$) are:
755: \begin{equation}
756: B_{T}^{0,i}(\mbox{RC3})=-5.936\log w_{20}\;(\mbox{LEDA})+26.453,
757: \label{eq:03}
758: \end{equation}
759: for the direct regression, and
760: \begin{equation}
761: B_{T}^{0,i}(\mbox{RC3})=-7.547\log w_{20}\;(\mbox{LEDA})+30.391.
762: \label{eq:04}
763: \end{equation}
764:
765:
766: % ******************************************************************
767: % 4.2 The sensitivity of the TF slope with sampling depth into
768: % the cluster luminosity function
769: % ******************************************************************
770: \subsection{The Sensitivity of the TF Slope with Sampling Depth into
771: the Cluster Luminosity Function}
772: \label{sec:04_2}
773: %
774: The data for the artificial cluster have been binned by
775: apparent magnitude, enabling a study of the effect on the biased
776: slope of the Tully-Fisher correlation due to incomplete
777: sampling. Least squares solutions have been made from the
778: composite cluster data as the magnitude cut is put progressively
779: fainter. The results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:02} in columns (2-6)
780: for the total sample of 92 galaxies to the limit of $B=15$, and for
781: the restricted sample of 78 galaxies in columns (7-9) to be discussed
782: later in \S~\ref{sec:06}.
783:
784: % **********************************************
785: % ---> Table 2: Least Squares TF Regressions to Various Magnitude Cut-Offs
786: % **********************************************
787:
788: Column~(1) shows the magnitude cut into the luminosity
789: function of the composite cluster. The number of galaxies to each
790: truncated limit is in column~(2). The slope and zero point for
791: the direct regression (residuals taken in magnitude at a fixed LW
792: as in $m = a \log w + b$), are in columns~(3) and (4). The slope and
793: zero points of the inverse correlation, as in
794: $log w_{20} = cB_{T}^{0,i}+d$, are in columns~(5) and (6). The slopes
795: and zero points for the complete sample of $n=92$ for $B>15$ (the last
796: row) are, of course, the same as in equations~(\ref{eq:01}) and
797: (\ref{eq:02}). Columns~(8) and (9) show the calculated least squares
798: direct and inverse slopes for the restricted sample ($n=78$) to the
799: listed cut-off magnitudes. The number of galaxies to that magnitude
800: limit is in column~(7).
801:
802: Figure~\ref{fig:07} shows the data in Table~\ref{tab:02} where
803: the progressive increase of slope for the direct correlation,
804: consistent with Figs. 2, 3, 6, and 10 of \citeauthor*{STF:95},
805: is evident. The top panel shows the increase of slope with increasing
806: faintness for the direct formulation using the complete sample of 92
807: galaxies (col. 3 of Table~\ref{tab:02}). Less clear but consistent
808: within statistics, is the lack of a correlation of slope with
809: faintness for the inverse correlation. The bottom panel shows the same
810: effect more clearly for the restricted sample of 78 galaxies from
811: columns~(8) and (9) of Table~\ref{tab:02}.
812:
813: % **********************************************
814: % Figure 7: (data from Table 2)
815: % **********************************************
816:
817: The expectation from \S~\ref{sec:03} (eg.\ from
818: Fig.~\ref{fig:03}) is that there should be a progressive change of
819: slope as the cluster is sampled more deeply in magnitude using the
820: DIRECT regression (residuals in magnitude at given LW), whereas no
821: systematic variation should be present in the INVERSE solution
822: (residuals in LW at given magnitudes). Figure~\ref{fig:07} shows the
823: slope effect in the DIRECT (dots) formulation. It is consistent with
824: Figures 2, 3, 6, and 10 of \citeauthor*{STF:95}.
825:
826: The situation is less clear in support of the prediction of
827: no-slope variation for the inverse regression (open circles)
828: because of the dip between 12 and $13\mag$ and the increase at
829: fainter magnitudes. However, inspection of the distribution of
830: galaxies within the envelope lines in Figures~\ref{fig:05} and
831: \ref{fig:06} shows the reason is the statistical noise caused by
832: fluctuations in the small number statistics of the actual data, and
833: the evident non-uniform filling of the vertical and horizontal bins in
834: Figures~\ref{fig:03} and \ref{fig:04}, seen by inspection of
835: Figures~\ref{fig:05} and \ref{fig:06} here, and especially
836: Figure~7 of \citeauthor*{FTS:98}.
837: In Figures~\ref{fig:05} and \ref{fig:06} for the magnitude interval
838: from $B = 12$ to 13 there are more galaxies to the left of the
839: ridge lines than to the right, and conversely, from magnitude 13
840: to 14 the opposite is true. This causes the entries in the later
841: Tables~\ref{tab:05} and \ref{tab:06}, used to construct a
842: magnitude-modulus diagram similar to Figure~\ref{fig:02}, to show this
843: statistical noise as curvature from $B = 12$ to 14, reducing the ideal
844: symmetry of Figure~\ref{fig:02} for the toy cluster to the noisy
845: reality of the real data for the composite cluster. We shall encounter
846: the problem again in \S~\ref{sec:06} where the data for the composite
847: cluster using various TF slopes resembles Figure~\ref{fig:02}. This
848: statistical noise between $B=12$ to 14 degrades the predictions of the
849: ideal noiseless toy cluster of Figures~\ref{fig:01} and \ref{fig:02}.
850:
851: To this point we have not needed an absolute magnitude
852: calibration of Figures~\ref{fig:05} and \ref{fig:06} to study the bias
853: problem. In particular we have not needed a calibration to obtain
854: Table~\ref{tab:02} and Figures~\ref{fig:07}, but to carry the
855: argument further we now do.
856:
857:
858:
859: % ******************************************************************
860: % 5. A NEW TF CALIBRATION USING HST CEPHEID DISTANCES FOR 25 GALAXIES
861: % ******************************************************************
862: \section{A NEW TF CALIBRATION USING HST CEPHEID DISTANCES FOR 25 GALAXIES}
863: \label{sec:05}
864: %
865: Equations~(\ref{eq:01}-\ref{eq:04}) and Figures~\ref{fig:05} and
866: \ref{fig:06} are only useful for determining distance moduli if a
867: calibration of the TF regression in absolute magnitude is available
868: from independent data. We use here a new calibration based on 25
869: galaxies in which Cepheids have been measured, the majority of have
870: been observed with the HST space telescope. The new data are set out
871: in Table~\ref{tab:03}.
872:
873: % **********************************************
874: % ---> Table 3: Cepheid Calibrators
875: % **********************************************
876:
877: Column~(1) lists the galaxy name. The type and luminosity
878: class are in column~(2) from the listings in A Revised Shapley Ames
879: Catalog of Bright Galaxies \citep{Sandage:Tammann:87}.
880: Column~(3) is the adopted distance modulus from
881: \citet[][Table~8]{Saha:etal:06}
882: based on period-dependent metallicity corrections required by
883: the non-unique Cepheid period-luminosity relations that vary from
884: galaxy-to-galaxy
885: (\citealt*{TSR:03};
886: \citealt*{STR:04};
887: \citealt{Kanbur:Ngeow:04};
888: \citealt{Ngeow:Kanbur:05};
889: \citealt{Ngeow:etal:05}).
890: These modulus values define our 2006 distance scale based on type Ia
891: supernovae and HST Cepheids \citep{Saha:etal:06,Sandage:etal:06}.
892: (The listed modulus for NGC\,4258 corrects the value listed in
893: Table~8 of Saha which was a computational error).
894:
895: Column~(4) is the fully corrected apparent magnitude on the
896: scale of \citeauthor*{FTS:98} which is close to that in the
897: RC3. Column~(5) is the $M_{B(T)}^{0,i}$ absolute magnitude which is
898: column~(4) minus column~(3). The log line width at the 20\% level and
899: corrected for inclination is in column (6) on the Lyon-Meudon
900: Extragalactic Data Base (LEDA) as set out in
901: \citeauthor*{FTS:98}. Where no data exist in \citeauthor*{FTS:98} we
902: use the RC3 LW data made smaller by $0.033\;$dex.
903:
904: The difference in the distance moduli in column~(3) with
905: 16 galaxies in common with \citeauthor*{FTS:98} is $0.05\pm0.03\mag$
906: with the distances in Table~\ref{tab:03} being larger.
907:
908: Comparisons of the distance scale here with that of
909: \citet[][Cols~2 and 5 of their Table~3]{Freedman:etal:01} are these.
910: The difference between Table~\ref{tab:03} here and Table~3, column~(2)
911: of \citeauthor{Freedman:etal:01} (their old scale) is
912: $0.09\pm0.04\mag$ from 25 overlaps. Our distances are larger. The
913: difference using the new scale of \citeauthor{Freedman:etal:01} (their
914: Table~3, col. 5) is $0.23\pm0.04\mag$, again our distances are larger.
915:
916: Comparing the larger sample of all Cepheids (not just those
917: that make up the TF calibration) that are in common between our
918: scale and Freedman shows $(m - M)=0.11\pm0.03\mag$ for
919: Freedman's old scale (col.~2 of their Table~3) from 30 overlaps.
920: Their new scale (col.~5 of their Table~3) compared with ours
921: shows $(m-M)=0.25\pm0.04\mag$ from 30 galaxies in common.
922: Again our scale is longer.
923:
924: The reason for the difference is that we account for the
925: different slopes and zero points of the Cepheid P-L relations
926: from galaxy-to-galaxy according to metallicity corrections that
927: are period dependent \citep{Saha:etal:06}. The P-L slopes differ
928: depending on metallicity
929: \citep[Fig.~5 and Table~4 of][]{TSR:07}, whereas those of
930: \citeauthor{Freedman:etal:01} do not. For their new scale
931: (column~5 of their Table~3), they adopt the shallow LMC P-L
932: slope, not the steeper slope for the Galactic Cepheids which we
933: have argued elsewhere \citep{TSR:07} that they should have
934: used.
935:
936: The data from Table~\ref{tab:03} are plotted in
937: Figure~\ref{fig:08} where the direct and inverse least squares
938: regressions are shown with their slopes in parentheses. These slopes
939: differ from the regressions for the composite cluster in
940: Figures~\ref{fig:05} and \ref{fig:06}. They {\em must not\/} be used
941: in analyzing the cluster data. Rather, the cluster slope must be
942: imposed on the calibrator data (\S~\ref{sec:06}) to obtain the
943: calibrator zero point that is appropriate for the cluster data.
944: This requirement is fundamental to avoid bias errors due to slope
945: differences. This crucial point concerning the correct slope to
946: use has sometimes been overlooked in the earlier literature on
947: the TF method.
948:
949: % **********************************************
950: % ---> Figure 8: Calibrators
951: % **********************************************
952:
953:
954: % ******************************************************************
955: % 6. BIAS IN THE DERIVED DISTANCE MODULUS DUE TO INCOMPLETE
956: % SAMPLING IN THE ARTIFICIAL CLUSTER USING BOTH THE DIRECT
957: % AND THE INVERSE TULLY-FISHER REGRESSIONS
958: % ******************************************************************
959: \section{BIAS IN THE DERIVED DISTANCE MODULUS DUE TO INCOMPLETE
960: SAMPLING IN THE ARTIFICIAL CLUSTER USING BOTH THE DIRECT
961: AND THE INVERSE TULLY-FISHER REGRESSIONS }
962: \label{sec:06}
963: %
964: Individual distance moduli have been calculated for all
965: galaxies ($n=92$) in the artificial cluster using both the direct
966: and inverse slopes. The calibration using the Cepheid data in
967: Table~\ref{tab:03} has been zero pointed by imposing the cluster slopes of
968: $-6.622$ and $-8.032$ from equations~(\ref{eq:01}) and (\ref{eq:02})
969: on the Cepheid calibrators. These give the Cepheid ridge-line
970: calibrations of
971: \begin{equation}
972: M_{B(T)}^{0,i}(\mbox{FTS}) = -6.622 \log w_{20}\;(\mbox{LEDA})-3.369\pm0.103
973: \label{eq:05}
974: \end{equation}
975: for the direct regression, and
976: \begin{equation}
977: M_{B(T)}^{0,i}(\mbox{FTS}) = -8.032 \log w_{20}\;(\mbox{LEDA})+0.239\pm0.114
978: \label{eq:06}
979: \end{equation}
980: for the inverse.
981:
982: The individual (most probable, but all incorrect because of
983: the dispersion except for galaxies on the ridge lines) moduli
984: follow in an obvious way by combining these Cepheid ridge-line
985: calibrations with the individual apparent magnitude and LW data
986: for each galaxy in the cluster.
987:
988: Following Figure~\ref{fig:03}, the data were first separated into
989: $\log w_{20}$ intervals in steps of $0.1\;$dex. They were then binned
990: in apparent magnitude intervals of $0.5\mag$ and averaged.
991:
992: The average modulus in each $w_{20}$ interval and each magnitude
993: bin are shown in Table~\ref{tab:04}. The number of galaxies that make up
994: each average is in parentheses.
995:
996: % **********************************************
997: % ---> Table 4: (<m-M>)
998: % **********************************************
999:
1000: The bias properties discussed in \S~\ref{sec:03} can now be
1001: illustrated using Table~\ref{tab:04} rather than by relying on
1002: hypothetical models. These properties and their consequences can most
1003: easily be understood by using Table~\ref{tab:04} and referring to
1004: Figures~\ref{fig:03} and \ref{fig:04} for the two binning
1005: strategies. There are three principal points.
1006:
1007: (1). Table~\ref{tab:04} shows that within any given LW interval
1008: (columns 2-8) the average moduli show a systematic variation as the
1009: apparent cut-off magnitude is made fainter. This is expected from the
1010: discussion of Figure~\ref{fig:03} in \S~\ref{sec:03}. The variation is
1011: due to this.
1012:
1013: All galaxies in Figure~\ref{fig:03} that are brighter than the
1014: ridge line magnitude at any LW have calculated moduli that are
1015: {\em smaller\/} than the ridge-line (the true) value and visa versa
1016: for those below the ridge line. Figures~\ref{fig:09a}a and
1017: \ref{fig:09b}b show the trend of the individual moduli for both the
1018: direct and inverse slopes in the six LW intervals that range from
1019: 2.6-2.7 to 2.1-2.2.
1020:
1021: % **********************************************
1022: % Figure 9a: variation with apparent magnitude: DIRECT slope
1023: % **********************************************
1024: % **********************************************
1025: % Figure 9b: variation with apparent magnitude: INVERSE slope
1026: % **********************************************
1027:
1028: The expectation (\S~\ref{sec:03}) that becomes manifest in
1029: Table~\ref{tab:04}A is that the average over all magnitudes
1030: (i.e.\ summed vertically in each column of Table~\ref{tab:04}A) should
1031: not vary systematically {\em with LW\/} to within statistics using the
1032: DIRECT slope because the DIRECT ridge line threads strictly down the
1033: middle of each vertical column of Figure~\ref{fig:03} by its least
1034: squares construction. This expectation is realized to within
1035: statistics by the averages set out at the bottom of
1036: Table~\ref{tab:04}A for each LW interval.
1037:
1038: % **********************************************
1039: % ---> Table 4: (<m-M>)
1040: % **********************************************
1041:
1042: In contrast, using the INVERSE slope, the averages over all
1043: magnitudes {\em at given LW}, as analyzed via Figure~\ref{fig:04}, is
1044: expected to vary systematically with LW, meaning that the averages at
1045: the bottom of Table~\ref{tab:04}B should show a strong systematic
1046: variation with LW because the INVERSE ridge line, not shown in
1047: Figure~\ref{fig:03}, {\em does not\/} thread the middle of the
1048: vertical LW columns. This expectation is well seen in the strong
1049: variation, outside the statistical noise, of the average moduli shown
1050: in Figure~\ref{fig:09b}b marked by the arrows, and
1051: seen in the bottom row of Table~\ref{tab:04}B.
1052:
1053: (2). However, rather than first binning by LW and then
1054: magnitude, the more realistic analysis, and the one always made
1055: in practice, is to work with averages made by summing over all
1056: line widths at various magnitude limits. The strategy is
1057: illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:04} using progressively fainter magnitude
1058: cut-offs. Here, we are interested in the bias properties of
1059: Tables~\ref{tab:04}A and B by summing over
1060: {\em all line widths\/} to various cut-off magnitude limits. The method
1061: using Tables~\ref{tab:04}A and B is to sum
1062: horizontally (over all LW) in each magnitude interval, and than
1063: sum over all magnitude intervals up to a given magnitude cut-off.
1064:
1065: The results are given in Table~\ref{tab:05} which is divided using
1066: the direct slope of $-6.622$ in the top half and the inverse slope of
1067: $-8.032$ in the bottom half. Column~(1) shows the magnitude intervals
1068: used in Table~\ref{tab:04}. Column~(2) is the number of galaxies used
1069: in the averages. Column~(3) gives the average modulus for all galaxies
1070: summed over all LWs in this magnitude interval. These are calculated
1071: by summing the Table~\ref{tab:04} entries horizontally in each
1072: magnitude interval. Column~(4) is the rms variation of these
1073: averages. Columns (5-8) give the average moduli calculated by summing
1074: the data in column~(2) {\em up to\/} the magnitude cut-off listed
1075: in column~(5). The number of galaxies making up this sum is in
1076: column~(6). This is the accumulated number of galaxies by summing
1077: column~(2). The mean modulus of the accumulated sums is in
1078: column~(7). The rms of these averages is in column~(8).
1079:
1080: % **********************************************
1081: % ---> Table 5: (<m-M>)
1082: % **********************************************
1083:
1084: (3). The expectation from \S~\ref{sec:03} is that the inverse slope
1085: must be used in summing horizontally in Table~\ref{tab:04} as in
1086: Figure~\ref{fig:04} to avoid bias. If so, there should be no
1087: systematic bias increase in the derived distance modulus based on the
1088: inverse slope as the grasp into the cluster luminosity function is
1089: deepened. However, this should not be true in the direct formulation
1090: where the derived average modulus is expected to increase with fainter
1091: magnitude cut-offs.
1092:
1093: These expectations are verified in Figure~\ref{fig:10} where the
1094: data from Table~\ref{tab:05} are plotted. Open circles are for the
1095: magnitude intervals in column~(1). Crosses are for the accumulated
1096: data listed in column~(7). The expectations from the discussion in
1097: \S~\ref{sec:03} are fulfilled to within statistics in the two panels
1098: of Figure~\ref{fig:10}.
1099:
1100: % **********************************************
1101: % ---> Figure 10: average moduli for the total sample (n=92)
1102: % **********************************************
1103:
1104:
1105: % ******************************************************************
1106: % 6.1 Effect of using an incorrect slope for the TF correlation
1107: % ******************************************************************
1108: \subsection{Effect of Using an Incorrect Slope for the TF Correlation}
1109: \label{sec:06_1}
1110: %
1111: Table~\ref{tab:05} and Figure~\ref{fig:10} are based on the formal
1112: least squares slopes for the TF data for the composite cluster for
1113: both the direct and inverse calculations. It is of interest to gauge
1114: the effect of systematic errors in these slopes by arbitrarily
1115: varying them over a wider range than given by the regressions on
1116: the actual.
1117:
1118: We have chosen TF slopes of $-9$, $-7$, $-6$, and $-5$ to add to
1119: the results in Table~\ref{tab:05}. These cover the same range of
1120: slopes as in the toy cluster of Figures~\ref{fig:01} and
1121: \ref{fig:02}. The calculation was made by first redoing the Cepheid
1122: zero point calibration by imposing each of the assumed slopes on the
1123: Cepheid data in Table~\ref{tab:03}. These $M$, $\log w_{20}$
1124: zero point calibrations were then applied to each of the 92
1125: galaxies giving individual $(m-M)$ modulus values for each cluster
1126: galaxy. These were then binned by apparent magnitude and summed
1127: over all LW for the galaxies brighter than a given apparent
1128: magnitude to produce a mean modulus for that TF slope and
1129: apparent magnitude cut-off.
1130: The results are listed in Table~\ref{tab:06}, which can be combined
1131: with those in Table~\ref{tab:05} for the slopes of
1132: $-6.622$ and $-8.032$ and Table~\ref{tab:08} later for slopes of
1133: $-6.346$ and $-7.519$.
1134:
1135:
1136: % **********************************************
1137: % Table 6: (<m-M>)
1138: % **********************************************
1139:
1140: Column~(1) is the magnitude depth that is sampled into the
1141: cluster luminosity function. The number of galaxies making up the
1142: averages is in column~(2). The average moduli to the cut-off
1143: magnitude are in columns (3), (5), (7), and (9). The rms of these
1144: listed moduli are in columns (4), (6), (8), and (10).
1145:
1146: Table~\ref{tab:06} for the slopes of $-9$ to $-5$ combined with
1147: Table~\ref{tab:05} for the data with the slopes of $-6.622$ and
1148: $-8.032$ show many of the general features of Figure~\ref{fig:02} and
1149: Table~\ref{tab:01}.
1150:
1151: As expected, the systematic run of moduli with apparent
1152: magnitude exists for all slopes that differ from the inverse
1153: slope of $-8.032$. For slopes steeper than this ($-9$ in
1154: Table~\ref{tab:06}) the sign of the bias is that smaller moduli are
1155: calculated as the magnitude grasp into the cluster is increased.
1156: The opposite sign of the bias is evident (larger moduli for deeper
1157: cluster penetration) is seen for slopes flatter than $-8.032$.
1158:
1159: However, the detailed results, seen by plotting the data in
1160: Tables~\ref{tab:05} and \ref{tab:06} (not shown), are not as clear as
1161: in the noiseless model of Table~\ref{tab:01} and
1162: Figure~\ref{fig:02}. From Figure~\ref{fig:02} (bottom) we expect that
1163: the null magnitude (where all modulus values converge) should be
1164: at $B=13$, which is about $3\mag$ fainter than the brightest
1165: galaxy. However, the results for the composite cluster using real
1166: data show that the null magnitude is near $B=12$ from
1167: Table~\ref{tab:06} and between $B=12$ and 12.5 from
1168: Table~\ref{tab:05}. As explained in \S~\ref{sec:04_2},
1169: the small-number statistical noise in the distribution of points
1170: between $B=12$ and 14 is the probable cause of this difference.
1171: This shows the limitation on the accuracy of the TF method due to
1172: random noisiness within the dispersion when only a small number
1173: of cluster galaxies are available. Of course, the situation is
1174: improved using $I$ magnitudes where the dispersion is smaller but
1175: the slope of the TF regression is near 10, adding additional
1176: uncertainties.
1177:
1178: % ******************************************************************
1179: % 7. DISTANCE TO THE VIRGO A SPIRAL CLUSTER CORE LEADING TO
1180: % THE GLOBAL VALUE OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT
1181: % ******************************************************************
1182: \section{DISTANCE TO THE VIRGO A SPIRAL CLUSTER CORE LEADING TO
1183: THE GLOBAL VALUE OF THE HUBBLE CONSTANT}
1184: \label{sec:07}
1185: %
1186: From the results concerning bias set out in the previous
1187: sections, how then do we use them to find the most probable
1188: distance modulus of the composite cluster?
1189:
1190: From analysis of the properties of the bias given above and
1191: from the results of Figures~\ref{fig:07}, \ref{fig:10}, and
1192: \ref{fig:11} it might seem best to use only the moduli based on the
1193: inverse analysis because, given large enough samples, there is no
1194: bias. However, there are two reasons we have not done this.
1195:
1196: (1). The rms variation of the modulus summed to various
1197: magnitude limits, listed in Table~\ref{tab:05} and later in
1198: Tables~\ref{tab:07} and \ref{tab:08} in \S~\ref{sec:07_1}, is always
1199: smaller for the direct formulation than for the inverse in a ratio of
1200: about 1.2 (eg.\ 0.576 to 0.488 from the penultimate rows of
1201: Table~\ref{tab:05}). Hence, the direct moduli have greater weight than
1202: the inverse by a factor of about 1.4.
1203:
1204: (2). There are always differences in the final average moduli
1205: between the direct and inverse calculations that are independent
1206: of the bias problems. The cause is different Cepheid calibrations
1207: between the direct or inverse calculations. This is because a
1208: given galaxy will be assigned different absolute magnitudes
1209: depending on the two different calibrations of zero point. When
1210: the sums over all galaxies are taken, these will not average out
1211: because the direct and inverse magnitudes have different weights.
1212: The experience here (Table~\ref{tab:05} summed to $B=14$,
1213: Table~\ref{tab:07} col.~7 in \S~\ref{sec:07_1}, and
1214: Table~\ref{tab:08} also later in \S~\ref{sec:07_1}), the mean modulus
1215: taken over all cluster galaxies is always larger for the direct
1216: calculation than for the inverse. The modulus difference between
1217: the direct and inverse is always smaller when their slope
1218: difference is smaller, seen from the second half of
1219: Table~\ref{tab:07}.
1220:
1221: In view of these two reasons, which regression should we
1222: use to obtain the best distance modulus? We have decided not to
1223: decide between them but to reduce the data with both, avoiding
1224: the bias corrections for the direct method by summing to $B=14$,
1225: a magnitude that is symmetrical brighter and fainter than the
1226: cross-over point of the direct and inverse regressions.
1227:
1228: % ******************************************************************
1229: % 7.1 The Cepheid and cluster zero point calibrations using
1230: % various TF slopes
1231: % ******************************************************************
1232: \subsection{The Cepheid and Cluster Zero Point Calibrations Using
1233: Various TF Slopes }
1234: \label{sec:07_1}
1235: %
1236: For each adopted TF slope for the cluster sample we must
1237: determine new zero points for the Cepheid calibration based on
1238: Table~\ref{tab:02} of \S\,\ref{sec:02} by forcing the adopted slope on
1239: the calibrators and calculating the resulting intercept for the
1240: calibration equation. (As said before, this point is sometimes missed
1241: in the literature where a same slope is often used both for the direct
1242: and inverse method in the Cepheid calibration even as these
1243: slopes differ from the slopes that apply to the cluster data).
1244:
1245: In the preceding sections we have used a variety of slopes,
1246: some arbitrary and others calculated from the Cepheid data, and
1247: some from the composite cluster with various magnitude
1248: truncations. Table~\ref{tab:07} summarizes all of the choices
1249: discussed in the previous sections.
1250:
1251: % **********************************************
1252: % ---> Table 7: Regressions for the Cepheid Calibration
1253: % **********************************************
1254:
1255: The equations of the regressions in Table~\ref{tab:07} are
1256: $M = a \log w_{20} + b$ and $B = a \log w_{20} + c$ where the $a$,
1257: $b$, and $c$ values are listed in columns (1), (2), and (4) of the
1258: table. Column~(3) is the rms of the absolute magnitude zero point
1259: calibration, $b$, in column~(2).
1260: Column (5) is the rms of the apparent magnitude zero point in
1261: column~(4). Column (6) identifies the sample used, ranging from
1262: $n=92$ for the total sample, $n=84$ for the total sample truncated
1263: at $B=14.0$, to $n=78$ for a sample still further truncated by
1264: eliminating the four outliers on the bight side and the two
1265: outliers on the faint side near the limit lines in
1266: Figures~\ref{fig:05} and ~\ref{fig:06}.
1267: Column~(7) shows the mean distance modulus using the cluster data
1268: with the listed $b$ and $c$ calibrations and the magnitude limits for
1269: the cluster data in column~(8). The moduli in column~(7) are the
1270: differences between columns (4) and (2). The first five rows are the
1271: results for the run of assumed slopes discussed in \S~\ref{sec:06_1}.
1272:
1273: The strong dependence of the final moduli (summed to the
1274: cluster magnitude limit over the range of $B$ from about 10 to
1275: $15\mag$) on the slope of the TF regression is shown by the variation
1276: in column (7) for the slopes in first five rows of the table. For
1277: the more restricted range of the slopes shown by the four pairs
1278: of values in the last part of the table, the modulus values range
1279: from 31.30 to 31.60. The values for the highest weight sample
1280: (i.e.\ that with the lowest rms values) with $n=78$, vary from
1281: $(m-M) = 31.42$ for the inverse solution to 31.56 for the direct
1282: solution.
1283:
1284: It is of interest to set out the data for this highest
1285: weight sample in the same detail as in Table~\ref{tab:05} for the
1286: complete sample. Table~\ref{tab:08} lists the partial moduli in the
1287: various magnitude intervals and magnitude limits for the restricted
1288: sample format for the direct slope of $-6.346$ and the inverse slope
1289: of $-7.519$. Table~\ref{tab:08}A shows the results in magnitude
1290: intervals; Table~\ref{tab:08}B shows the results of summing to various
1291: magnitude limits.
1292:
1293: % **********************************************
1294: % ---> Table 8: (<m-M>) from restricted sample
1295: % **********************************************
1296:
1297: The data are plotted in Figure~\ref{fig:11}. The open circles are
1298: from Table~\ref{tab:08}A; the crosses from Table~\ref{tab:08}B.
1299: The noise in the correlations is caused by the nonuniform filling of
1300: the correlation between $B=12$ and 14, mentioned earlier.
1301:
1302: % **********************************************
1303: % Figure 11: average moduli for the restricted sample (n=78)
1304: % **********************************************
1305:
1306:
1307: % ******************************************************************
1308: % 7.2 The adopted distance modulus for the Virgo A, Virgo B and
1309: % Ursa Major I and II clusters
1310: % ******************************************************************
1311: \subsection{The Adopted Distance Modulus for the Virgo~A, Virgo~B and
1312: Ursa Major I and II Clusters }
1313: \label{sec:07_2}
1314: %
1315: From Table~\ref{tab:08} and Figure~\ref{fig:11} we adopt as our final
1316: TF modulus for the composite cluster the mean of the direct and inverse
1317: calculation using the $n=78$ restricted sample. The values from
1318: Table~\ref{tab:08}B are $(m-M)=31.56\pm0.05$ for the direct calculation
1319: and $(m-M)=31.41\pm0.05$ for the inverse, giving
1320: $\langle m-M\rangle=31.49\pm0.04$ as the weighted mean.
1321:
1322: Following \citeauthor*{FTS:98} (\S~8 there) we apply a systematic
1323: correction of $0.07\mag$ (reducing the modulus) to account for the
1324: fact that the cluster members at a given LW are redder on average
1325: (and also are hydrogen deficient) than for the calibrators.
1326: Hence, our final TF modulus of the Virgo~A cluster is
1327: $(m-M)=31.42\pm0.04$ (internal).
1328:
1329: Applying the magnitude offset from Virgo~A to Virgo B of
1330: $0.38\pm0.16\mag$ (Virgo~B is more distant than Virgo~A), of
1331: $0.16\pm0.13\mag$ for UMa~I made closer, and
1332: $0.16\pm0.17\mag$ for UMa~II made further from \S~\ref{sec:04_1} gives
1333: the modulus values of these clusters as
1334: $(m-M)=31.80\pm0.16$ for Virgo~B,
1335: $31.26\pm0.13$ for UMa~I, and
1336: $31.58\pm0.17$ for UMa II.
1337:
1338: % ******************************************************************
1339: % 7.3 Systematic errors
1340: % ******************************************************************
1341: \subsection{Systematic Errors}
1342: \label{sec:07_3}
1343: %
1344: The formal (internal) error of $\pm0.04$ for Virgo~A is, of course,
1345: too small because of systematic errors in
1346: (1) the Cepheid P-L relation of the order of $0.1\mag$ in its
1347: zero point \citep{TSR:07}, and the error in the zero point
1348: of equations~(\ref{eq:05}) and (\ref{eq:06}) here,
1349: (2) the uncertainty of $\sim\!0.1\mag$ in the zero point of the
1350: Cepheid TF regression in Figure~\ref{fig:08} (cf. the Cepheid rms
1351: value in Table~\ref{tab:07}), and (3) the statistical noise due to the
1352: nonuniform filling of the TF correlation in Figures~\ref{fig:05} and
1353: \ref{fig:06} as discussed above. It is impossible to put an exact
1354: value on the systematic accuracy of $(m-M)$ due to these causes, but
1355: a reasonable estimate is that it is no smaller or larger than
1356: $\pm0.2\mag$. Hence, we adopt $(m-M) = 31.42\pm0.2\mag$ as our final
1357: modulus of Virgo~A using the Tully-Fisher method.
1358:
1359: If, as is sometimes done, we combine Virgo~A and B, treating
1360: them as a single cluster with $(m-M) = 31.42\pm0.2$ (assumed) from
1361: 43 galaxies in Virgo~A and $(m-M)=31.80\pm0.2$ (assumed) from
1362: Virgo~B from 16 galaxies, the weighted mean of A and B is
1363: $(m-M)=31.52\pm0.14$ (external assumed), which, however, we do not
1364: use. For comparison, the value derived by \citeauthor*{FTS:98} (their
1365: eq.~11) where clusters A and B are combined, is $31.58\pm0.24$
1366: (external).
1367:
1368: % ******************************************************************
1369: % 7.4 The Hubble constant from the adopted Virgo A distance
1370: % ******************************************************************
1371: \subsection{The Hubble Constant from the Adopted Virgo~A Distance}
1372: \label{sec:07_4}
1373: %
1374: From the discussion by \citeauthor*{FTS:98} (Fig.~14 and \S~11.2), the
1375: expansion velocity of the Virgo core, freed from all streaming
1376: motions and tied to the external cosmic frame beyond the local
1377: bubble whose edge is near $4000\kms$
1378: (\citealt{Jerjen:Tammann:93}; \citeauthor*{FST:94}, Figs. 17-19;
1379: \citealt{Masters:etal:06}), is $1175\kms$. This is derived from a high
1380: weight solution of the relative Hubble diagram (velocity vs. distance
1381: {\em ratios}) by \citet{Jerjen:Tammann:93}
1382: where the Virgo core is tied to 17 more remote clusters augmented
1383: by 24 clusters from Giovanelli (private communication in 1996)
1384: who also used distance ratios to Virgo.
1385:
1386: Taking Virgo~A to be the core relative to which the
1387: distance ratios to the 41 galaxies pertains, and using
1388: $(m-M)=31.42\pm0.2$ ($D=19.2\;$Mpc, with a range from 17.5 to $21.1\;$Mpc)
1389: combined with $1175\kms$ for the free expansion velocity, the
1390: resulting Hubble constant is $H_{0}=61\ksm$ with a range from
1391: 53 to 70, where we have also put an error of $\pm50\kms$ on the
1392: Virgo~A expansion velocity.
1393:
1394: If, for some reason, one does not wish to rely on the
1395: distance ratios to Virgo of \citet{Jerjen:Tammann:93}, as
1396: augmented by Giovanelli's private communication in 1996, another
1397: route to obtain the free expansion velocity of the Virgo core is
1398: via a velocity perturbation model for the Virgo velocity relative
1399: to the remote frame. The observed mean heliocentric velocity of
1400: the Virgo core is $1050\pm35\kms$ \citep{Binggeli:etal:93}. This
1401: transforms to $932\kms$ relative to the centroid of the Local Group
1402: \citep*{Yahil:etal:77}. Using $v(\mbox{infall})=220\kms$
1403: \citep{Kraan-Korteweg:86} for the Virgo infall velocity
1404: gives $v_{\rm Virgo}=1152\pm35\kms$ which is the same as $1175\kms$
1405: to within statistics.
1406:
1407: The value of $H_{0}=61$ obtained here agrees well with the
1408: value determined via the supernovae route in 25 separate studies,
1409: most of which give $H_{0}$ between 50 and 70
1410: \citep[summarized in Table~6 of][]{Sandage:etal:06}
1411: by a plethora of authors. However, we consider the method here to be
1412: of considerably lower weight than that using supernovae because of the
1413: evident problems raised by the population incompleteness bias when
1414: using clusters and the problem of tying the Virgo~A cluster accurately
1415: into the remote cosmic kinematic frame.
1416:
1417: % ******************************************************************
1418: % Bibliography
1419: % ******************************************************************
1420: % more than 8 authors -> et~al.
1421: % *********************************
1422: \begin{thebibliography}{}
1423: %
1424: \bibitem[Binggeli et~al.(1993)Binggeli, Popescu, \& Tammann]{Binggeli:etal:93}
1425: Binggeli, B., Popescu, C.~C., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1993,
1426: % The kinematics of the Virgo cluster revisited
1427: A\&AS, 98, 275
1428: %
1429: \bibitem[Binggeli et~al.(1985)Binggeli, Sandage, \& Tammann]{Binggeli:etal:85}
1430: Binggeli, B., Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1985,
1431: % Studies of the Virgo Cluster. II - A catalog of 2096 galaxies in
1432: % the Virgo Cluster area
1433: AJ, 90, 1681
1434: %
1435: \bibitem[Bottinelli et~al.(1971)]{Bottinelli:etal:71}
1436: Bottinelli, L., Chamaraux, P., G{\'e}rard, E., Gouguenheim, L.,
1437: Heidmann, J., Kaz{\`e}s, I., \& Lauqu{\'e}, R. 1971,
1438: % 21-cm neutral hydrogen line and continuum study of the galaxy Maffei 2
1439: A\&A, 12, 264
1440: %
1441: \bibitem[Bottinelli et~al.(1987)]{Bottinelli:etal:87}
1442: Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., Fouqu{\'e}, P., Paturel, G., \&
1443: Teerikorpi, P. 1987,
1444: % Cluster population incompleteness bias and the value of H(0) from
1445: % the Tully-Fisher B0(T) relation
1446: A\&A, 181, 1
1447: %
1448: \bibitem[Bottinelli et~al.(1986)]{Bottinelli:etal:86}
1449: Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., Paturel, G., \& Teerikorpi, P. 1986,
1450: % The Malmquist bias and the value of H0 from the Tully-Fisher relation
1451: A\&A, 156, 157
1452: %
1453: \bibitem[Bottinelli et~al.(1988a)]{Bottinelli:etal:88a}
1454: Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., Paturel, G., \& Teerikorpi, P. 1988a,
1455: % The Malmquist bias in the extragalactic distance scale -
1456: % Controversies and misconceptions
1457: ApJ, 328, 4
1458: %
1459: \bibitem[Bottinelli et~al.(1988b)Bottinelli, Gouguenheim, \& Teerikorpi]{Bottinelli:etal:88b}
1460: Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., \& Teerikorpi, P. 1988b,
1461: % The value of H(0) from the infrared Tully-Fisher relation
1462: A\&A, 196, 17
1463: %
1464: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs(1975)]{deVaucouleurs:75}
1465: de~Vaucouleurs, G. 1975,
1466: % Nearby Groups of Galaxies
1467: in Galaxies and the Universe, eds.
1468: A.~Sandage, M.~Sandage, \& J.~Kristian, Vol. 9 of Univ. Chicago
1469: Press Compendium, 557 % Chapter 14
1470: %
1471: \bibitem[de Vaucouleurs et~al.(1991)]{deVaucouleurs:etal:91}
1472: de~Vaucouleurs, G., de~Vaucouleurs, A., Corwin, H.~G., Buta, R.~J.,
1473: Paturel, G., \& Fouqu{\'e}, P. 1991,
1474: Third Catalogue of Bright Galaxies (New York: Springer) (RC3)
1475: %
1476: \bibitem[Ekholm \& Teerikorpi(1997)]{Ekholm:Teerikorpi:97}
1477: Ekholm, T., \& Teerikorpi, P. 1997,
1478: % On the derivation of the Tully-Fisher relations. II. Field
1479: % galaxies, the inverse TF slope and the Hubble constant
1480: A\&A, 325, 33
1481: %
1482: \bibitem[Federspiel(1999)]{Federspiel:99}
1483: Federspiel, M. 1999,
1484: % Kinematic Parameters of Galaxies as Distance Indicators
1485: PhD thesis, University Basel
1486: %
1487: \bibitem[Federspiel, Sandage \& Tammann(1994)FST\,94]{FST:94}
1488: Federspiel, M., Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1994,
1489: % Bias properties of extragalactic distance indicators. 3: Analysis
1490: % of Tully-Fisher distances for the Mathewson-Ford-Buchhorn sample of
1491: % 1355 galaxies
1492: ApJ, 430, 29 (Paper III), (FST\,94)
1493: %
1494: \bibitem[Federspiel, Tammann, \& Sandage(1998)FTS\,98]{FTS:98}
1495: Federspiel, M., Tammann, G.~A., \& Sandage, A. 1998,
1496: % The Virgo Cluster Distance from 21 Centimeter Line Widths
1497: ApJ, 495, 115 (FTS\,98)
1498: %
1499: \bibitem[Feigelson \& Babu(1992)]{Feigelson:Babu:92}
1500: Feigelson, E.~D., \& Babu, G.~J. 1992,
1501: % Linear regression in astronomy. II
1502: ApJ, 397, 55
1503: %
1504: \bibitem[Fouqu{\'e} et~al.(1990)]{Fouque:etal:90}
1505: Fouqu{\'e}, P., Bottinelli, L., Gouguenheim, L., \& Paturel, G. 1990,
1506: % The extragalactic distance scale. II - The unbiased distance to
1507: % the Virgo Cluster from the B-band Tully-Fisher relation
1508: ApJ, 349, 1
1509: %
1510: \bibitem[Freedman et~al.(2001)]{Freedman:etal:01}
1511: Freedman, W.~L., et~al. 2001, % +14 coauthors
1512: % Final Results from the Hubble Space Telescope Key Project to
1513: % Measure the Hubble Constant
1514: ApJ, 553, 47
1515: %
1516: \bibitem[Giovanelli et~al.(1997a)]{Giovanelli:etal:97a}
1517: Giovanelli, R., Haynes, M.~P., Herter, T., Vogt, N.~P.,
1518: Wegner, G., Salzer, J.~J., da~Costa, L.~N., \& Freudling, W. 1997a,
1519: % The I band Tully-Fisher relation for cluster galaxies: data presentation
1520: AJ, 113, 22
1521: %
1522: \bibitem[Giovanelli et~al.(1997b)]{Giovanelli:etal:97b}
1523: Giovanelli, R., et~al. 1997b,
1524: % Haynes, M.~P., Herter, T., Terry, V., Nicole, P.,
1525: % da~Costa, L.~N., Freudling, W., Salzer, J.~ J., \& Wegner, G. 1997b,
1526: % The I Band Tully-Fisher Relation for Cluster Galaxies: a Template
1527: % Relation, its Scatter and Bias Corrections
1528: AJ, 113, 53
1529: %
1530: \bibitem[Gouguenheim(1969)]{Gouguenheim:69}
1531: Gouguenheim, L. 1969,
1532: % Neutral hydrogen content of small galaxies
1533: A\&A, 3, 281
1534: %
1535: \bibitem[Hendry \& Simmons(1994)]{Hendry:Simmons:94}
1536: Hendry, M.~A., \& Simmons, J.~F.~L. 1994,
1537: % Distance Estimation in Cosmology
1538: Vistas Astron., 39, 297
1539: %
1540: \bibitem[Humason et~al.(1956)Humason, Mayall, \& Sandage]{Humason:etal:56}
1541: Humason, M.~L., Mayall, N.~U., \& Sandage, A.~R. 1956,
1542: % Redshifts and magnitudes of extragalactic nebulae
1543: AJ, 61, 97
1544: %
1545: \bibitem[Jerjen \& Tammann(1993)]{Jerjen:Tammann:93}
1546: Jerjen, H., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1993,
1547: % The Local Group Motion Towards Virgo and the Microwave Background
1548: A\&A, 276, 1
1549: %
1550: \bibitem[Kanbur \& Ngeow(2004)]{Kanbur:Ngeow:04}
1551: Kanbur, S.~M., \& Ngeow, C.~C. 2004,
1552: % Period-colour and amplitude-colour relations in classical Cepheid
1553: % variables
1554: MNRAS, 350, 962
1555: %
1556: \bibitem[Kapteyn(1914)]{Kapteyn:14}
1557: Kapteyn, J.~C. 1914,
1558: % On the individual parallaxes of the brighter galactic helium
1559: % stars in the southern hemisphere, together with considerations on
1560: % the parallax of stars in general.
1561: ApJ, 40, 43
1562: %
1563: \bibitem[Kraan-Korteweg(1986)]{Kraan-Korteweg:86}
1564: Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C. 1986,
1565: % A catalog of 2810 nearby galaxies - The effect of the
1566: % Virgocentric flow model on their observed velocities
1567: A\&AS, 66, 255
1568: %
1569: \bibitem[Kraan-Korteweg et~al.(1988)Kraan-Korteweg, Cameron, \& Tammann]{Kraan-Korteweg:etal:88}
1570: Kraan-Korteweg, R.~C., Cameron, L.~M., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1988,
1571: % 21 centimeter line width distances of cluster galaxies and the value of H0
1572: ApJ, 331, 620
1573: %
1574: \bibitem[Klypin et~al.(2003)]{Klypin:etal:03}
1575: Klypin, A., Hoffman, Y., Kravtsov, A.~V., \& Gottl{\"o}ber, S. 2003,
1576: % Constrained Simulations of the Real Universe: The Local Supercluster
1577: ApJ, 596, 19
1578: %
1579: \bibitem[Malmquist(1920)]{Malmquist:20}
1580: Malmquist, K.~G. 1920,
1581: %
1582: Lund Medd. Ser.~II, 22, 1
1583: %
1584: \bibitem[Malmquist(1922)]{Malmquist:22}
1585: Malmquist, K.~G. 1922,
1586: %
1587: Lund Medd. Ser.~I, 100, 1
1588: %
1589: \bibitem[Masters et~al.(2006)]{Masters:etal:06}
1590: Masters, K.~L., Springob, C.~M., Haynes, M.~P., \& Giovanelli, R. 2006,
1591: % SFI++ I: A New I-Band Tully-Fisher Template, the Cluster Peculiar
1592: % Velocity Dispersion, and H0
1593: ApJ, 653, 861
1594: %
1595: \bibitem[Ngeow \& Kanbur(2005)]{Ngeow:Kanbur:05}
1596: Ngeow, C.~C., \& Kanbur, S.~M. 2005,
1597: % The linearity of the Wesenheit function for the Large Magellanic
1598: % Cloud Cepheids
1599: MNRAS, 360, 1033
1600: %
1601: \bibitem[Ngeow et~al.(2005)]{Ngeow:etal:05}
1602: Ngeow, C.~C, Kanbur, S.~M., Nikolaev, S., Buonaccorsi, J., Cook,
1603: K.~H., \& Welch, D.~L. 2005,
1604: % Further empirical evidence for the non-linearity of the
1605: % period-luminosity relations as seen in the Large Magellanic Cloud
1606: % Cepheids
1607: MNRAS, 363, 831
1608: %
1609: \bibitem[Peletier \& Willner(1993)]{Peletier:Willner:93}
1610: Peletier, R.~F., \& Willner, S.~P. 1993,
1611: % The Infrared Tully-Fisher Relation in the Ursa Major Cluster
1612: ApJ, 418, 626
1613: %
1614: \bibitem[Pierce \& Tully(1988)]{Pierce:Tully:88}
1615: Pierce, M.~J., \& Tully, R.~B. 1988,
1616: % Distances to the Virgo and Ursa Major clusters and a determination of H0
1617: ApJ, 330, 579
1618: %
1619: \bibitem[Roberts(1969)]{Roberts:69}
1620: Roberts, M.~S. 1969,
1621: % Integral Properties of Spiral and Irregular Galaxies
1622: AJ, 74, 859
1623: %
1624: \bibitem[Saha et~al.(2006)]{Saha:etal:06}
1625: Saha, A., Thim, F., Tammann, G.~A., Reindl, B., \& Sandage, A. 2006,
1626: % Cepheid Distances to SNe Ia Host Galaxies Based on a Revised
1627: % Photometric Zero Point of the HST WFPC2 and New PL Relations and
1628: % Metallicity Corrections
1629: ApJS, 165, 108
1630: %
1631: \bibitem[Sandage(1988a)]{Sandage:88a}
1632: Sandage, A. 1988a,
1633: % A case for H0 = 42 and Omega(0) = 1 using luminous spiral
1634: % galaxies and the cosmological time scale test
1635: ApJ, 331, 583
1636: %
1637: \bibitem[Sandage(1988b)]{Sandage:88b}
1638: Sandage, A. 1988b,
1639: % The case for H0 roughly 55 from the 21 centimeter linewidth
1640: % absolute magnitude relation for field galaxies
1641: ApJ, 331, 605
1642: %
1643: \bibitem[Sandage(1994a)]{Sandage:94a}
1644: Sandage, A. 1994a,
1645: % Bias properties of extragalactic distance indicators. 1: The
1646: % Hubble constant does not increase outward
1647: ApJ, 430, 1 (Paper~I)
1648: %
1649: \bibitem[Sandage(1994b)]{Sandage:94b}
1650: Sandage, A. 1994b,
1651: % Bias properties of extragalactic distance indicators. 2: Bias
1652: % corrections to Tully-Fisher distances for field galaxies
1653: ApJ, 430, 13 (Paper~II)
1654: %
1655: \bibitem[Sandage(1999)]{Sandage:99}
1656: Sandage, A. 1999,
1657: % Bias Properties of Extragalactic Distance
1658: % Indicators. VII. Correlation of Absolute Luminosity and Rotational
1659: % Velocity for SC Galaxies over the Range of Luminosity Class from I
1660: % to III-IV
1661: AJ, 117, 157 (Paper~VII)
1662: %
1663: % TODO: in one reference or two references
1664: \bibitem[Sandage \& Tammann(1981, 1987)]{Sandage:Tammann:87}
1665: Sandage, A., \& Tammann, G.~A. 1981, 1987,
1666: A Revised Shapley Ames Catalog of Bright Galaxies,
1667: Carnegie Pub. 635 (Washington: Carnegie Institution of Washington)
1668: %
1669: \bibitem[Sandage, Tammann, \& Federspiel(1995)STF\,95]{STF:95}
1670: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Federspiel, M. 1995,
1671: % Bias Properties of Extragalactic Distance
1672: % Indicators. IV. Demonstration of the Population Incompleteness Bias
1673: % Inherent in the Tully-Fisher Method Applied to Clusters
1674: ApJ, 452, 1 (Paper~IV), (STF\,95)
1675: %
1676: \bibitem[Sandage et~al.(2004)Sandage, Tammann, \& Reindl]{STR:04}
1677: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Reindl, B. 2004,
1678: % New period-luminosity and period-color relations of classical
1679: % Cepheids. II. Cepheids in LMC
1680: A\&A, 424, 43
1681: %
1682: \bibitem[Sandage et~al.(2006)]{Sandage:etal:06}
1683: Sandage, A., Tammann, G.~A., Saha, A., Reindl, B., Macchetto, F.~D.,
1684: \& Panagia, N. 2006,
1685: % The Hubble Constant: A Summary of the Hubble Space Telescope
1686: % Program for the Luminosity Calibration of Type Ia Supernovae by
1687: % Means of Cepheids
1688: ApJ, 653, 843
1689: %
1690: \bibitem[Schechter(1980)]{Schechter:80}
1691: Schechter, P.~L. 1980,
1692: % Mass-to-light ratios for elliptical galaxies
1693: AJ, 85, 801
1694: %
1695: \bibitem[Scott(1957)]{Scott:57}
1696: Scott, E.~L. 1957,
1697: % The brightest galaxy in a cluster as a distance indicator
1698: AJ, 62, 248
1699: %
1700: \bibitem[Seares(1944)]{Seares:44}
1701: Seares, F.~H. 1944,
1702: % Regression Lines and the Functional Relation
1703: ApJ, 100, 255
1704: %
1705: \bibitem[Sersic(1960)]{Sersic:60}
1706: S{\'e}rsic, J.~L. 1960,
1707: % The H II Regions in Galaxies. With 2 Figures in the text
1708: Zs. f. Ap, 50, 168
1709: %
1710: \bibitem[Tammann et~al.(2003)Tammann, Sandage, \& Reindl]{TSR:03}
1711: Tammann, G.~A., Sandage, A., \& Reindl B. 2003,
1712: % New Period-Luminosity and Period-Color relations of classical
1713: % Cepheids: I. Cepheids in the Galaxy
1714: A\&A, 404, 423
1715: %
1716: \bibitem[Tammann et~al.(2007)Tammann, Sandage, \& Reindl]{TSR:07}
1717: Tammann, G.~A., Sandage, A., \& Reindl, B. 2007,
1718: % Comparison of distances from RR Lyrae stars, the tip
1719: % of the red-giant branch and classical Cepheids}}
1720: ApJ, submitted % ; astro-ph/0711.XXXX
1721: %
1722: \bibitem[Teerikorpi(1984)]{Teerikorpi:84}
1723: Teerikorpi, P. 1984,
1724: % Malmquist bias in a relation of the form M = AP + B
1725: A\&A, 141, 407
1726: %
1727: \bibitem[Teerikorpi(1987)]{Teerikorpi:87}
1728: Teerikorpi, P. 1987,
1729: % Cluster population incompleteness bias and distances from the
1730: % Tully-Fisher relation - Theory and numerical examples
1731: A\&A, 173, 39
1732: %
1733: \bibitem[Teerikorpi(1990)]{Teerikorpi:90}
1734: Teerikorpi, P. 1990,
1735: % Theoretical aspects in the use of the inverse Tully-Fisher
1736: % relation for distance determination
1737: A\&A, 234, 1
1738: %
1739: \bibitem[Teerikorpi(1997)]{Teerikorpi:97}
1740: Teerikorpi, P. 1997,
1741: % Observational Selection Bias Affecting the Determination of the
1742: % Extragalactic Distance Scale
1743: ARA\&A, 35, 101
1744: %
1745: \bibitem[Teerikorpi et~al.(1999)]{Teerikorpi:etal:99}
1746: Teerikorpi, P., Ekholm, T., Hanski, M.~O., \& Theureau, G. 1999,
1747: % Theoretical aspects of the inverse Tully-Fisher relation as a
1748: % distance indicator: incompleteness in log {V_Max}, the relevant
1749: % slope, and the calibrator sample bias
1750: A\&A, 343, 713
1751: %
1752: \bibitem[Theureau et~al.(1997a)]{Theureau:etal:97a}
1753: Theureau, G., Hanski, M., Ekholm, T., Bottinelli, L.,
1754: Gouguenheim, L., Paturel, G., \& Teerikorpi, P. 1997a,
1755: % Kinematics of the Local Universe. V. The value of H_0_ from the
1756: % Tully-Fisher B and logD_25_ relations for field galaxies
1757: A\&A, 322, 730
1758: %
1759: \bibitem[Theureau et~al.(1997b)]{Theureau:etal:97b}
1760: Theureau, G., Hanski, M., Teerikorpi, P., Bottinelli, L.,
1761: Ekholm, T., Gouguenheim, L., \& Paturel, G. 1997b,
1762: % Kinematics of the local universe. IV. Type dependence in the
1763: % diameter Tully-Fisher relation and implications on the
1764: % mass-luminosity structure.
1765: A\&A, 319, 435
1766: %
1767: \bibitem[Tully(1988)]{Tully:88}
1768: Tully, R.~B. 1988,
1769: % Origin of the Hubble constant controversy
1770: Nature, 334, 209
1771: %
1772: \bibitem[Tully \& Fisher(1977)]{Tully:Fisher:77}
1773: Tully, R.~B., \& Fisher, J.~R. 1977,
1774: % A new method of determining distances to galaxies
1775: A\&A, 54, 661
1776: %
1777: \bibitem[Tully \& Fisher(1987)]{Tully:Fisher:87}
1778: Tully, R.~B., \& Fisher, J.~R. 1987,
1779: Atlas of Nearby Galaxies (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press)
1780: %
1781: \bibitem[Tully et~al.(1996)]{Tully:etal:96}
1782: Tully, R.~B., Verheijen, M.~A.~W., Pierce, M.~J., Huang, J.-S., \&
1783: Wainscoat, R.~J. 1996,
1784: % The Ursa Major Cluster of Galaxies.
1785: % I.Cluster Definition and Photometric Data
1786: AJ, 112, 2471
1787: %
1788: \bibitem[Verheijen(1997)]{Verheijen:97}
1789: Verheijen, M.~A.~W. 1997,
1790: % The Ursa Major Cluster of Galaxies: TF-relations and dark matter
1791: PhD thesis, University Groningen
1792: %
1793: \bibitem[Willick(1994)]{Willick:94}
1794: Willick, J.~A. 1994,
1795: % Statistical bias in distance and peculiar velocity estimation.
1796: % 1: The 'calibration' problem
1797: ApJS, 92, 1
1798: %
1799: %
1800: \bibitem[Yahil et~al.(1977)Yahil, Tammann, \& Sandage]{Yahil:etal:77}
1801: Yahil, A., Tammann, G.~A., \& Sandage, A. 1977,
1802: % The Local Group - The solar motion relative to its centroid
1803: ApJ, 217, 903
1804:
1805:
1806: % ******************************************************************
1807: \end{thebibliography}
1808: % ******************************************************************
1809:
1810:
1811: % ******************************************************************
1812: % *********** Figures ***********
1813: % ******************************************************************
1814: \clearpage
1815: % ******************************************************************
1816: % Figure 1: Model of a toy cluster
1817: % ******************************************************************
1818: \begin{figure}[t]
1819: \epsscale{0.6}
1820: \plotone{f1.eps}
1821: \caption{Model of a toy cluster (the insert) with a dispersionless
1822: TF correlation of line width (corrected for inclination) with
1823: apparent magnitude that has a slope of
1824: $dB_{T}^{0,i}/d\log w_{20}=-7$.
1825: A calibration of absolute magnitude with LW in the main body of the
1826: diagram is shown with variations in the TF slope ranging from
1827: $-9$ to $-5$.}
1828: \label{fig:01}
1829: \end{figure}
1830: % ******************************************************************
1831: \clearpage
1832: % ******************************************************************
1833: % Figure 2: Calculated (m-M) of Toy Cluster
1834: % ******************************************************************
1835: \begin{figure}[t]
1836: \epsscale{0.45}
1837: \plotone{f2.eps}
1838: \caption{(top): The variation of the derived distance modulus {\em
1839: at\/} a given sampling magnitude into the cluster luminosity
1840: function for five assumed TF slope values from data in the first
1841: half of Table~\ref{tab:01}. All modulus values cross at
1842: $(m-M)=31.5$ by construction.
1843: (bottom): The mean modulus summed to the listed cut-off magnitude
1844: for the five slope values from the second half of
1845: Table~\ref{tab:01}. The correct modulus of $(m-M)=31.5$ is obtained
1846: only when $B_{T}^{0,i}$ stops at 13.0 for all slope values that
1847: differ from the true slope of $-7$. This magnitude is symmetrical
1848: about the cross-over magnitude of 11.5 (by construction). Sampling
1849: fainter than the symmetrical magnitude of 13.0 will give incorrect
1850: distance moduli, except for the case of the correct slope of $-7$.}
1851: \label{fig:02}
1852: \end{figure}
1853: % ******************************************************************
1854: \clearpage
1855: % ******************************************************************
1856: % Figure 3: Apparent Magnitude Cut
1857: % ******************************************************************
1858: \begin{figure}[t]
1859: \epsscale{0.6}
1860: \plotone{f3.eps}
1861: \caption{Model of the TF correlation in a cluster with intrinsic
1862: dispersion and/or an appreciable back-to-front ratio. The bias
1863: effect of an incomplete sampling of the cluster luminosity function
1864: is shown, given, for illustration, an observer's magnitude cut-off
1865: limit at $B_{T}^{0,i} = 11.5$. The right hand vertical LW interval
1866: is unbiased because none of the data in it are denied entrance into
1867: the sample fainter; all are brighter than the cut-off
1868: magnitude. However, the line width intervals to the left are
1869: progressively biased at this magnitude cut-off. The incompleteness
1870: bias at any given cut-off magnitude is found by summing over all
1871: line widths brighter than the cut-off value.}
1872: \label{fig:03}
1873: \end{figure}
1874: % ******************************************************************
1875: \clearpage
1876: % ******************************************************************
1877: % Figure 4:
1878: % ******************************************************************
1879: \begin{figure}[t]
1880: \epsscale{0.6}
1881: \plotone{f4.eps}
1882: \caption{The data for a cluster are binned in apparent magnitude
1883: intervals. Four magnitude intervals are shown, each enclosed by
1884: envelope lines that show the intrinsic dispersion
1885: (and/or back-to-front effect) in LW at given apparent
1886: magnitudes. Slopes for both the direct and inverse TF least squares
1887: ridge lines for the calibrators are shown schematically.}
1888: \label{fig:04}
1889: \end{figure}
1890: % ******************************************************************
1891: \clearpage
1892: % ******************************************************************
1893: % Figure 5: Composite cluster (n=92)
1894: % ******************************************************************
1895: \begin{figure}[t]
1896: \epsscale{0.6}
1897: \plotone{f5.eps}
1898: \caption{The correlation of line width, corrected for inclination,
1899: with apparent magnitude for the 92 galaxies in the composite
1900: cluster composed of galaxies from the Virgo~A and B subclusters and
1901: the Ursa Major cloud as reduced to the distance of the Virgo~A
1902: subcluster. The ridge lines for the direct and inverse least
1903: squares regressions are shown whose slopes are in parentheses.
1904: The dashed envelope lines are put one magnitude brighter and
1905: fainter than the direct ridge line. The magnitudes are on the
1906: \citeauthor*{FTS:98} system (their Table~3) which is
1907: within a few hundredths of a magnitude of the RC3 $B_{T}^{0,i}$
1908: fully corrected system. The line widths are on the LEDA system
1909: which is $0.033\pm0.002\;$dex smaller than the RC3 system. The
1910: equations of the ridge lines are equations~(\ref{eq:01}) and
1911: (\ref{eq:02}) of the text.}
1912: \label{fig:05}
1913: \end{figure}
1914: % ******************************************************************
1915: \clearpage
1916: % ******************************************************************
1917: % Figure 6: Composite cluster (n=84)
1918: % ******************************************************************
1919: \begin{figure}[t]
1920: \epsscale{0.6}
1921: \plotone{f6.eps}
1922: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:05} but for a restricted sample of
1923: 84 galaxies in the artificial cluster, cut from the total sample by
1924: $B_{T}^{0,i}<14.0$. The equations of the direct and inverse ridge
1925: lines are equations~(\ref{eq:03}) and (\ref{eq:04}) of the text.}
1926: \label{fig:06}
1927: \end{figure}
1928: % ******************************************************************
1929: \clearpage
1930: % ******************************************************************
1931: % Figure 7: (data from Table 2)
1932: % ******************************************************************
1933: \begin{figure}[t]
1934: \epsscale{0.6}
1935: \plotone{f7.eps}
1936: \caption{(Top) Change of the Tully-Fisher slope for partial samples
1937: as depth of penetration into the cluster luminosity function
1938: increases using data for the total ($n=92$) sample. The DIRECT
1939: (dots) and INVERSE (open circles) least squares solutions are shown
1940: as the number of galaxies in the solutions increases from 28 to 92
1941: and the magnitude cut-offs range from $B_{T}^{0,i}=11.0$ to
1942: 15.0. (Bottom) Same for the restricted sample of 78 galaxies. The
1943: data are from Table~\ref{tab:02}.
1944: }
1945: \label{fig:07}
1946: \end{figure}
1947: % ******************************************************************
1948: \clearpage
1949: % ******************************************************************
1950: % Figure 8: Calibrators
1951: % ******************************************************************
1952: \begin{figure}[t]
1953: \epsscale{0.6}
1954: \plotone{f8.eps}
1955: \caption{The Cepheid calibrator data from Table~\ref{tab:03} shown
1956: with the least squares regressions for both the direct and inverse
1957: formulations whose slopes are in parentheses. These differ from the
1958: slopes from the data for the composite cluster in
1959: Figures~\ref{fig:05} and \ref{fig:06}, both of which have higher
1960: weight than the Cepheid sample alone.}
1961: \label{fig:08}
1962: \end{figure}
1963: % ******************************************************************
1964: \clearpage
1965: % TODO
1966: % ******************************************************************
1967: \makeatletter
1968: \def\fnum@figure{{\rmfamily Fig.\space\thefigure a.---}}%
1969: \makeatother
1970: % ******************************************************************
1971: % Figure 9a: variation with apparent magnitude: DIRECT slope
1972: % ******************************************************************
1973: \begin{figure}[t]
1974: \epsscale{0.75}
1975: \plotone{f9a.eps}
1976: \caption{The variation with apparent magnitude of the calculated
1977: distance moduli for each galaxy in the artificial cluster when
1978: binned in $\log w_{20}$ intervals in steps of $0.1\;$dex using the
1979: DIRECT slope of $-6.622$ in Table~\ref{tab:04}A for the complete
1980: sample of $n=92$. The mean modulus marked by the arrow in each
1981: panel is that listed at the bottom of Table~\ref{tab:04}A. A light
1982: vertical line to guide the eye is put in each panel at $B=12.0$.}
1983: \label{fig:09a}
1984: \end{figure}
1985: % ******************************************************************
1986: \clearpage
1987: \setcounter{figure}{8} % we want 9b, not 10 ...
1988: % ******************************************************************
1989: \makeatletter
1990: \def\fnum@figure{{\rmfamily Fig.\space\thefigure b.---}}%
1991: \makeatother
1992: % ******************************************************************
1993: % Figure 9b: variation with apparent magnitude: INVERSE slope
1994: % ******************************************************************
1995: \begin{figure}[t]
1996: % \epsscale{0.7}
1997: \plotone{f9b.eps}
1998: \caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:09a}a using the INVERSE slope of
1999: $-8.032$ and the individual data for the composite cluster.}
2000: \label{fig:09b}
2001: \end{figure}
2002: % ******************************************************************
2003: \makeatletter
2004: \def\fnum@figure{{\rmfamily Fig.\space\thefigure.---}}%
2005: \makeatother
2006: % ******************************************************************
2007: \clearpage
2008: % ******************************************************************
2009: % Figure 10: average moduli for the total sample (n=92)
2010: % ******************************************************************
2011: \begin{figure}[t]
2012: \epsscale{0.6}
2013: \plotone{f10.eps}
2014: \caption{(Top). The average moduli for the total sample ($n=92$)
2015: listed in Table~\ref{tab:05} in each magnitude interval using the
2016: direct slope of $-6.622$ and summed over all line widths {\em in\/}
2017: that magnitude interval (open circles), and then summed over
2018: {\em all\/} magnitude intervals (crosses) up to the listed
2019: $B_{T}^{0,i}$ magnitude cut-off limit (crosses). (Bottom) Same for
2020: the inverse formulation with a slope of $-8.032$ for the total
2021: sample. The noise in both the open circle and the crosses data
2022: between $B=12$ and 13 is caused by nonuniform filling of the TF
2023: distribution between the envelope lines of Figures~\ref{fig:05} and
2024: \ref{fig:06}. The data are from Table~\ref{tab:05}.}
2025: \label{fig:10}
2026: \end{figure}
2027: % ******************************************************************
2028: \clearpage
2029: % ******************************************************************
2030: % Figure 11: average moduli for the restricted sample (n=78)
2031: % ******************************************************************
2032: \begin{figure}[t]
2033: \epsscale{0.6}
2034: \plotone{f11.eps}
2035: \caption{Similar to Figure~\ref{fig:10} but for the restricted
2036: sample with $n=78$. The Teerikorpi cluster population
2037: incompleteness bias is present using the direct TF slope but is
2038: absent using the inverse slope. The open circles are the modulus
2039: values from the data summed over all LW and averaged within the
2040: individual magnitude intervals (Table~\ref{tab:08}A). The crosses
2041: are the modulus values for the data summed aver all LW and then
2042: summed to the various magnitude cut-off limits
2043: (Table~\ref{tab:08}B).}
2044: \label{fig:11}
2045: \end{figure}
2046: % ******************************************************************
2047: \clearpage
2048:
2049:
2050:
2051: % ******************************************************************
2052: % *********** Tables ***********
2053: % ******************************************************************
2054:
2055: % **********************************************
2056: % Table 1: Derived Distance Moduli of the Toy Cluster of Figure 1
2057: % **********************************************
2058: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccc}
2059: \tablewidth{0pt}
2060: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2061: \tablecaption{Derived Distance Moduli of the Toy Cluster of
2062: Figure~\ref{fig:01} as a Function of $B_{T}^{0,i}$\label{tab:01}}
2063: % **********************************************
2064: \tablehead{
2065: % **********************************************
2066: \colhead{} &
2067: \multicolumn{5}{c}{TF slope}
2068: \\
2069: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2070: \colhead{$-9$} &
2071: \colhead{$-8$} &
2072: \colhead{$-7$} &
2073: \colhead{$-6$} &
2074: \colhead{$-5$}
2075: \\
2076: \colhead{(1)} &
2077: \colhead{(2)} &
2078: \colhead{(3)} &
2079: \colhead{(4)} &
2080: \colhead{(5)} &
2081: \colhead{(6)}
2082: \\[2pt]
2083: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2084: & \multicolumn{5}{c}{$(m-M)$ at $B_{T}^{0,i}$}
2085: }
2086: % **********************************************
2087: \startdata
2088: % **********************************************
2089: 10.0 & 31.93 & 31.70 & 31.50 & 31.29 & 31.07 \\
2090: 10.5 & 31.79 & 31.64 & 31.50 & 31.36 & 31.21 \\
2091: 11.0 & 31.64 & 31.57 & 31.50 & 31.43 & 31.36 \\
2092: 11.5 & 31.50 & 31.50 & 31.50 & 31.50 & 31.50 \\
2093: 12.0 & 31.36 & 31.43 & 31.50 & 31.57 & 31.64 \\
2094: 12.5 & 31.21 & 31.36 & 31.50 & 31.64 & 31.79 \\
2095: 13.0 & 31.07 & 31.29 & 31.50 & 31.71 & 31.93 \\
2096: 13.5 & 30.93 & 31.21 & 31.50 & 31.79 & 32.07 \\
2097: 14.0 & 30.78 & 31.14 & 31.50 & 31.86 & 32.21 \\
2098: 14.5 & 30.64 & 31.07 & 31.50 & 31.93 & 32.36 \\
2099: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2100: \colhead{} &
2101: \multicolumn{5}{c}{$\langle m-M\rangle$ from data summed up to $B_{T}^{0,i}$}
2102: \\[2pt]
2103: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2104: 10.0 & 31.93 & 31.70 & 31.50 & 31.29 & 31.07 \\
2105: 10.5 & 31.86 & 31.67 & 31.50 & 31.33 & 31.14 \\
2106: 11.0 & 31.79 & 31.64 & 31.50 & 31.36 & 31.21 \\
2107: 11.5 & 31.72 & 31.60 & 31.50 & 31.40 & 31.28 \\
2108: 12.0 & 31.64 & 31.57 & 31.50 & 31.43 & 31.36 \\
2109: 12.5 & 31.57 & 31.53 & 31.50 & 31.47 & 31.43 \\
2110: 13.0 & 31.50 & 31.50 & 31.50 & 31.50 & 31.50 \\
2111: \tableline
2112: 13.5 & 31.43 & 31.46 & 31.50 & 31.54 & 31.57 \\
2113: 14.0 & 31.36 & 31.43 & 31.50 & 31.57 & 31.64 \\
2114: 14.5 & 31.28 & 31.39 & 31.50 & 31.61 & 31.71 \\
2115: % **********************************************
2116: \enddata
2117: % **********************************************
2118: % **********************************************
2119: \end{deluxetable}
2120: % **********************************************
2121:
2122: \clearpage
2123:
2124: % **********************************************
2125: % Table 2: Least Squares TF Regressions to Various Magnitude Cut-Offs
2126: % **********************************************
2127: \begin{deluxetable}{cccclcclccc}
2128: \tablewidth{0pt}
2129: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2130: \tablecaption{Least Squares TF Regressions to Various Magnitude
2131: Cut-offs for the Total ($n=92$) and the Restricted ($n=78$) Sample of
2132: the Composite Cluster\label{tab:02}}
2133: % **********************************************
2134: \tablehead{
2135: % **********************************************
2136: \colhead{} &
2137: \colhead{} &
2138: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total} &
2139: \colhead{} &
2140: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Total} &
2141: \colhead{} &
2142: \colhead{} &
2143: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Restricted}
2144: \\
2145: \colhead{} &
2146: \colhead{} &
2147: \multicolumn{2}{c}{DIRECT} &
2148: \colhead{} &
2149: \multicolumn{2}{c}{INV} &
2150: \colhead{} &
2151: \colhead{} &
2152: \colhead{DIRECT} &
2153: \colhead{INV}
2154: \\
2155: \cline{3-4}
2156: \cline{6-7}
2157: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2158: \colhead{$n$} &
2159: \colhead{Slope} &
2160: \colhead{Zpt} &
2161: \colhead{} &
2162: \colhead{Slope} &
2163: \colhead{Zpt} &
2164: \colhead{} &
2165: \colhead{$n$} &
2166: \multicolumn{2}{c}{slopes}
2167: \\
2168: \colhead{(1)} &
2169: \colhead{(2)} &
2170: \colhead{(3)} &
2171: \colhead{(4)} &
2172: \colhead{} &
2173: \colhead{(5)} &
2174: \colhead{(6)} &
2175: \colhead{} &
2176: \colhead{(7)} &
2177: \colhead{(8)} &
2178: \colhead{(9)}
2179: }
2180: % **********************************************
2181: \startdata
2182: % **********************************************
2183: $ < 11.5$ & 28 & $-4.550$ & 22.603 && $-7.645$ & 30.653 && 26 & $-5.023$ & $-7.680$ \\
2184: $ < 12.0$ & 42 & $-4.755$ & 23.290 && $-8.157$ & 31.998 && 38 & $-5.247$ & $-7.158$ \\
2185: $ < 12.5$ & 56 & $-5.106$ & 24.251 && $-7.353$ & 29.909 && 51 & $-5.606$ & $-7.052$ \\
2186: $ < 13.0$ & 70 & $-5.228$ & 24.610 && $-6.935$ & 28.831 && 64 & $-5.720$ & $-6.930$ \\
2187: $ < 13.5$ & 80 & $-5.716$ & 25.888 && $-7.386$ & 29.983 && 74 & $-6.155$ & $-7.364$ \\
2188: $ < 14.0$ & 84 & $-5.936$ & 26.454 && $-7.547$ & 30.391 && 78 & $-6.346$ & $-7.519$ \\
2189: $ < 14.5$ & 87 & $-6.235$ & 27.216 && $-7.831$ & 31.101 && \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2190: $ < 15.0$ & 92 & $-6.622$ & 28.195 && $-8.032$ & 31.603 && \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
2191: % **********************************************
2192: \enddata
2193: % **********************************************
2194: % **********************************************
2195: \end{deluxetable}
2196: % **********************************************
2197:
2198: \clearpage
2199:
2200: % **********************************************
2201: % Table 3: Cepheid Calibrators
2202: % **********************************************
2203: \begin{deluxetable}{llcrcc}
2204: \tablewidth{0pt}
2205: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2206: \tablecaption{The Cepheid Calibrators\label{tab:03}}
2207: % **********************************************
2208: \tablehead{
2209: % **********************************************
2210: \colhead{Name} &
2211: \colhead{Type} &
2212: \colhead{$(m-M)$} &
2213: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2214: \colhead{$M_{B(T)}^{0,i}$} &
2215: \colhead{$\log w_{20}$}
2216: \\
2217: \colhead{} &
2218: \colhead{} &
2219: \colhead{Saha\,06} &
2220: \colhead{FTS\,98} &
2221: \colhead{FTS\,98} &
2222: \colhead{}
2223: \\
2224: \colhead{(1)} &
2225: \colhead{(2)} &
2226: \colhead{(3)} &
2227: \colhead{(4)} &
2228: \colhead{(5)} &
2229: \colhead{(6)}
2230: }
2231: % **********************************************
2232: \startdata
2233: % **********************************************
2234: NGC\,224 & SbI-II & 24.54 & 3.36 & $-21.18$ & 2.728 \\
2235: NGC\,300 & ScII.8 & 26.48 & 8.49 & $-17.99$ & 2.296 \\
2236: NGC\,598 & Sc(s)II-III & 24.64 & 5.73 & $-18.91$ & 2.357 \\
2237: NGC\,925 & SBc(s)II-III & 29.84 & 10.04 & $-19.80$ & 2.382 \\
2238: NGC\,1365 & SBbc(s)I & 31.46 & 9.94 & $-21.52$ & 2.648 \\
2239: NGC\,1425 & Sb(r)II & 31.96 & 10.83 & $-21.13$ & 2.582 \\
2240: NGC\,2090 & Sc(s)II & 30.48 & 11.52 & $-18.96$ & 2.503 \\
2241: NGC\,2403 & Sc(s)III & 27.43 & 8.38 & $-19.05$ & 2.415 \\
2242: NGC\,2541 & Sc(s)III & 30.50 & 11.36 & $-19.14$ & 2.330 \\
2243: NGC\,3031 & Sb(r)I-II & 27.80 & 7.34 & $-20.46$ & 2.667 \\
2244: NGC\,3198 & Sc(s)I-II & 30.80 & 10.14 & $-20.66$ & 2.508 \\
2245: NGC\,3319 & SB(s)II.4 & 30.74 & 11.15 & $-19.59$ & 2.394 \\
2246: NGC\,3351 & SBb(r)II & 30.10 & 10.24 & $-19.86$ & 2.538 \\
2247: NGC\,3368 & Sab(s)II & 30.34 & 9.85 & $-20.49$ & 2.649 \\
2248: NGC\,3621 & Sc(s)II.8 & 29.30 & 9.40 & $-19.90$ & 2.509 \\
2249: NGC\,3627 & Sb(s)II.2 & 30.50 & 9.07 & $-21.43$ & 2.591 \\
2250: NGC\,4258 & Sb(s)II & 29.50 & 8.31 & $-21.13$ & 2.649 \\
2251: NGC\,4321 & Sc(s)I & 31.18 & 9.88 & $-21.30$ & 2.725 \\
2252: NGC\,4535 & SBc(s)I.3 & 31.25 & 10.28 & $-20.97$ & 2.591 \\
2253: NGC\,4536 & Sbc(s)I-II & 31.24 & 10.62 & $-20.62$ & 2.548 \\
2254: NGC\,4548 & SBb(rs)I-II & 30.99 & 10.77 & $-20.22$ & 2.631 \\
2255: NGC\,4639 & SB(r)II & 32.20 & 11.95 & $-20.25$ & 2.617 \\
2256: NGC\,4725 & Sb/SBb(r)II & 30.65 & 9.73 & $-20.92$ & 2.723 \\
2257: NGC\,5457 & Sc(s)I & 29.17 & 8.31 & $-20.86$ & 2.665 \\
2258: NGC\,7331 & Sb(rs)I-II & 30.89 & 9.39 & $-21.50$ & 2.725 \\
2259: % **********************************************
2260: \enddata
2261: % **********************************************
2262: % **********************************************
2263: \end{deluxetable}
2264: % **********************************************
2265: % ******************************************************************
2266: % TODO: increase textheight for Table 4
2267: \setlength\textheight{9.0in}%
2268: % ******************************************************************
2269:
2270: \clearpage
2271:
2272: % **********************************************
2273: % Table 4: (<m-M>)
2274: % **********************************************
2275: \begin{deluxetable}{rlllllll}
2276: \tablewidth{0pt}
2277: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2278: \tablecaption{$\langle m-M\rangle$ Averaged within Various Discrete
2279: Intervals of Line Width and Listed in Magnitude Intervals for the
2280: Composite Cluster\label{tab:04}}
2281: % **********************************************
2282: \tablehead{
2283: % **********************************************
2284: \colhead{} &
2285: \multicolumn{7}{c}{Log Line Width Intervals ($w_{20}$)}
2286: \\
2287: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2288: \colhead{2.7-2.8} &
2289: \colhead{2.6-2.7} &
2290: \colhead{2.5-2.6} &
2291: \colhead{2.4-2.5} &
2292: \colhead{2.3-2.4} &
2293: \colhead{2.2-2.3} &
2294: \colhead{2.1-2.2}
2295: \\
2296: \colhead{(1)} &
2297: \colhead{(2)} &
2298: \colhead{(3)} &
2299: \colhead{(4)} &
2300: \colhead{(5)} &
2301: \colhead{(6)} &
2302: \colhead{(7)} &
2303: \colhead{(8)}
2304: \\[2pt]
2305: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2306: \multicolumn{8}{c}{(A) DIRECT SLOPE $=-6.622$}
2307: }
2308: % **********************************************
2309: \startdata
2310: % **********************************************
2311: 9.8-10.5 & 31.60\,(5) & 31.13\,(3) & 30.52\,(1) & & & & \\
2312: 10.5-11.0 & & 31.68\,(3) & 30.94\,(4) & & & & \\
2313: 11.0-11.5 & & 31.80\,(2) & 30.57\,(7) & 31.10\,(2) & 30.55\,(1) & & \\
2314: 11.5-12.0 & & 32.58\,(2) & 31.90\,(4) & 31.35\,(6) & 30.79\,(2) & & \\
2315: 12.0-12.5 & & & & 31.76\,(7) & 31.22\,(6) & 30.55\,(1) & \\
2316: 12.5-13.0 & & & & 32.15\,(2) & 31.74\,(5) & 31.05\,(6) & 30.29\,(9) \\
2317: 13.0-13.5 & & & & & 32.12\,(5) & 31.68\,(4) & 30.90\,(1) \\
2318: 13.5-14.0 & & & & & 32.50\,(1) & 31.79\,(2) & 31.61\,(1) \\
2319: 14.0-15.0 & & & & & & 32.82\,(1) & 32.12\,(7) \\
2320: Summed & & & & & & & \\
2321: \multicolumn{1}{l}{vertical} & 31.60 & 31.72 & 31.43 & 31.58 & 31.65 & 31.42 & 31.77 \\
2322: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$n$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$5\quad$} &
2323: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$10\quad$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$16\quad$} &
2324: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$17\quad$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$20\quad$} &
2325: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$14\quad$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$10\quad$} \\
2326: \multicolumn{1}{l}{rms} & 0.145 & 0.563 & 0.483 & 0.372 & 0.556 & 0.573 & 0.667 \\
2327: % **********************************************
2328: %\tableline
2329: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2330: \multicolumn{8}{c}{(B) INVERSE SLOPE $=-8.032$} \\[2pt]
2331: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2332: % **********************************************
2333: 9.8-10.5 & 31.85\,(5) & 31.29\,(3) & 30.56\,(1) & & & & \\
2334: 10.5-11.0 & & 31.79\,(3) & 30.93\,(4) & & & & \\
2335: 11.0-11.5 & & 31.88\,(2) & 31.32\,(7) & 30.98\,(2) & 30.29\,(1) & & \\
2336: 11.5-12.0 & & 32.68\,(2) & 31.86\,(4) & 31.36\,(6) & 30.51\,(2) & & \\
2337: 12.0-12.5 & & & & 31.60\,(6) & 30.13\,(1) & & \\
2338: 12.5-13.0 & & & & 31.99\,(2) & 31.47\,(5) & 30.61\,(6) & 29.69\,(1) \\
2339: 13.0-13.5 & & & & & 31.84\,(5) & 31.26\,(4) & 30.33\,(1) \\
2340: 13.5-14.0 & & & & & 32.19\,(1) & 31.34\,(2) & 31.05\,(1) \\
2341: 14.0-15.0 & & & & & & 32.41\,(1) & 31.54\,(7) \\
2342: Summed & & & & & & & \\
2343: \multicolumn{1}{l}{vertical} & 31.85 & 31.84 & 31.41 & 31.43 & 31.27 & 30.99 & 31.18 \\
2344: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$n$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$5\quad$} &
2345: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$10\quad$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$16\quad$} &
2346: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$17\quad$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$20\quad$} &
2347: \multicolumn{1}{c}{$14\quad$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{$10\quad$} \\
2348: \multicolumn{1}{l}{rms} & 0.179 & 0.552 & 0.481 & 0.389 & 0.561 & 0.580 & 0.673 \\
2349: % **********************************************
2350: \enddata
2351: % **********************************************
2352: % **********************************************
2353: \end{deluxetable}
2354: % **********************************************
2355: % ******************************************************************
2356: % TODO: RESET increase textheight
2357: \setlength\textheight{8.4in}%
2358: % ******************************************************************
2359:
2360: \clearpage
2361:
2362: % **********************************************
2363: % Table 5: (<m-M>)
2364: % **********************************************
2365: \begin{deluxetable}{rrccc@{$\qquad\qquad$}crcc}
2366: \tablewidth{0pt}
2367: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2368: \tablecaption{$\langle m-M\rangle$ as Summed over all Line Widths for
2369: Various Magnitude Intervals and Cut-off Magnitudes for the Composite
2370: Cluster\label{tab:05}}
2371: % **********************************************
2372: \tablehead{
2373: % **********************************************
2374: \colhead{between} &
2375: \colhead{} &
2376: \multicolumn{2}{c}{summed over LW} &
2377: \colhead{} &
2378: \colhead{up to} &
2379: \colhead{} &
2380: \multicolumn{2}{c}{summed over LW}
2381: \\
2382: \cline{3-4}
2383: \cline{8-9}
2384: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2385: \colhead{$n$} &
2386: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2387: \colhead{rms} &
2388: \colhead{} &
2389: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2390: \colhead{$n$} &
2391: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2392: \colhead{rms}
2393: \\
2394: \colhead{(1)} &
2395: \colhead{(2)} &
2396: \colhead{(3)} &
2397: \colhead{(4)} &
2398: \colhead{} &
2399: \colhead{(5)} &
2400: \colhead{(6)} &
2401: \colhead{(7)} &
2402: \colhead{(8)}
2403: }
2404: % **********************************************
2405: \startdata
2406: % **********************************************
2407: \multicolumn{9}{c}{(A) DIRECT SLOPE $=-6.622$}\\[2pt]
2408: \tableline
2409: % **********************************************
2410: 9.8-10.5 & 9 & 31.32 & 0.398 && 10.5 & 9 & 31.32 & 0.398 \\
2411: 10.5-11.0 & 7 & 31.25 & 0.470 && 11.0 & 16 & 31.29 & 0.417 \\
2412: 11.0-11.5 & 12 & 31.45 & 0.410 && 11.5 & 28 & 31.36 & 0.414 \\
2413: 11.5-12.0 & 14 & 31.60 & 0.570 && 12.0 & 42 & 31.44 & 0.479 \\
2414: 12.0-12.5 & 14 & 31.44 & 0.427 && 12.5 & 56 & 31.44 & 0.463 \\
2415: 12.5-13.0 & 14 & 31.40 & 0.550 && 13.0 & 70 & 31.43 & 0.478 \\
2416: 13.0-13.5 & 10 & 31.82 & 0.402 && 13.5 & 80 & 31.48 & 0.484 \\
2417: 13.5-14.0 & 4 & 31.92 & 0.413 && 14.0 & 84 & 31.50 & 0.488 \\
2418: 14.0-15.0 & 8 & 32.21 & 0.286 && 15.0 & 92 & 31.56 & 0.514 \\
2419: % **********************************************
2420: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2421: \multicolumn{9}{c}{(B) INVERSE SLOPE $=-8.032$}\\[2pt]
2422: \tableline
2423: % **********************************************
2424: 9.8-10.5 & 9 & 31.52 & 0.475 && 10.5 & 9 & 31.52 & 0.475 \\
2425: 10.5-11.0 & 7 & 31.30 & 0.550 && 11.0 & 16 & 31.42 & 0.504 \\
2426: 11.0-11.5 & 12 & 31.40 & 0.510 && 11.5 & 28 & 31.42 & 0.495 \\
2427: 11.5-12.0 & 14 & 31.50 & 0.693 && 12.0 & 42 & 31.44 & 0.561 \\
2428: 12.0-12.5 & 14 & 31.20 & 0.527 && 12.5 & 56 & 31.38 & 0.558 \\
2429: 12.5-13.0 & 14 & 31.05 & 0.676 && 13.0 & 70 & 31.32 & 0.594 \\
2430: 13.0-13.5 & 10 & 31.44 & 0.495 && 13.5 & 80 & 31.33 & 0.581 \\
2431: 13.5-14.0 & 4 & 31.48 & 0.300 && 14.0 & 84 & 31.34 & 0.576 \\
2432: 14.0-15.0 & 8 & 31.65 & 0.354 && 15.0 & 92 & 31.36 & 0.566 \\
2433: % **********************************************
2434: \enddata
2435: % **********************************************
2436: % **********************************************
2437: \end{deluxetable}
2438: % **********************************************
2439:
2440: \clearpage
2441:
2442: % **********************************************
2443: % Table 6: (<m-M>)
2444: % **********************************************
2445: \begin{deluxetable}{crcclccrlcclcc}
2446: \tablewidth{0pt}
2447: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2448: \tablecaption{$\langle m-M\rangle$ as Summed to Various Magnitude
2449: Cut-offs over all LW for Different Tully-Fisher Slopes\label{tab:06}}
2450: % **********************************************
2451: \tablehead{
2452: % **********************************************
2453: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Summed to} &
2454: \multicolumn{11}{c}{SLOPES}
2455: \\
2456: \colhead{} &
2457: \colhead{} &
2458: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-9$} &
2459: \colhead{} &
2460: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-7$} &
2461: \colhead{} &
2462: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-6$} &
2463: \colhead{} &
2464: \multicolumn{2}{c}{$-5$}
2465: \\
2466: \cline{3-4}
2467: \cline{6-7}
2468: \cline{9-10}
2469: \cline{12-13}
2470: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2471: \colhead{$n$} &
2472: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2473: \colhead{rms} &
2474: \colhead{} &
2475: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2476: \colhead{rms} &
2477: \colhead{} &
2478: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2479: \colhead{rms} &
2480: \colhead{} &
2481: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2482: \colhead{rms}
2483: \\
2484: \colhead{(1)} &
2485: \colhead{(2)} &
2486: \colhead{(3)} &
2487: \colhead{(4)} &
2488: \colhead{} &
2489: \colhead{(5)} &
2490: \colhead{(6)} &
2491: \colhead{} &
2492: \colhead{(7)} &
2493: \colhead{(8)} &
2494: \colhead{} &
2495: \colhead{(9)} &
2496: \colhead{(10)}
2497: }
2498: % **********************************************
2499: \startdata
2500: % **********************************************
2501: 10.5 & 9 & 31.66 & .524 && 31.37 & .418 && 31.23 & .365 && 31.09 & .317 \\
2502: 11.0 & 16 & 31.51 & .567 && 31.33 & .439 && 31.23 & .383 && 31.14 & .339 \\
2503: 11.5 & 28 & 31.45 & .563 && 31.37 & .433 && 31.33 & .388 && 31.29 & .366 \\
2504: 12.0 & 42 & 31.44 & .632 && 31.44 & .498 && 31.44 & .455 && 31.44 & .436 \\
2505: 12.5 & 56 & 31.34 & .643 && 31.43 & .485 && 31.46 & .437 && 31.50 & .423 \\
2506: 13.0 & 70 & 31.23 & .697 && 31.40 & .504 && 31.48 & .447 && 31.56 & .434 \\
2507: 13.5 & 80 & 31.23 & .678 && 31.44 & .504 && 31.55 & .467 && 31.65 & .497 \\
2508: 14.0 & 84 & 31.22 & .671 && 31.46 & .505 && 31.57 & .477 && 31.69 & .497 \\
2509: 15.0 & 92 & 31.23 & .651 && 31.51 & .518 && 31.65 & .525 && 31.78 & .576 \\
2510: % **********************************************
2511: \enddata
2512: % **********************************************
2513: % **********************************************
2514: \end{deluxetable}
2515: % **********************************************
2516:
2517: \clearpage
2518:
2519: % **********************************************
2520: % Table 7: Regressions for the Cepheid Calibration
2521: % **********************************************
2522: \begin{deluxetable}{cccccccc}
2523: \tablewidth{0pt}
2524: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2525: \tablecaption{Regressions for the Cepheid Calibration and for the
2526: Composite Cluster for Various Tully-Fisher Slopes:
2527: the Sensitivity of the Resulting Distance Moduli to Slope\label{tab:07}}
2528: % **********************************************
2529: \tablehead{
2530: % **********************************************
2531: \colhead{Slope} &
2532: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cepheid calib.\tablenotemark{5)}} &
2533: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Cluster\tablenotemark{6)}} &
2534: \colhead{n} &
2535: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2536: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$}
2537: \\
2538: \colhead{a} &
2539: \colhead{b} &
2540: \colhead{rms} &
2541: \colhead{c} &
2542: \colhead{rms} &
2543: \colhead{} &
2544: \multicolumn{2}{c}{to sample end}
2545: \\
2546: \colhead{(1)} &
2547: \colhead{(2)} &
2548: \colhead{(3)} &
2549: \colhead{(4)} &
2550: \colhead{(5)} &
2551: \colhead{(6)} &
2552: \colhead{(7)} &
2553: \colhead{(8)}
2554: }
2555: % **********************************************
2556: \startdata
2557: % **********************************************
2558: $-9$ & $+2.716$ & 0.624 & 33.946 & 0.651 & 92 & 31.23 & 15.0 \\
2559: $-8$ & $+0.197$ & 0.541 & 31.525 & 0.564 & 92 & 31.33 & 15.0 \\
2560: $-7$ & $-2.402$ & 0.511 & 29.108 & 0.518 & 92 & 31.51 & 15.0 \\
2561: $-6$ & $-4.961$ & 0.499 & 26.689 & 0.525 & 92 & 31.65 & 15.0 \\
2562: $-5$ & $-7.519$ & 0.522 & 24.261 & 0.576 & 92 & 31.78 & 15.0 \\[5pt]
2563: $-6.161$\tablenotemark{1)} & $-4.549$ & 0.500 & 27.078 & 0.520 & 92 & 31.63 & 15.0 \\
2564: $-8.475$\tablenotemark{1)} & $+1.364$ & 0.580 & 32.664 & 0.598 & 92 & 31.30 & 15.0 \\[5pt]
2565: $-6.622$\tablenotemark{2)} & $-3.369$ & 0.502 & 28.191 & 0.514 & 92 & 31.56 & 15.0 \\
2566: $-8.032$\tablenotemark{2)} & $+0.239$ & 0.557 & 31.609 & 0.566 & 92 & 31.37 & 15.0 \\[5pt]
2567: $-5.936$\tablenotemark{3)} & $-5.124$ & 0.500 & 26.456 & 0.477 & 84 & 31.58 & 14.0 \\
2568: $-7.547$\tablenotemark{3)} & $-1.003$ & 0.533 & 30.387 & 0.538 & 84 & 31.39 & 14.0 \\[5pt]
2569: $-6.346$\tablenotemark{4)} & $-4.077$ & 0.499 & 27.483 & 0.415 & 78 & 31.56 & 14.0 \\
2570: $-7.519$\tablenotemark{4)} & $-1.077$ & 0.530 & 30.343 & 0.451 & 78 & 31.42 & 14.0 \\
2571: % **********************************************
2572: \enddata
2573: % **********************************************
2574: \tablenotetext{1)}{Cepheid least squares regressions, n = 25}
2575: \tablenotetext{2)}{Direct and inverse slopes for total cluster sample (Fig.~\ref{fig:05})}
2576: \tablenotetext{3)}{Direct and inverse slopes for cluster sample cut at
2577: $B_{T}^{0,i}=14.0$ (Fig.~\ref{fig:06})}
2578: \tablenotetext{4)}{Direct and inverse slopes for final sample (with a $B = 14.0$
2579: cut plus six others eliminated)}
2580: \tablenotetext{5)}{Cepheid calibration as $M_{B(T)} = a \log w_{20}+b$}
2581: \tablenotetext{6)}{Cluster regression as $B_{T}^{0,i}= a \log w_{20}+c$}
2582: % **********************************************
2583: \end{deluxetable}
2584: % **********************************************
2585:
2586: \clearpage
2587:
2588: % **********************************************
2589: % Table 8: (<m-M>) from restricted sample
2590: % **********************************************
2591: \begin{deluxetable}{rrlcclcc}
2592: \tablewidth{0pt}
2593: \tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
2594: \tablecaption{Modulus of the Composite Cluster for Various Magnitude
2595: Intervals and Limits from the High Weight Restricted Sample\label{tab:08}}
2596: % **********************************************
2597: \tablehead{
2598: % **********************************************
2599: \colhead{} &
2600: \colhead{} &
2601: \colhead{} &
2602: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Slope$=-6.346$} &
2603: \colhead{} &
2604: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Slope$=-7.519$}
2605: \\
2606: \colhead{Interval} &
2607: \colhead{} &
2608: \colhead{} &
2609: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Direct (78)} &
2610: \colhead{} &
2611: \multicolumn{2}{c}{Inverse (78)}
2612: \\
2613: \cline{4-5}
2614: \cline{7-8}
2615: \colhead{$B_{T}^{0,i}$} &
2616: \colhead{$n$} &
2617: \colhead{} &
2618: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2619: \colhead{rms} &
2620: \colhead{} &
2621: \colhead{$\langle m-M\rangle$} &
2622: \colhead{rms}
2623: \\
2624: \colhead{(1)} &
2625: \colhead{(2)} &
2626: \colhead{} &
2627: \colhead{(3)} &
2628: \colhead{(4)} &
2629: \colhead{} &
2630: \colhead{(5)} &
2631: \colhead{(6)}
2632: \\[2pt]
2633: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2634: \multicolumn{8}{c}{(A) IN MAGNITUDE INTERVALS}
2635: }
2636: % **********************************************
2637: \startdata
2638: % **********************************************
2639: 9.8-10.5 & 8 && 31.78 & .270 && 31.56 & .311 \\
2640: 10.5-11.0 & 7 && 31.27 & .505 && 31.28 & .521 \\
2641: 11.0-11.5 & 11 && 31.53 & .299 && 31.52 & .355 \\
2642: 11.5-12.0 & 12 && 31.47 & .407 && 31.35 & .482 \\
2643: 12.0-12.5 & 13 && 31.54 & .339 && 31.36 & .412 \\
2644: 12.5-13.0 & 13 && 31.55 & .446 && 31.28 & .535 \\
2645: 13.0-13.5 & 10 && 31.90 & .383 && 31.58 & .461 \\
2646: 13.5-14.0 & 4 && 32.01 & .396 && 31.64 & .480 \\
2647: % **********************************************
2648: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2649: \multicolumn{8}{c}{(B) TO MAGNITUDE CUT-OFF LIMITS}\\[2pt]
2650: \tableline\\[-8pt]
2651: % **********************************************
2652: 10.5 & 8 && 31.38 & .270 && 31.56 & .311 \\
2653: 11.0 & 15 && 31.33 & .386 && 31.36 & .442 \\
2654: 11.5 & 26 && 31.42 & .360 && 31.43 & .407 \\
2655: 12.0 & 38 && 31.43 & .371 && 31.41 & .427 \\
2656: 12.5 & 51 && 31.46 & .363 && 31.39 & .420 \\
2657: 13.0 & 64 && 31.48 & .379 && 31.37 & .444 \\
2658: 13.5 & 74 && 31.54 & .404 && 31.40 & .449 \\
2659: 14.0 & 78 && 31.56 & .415 && 31.41 & .451 \\
2660: % **********************************************
2661: \enddata
2662: % **********************************************
2663: % **********************************************
2664: \end{deluxetable}
2665: % **********************************************
2666:
2667:
2668:
2669: % ******************************************************************
2670: \end{document}
2671: % ******************************************************************
2672: % *********** end of ms.tex ***********
2673: % ******************************************************************
2674:
2675:
2676:
2677:
2678:
2679:
2680: