My SGY values are still approximately 16 Mpc off from what the Kim+2016 group is using. This week, I was running diagnostic tests on the code to try to isolate what exactly is causing this discrepancy. I was also comparing my numbers for two filament galaxies to those on Nasa's Extragalactic Database (NED). Preliminary results show that NED's numbers are consistent with ours, which is reassuring. We emailed the Kim+2016 group, and their answer appears to have contradicted what was written in their paper. One of our collaborators also emailed us with a suggestion that the Kim+2016 group uses an atypical number for the recession velocity of Virgo, so correcting for this might completely correct our SGY values. Hopefully this can all get figured out soon.

Progress (might have) been made!! I primarily focused on figuring out the Hubble flow model this week, and things are starting to look better. The biggest problem in the past was that our SGY values were way off from what they are in Kim+2016, so when we made SGY cuts to our sample, we had structures in the plot that should not have been there/lacked structures that we were expecting. I played around with this code for a while, and switched to using Virgo-centric coordinates. When I plotted SGZ vs. SGX for Virgo related structures and for the filaments behind Virgo, my figures looked closer to the Kim+2016 figures than they had before. They are still not completely correct, but it's at least a step in the right direction. I'm meeting with Dr. Finn tomorrow, and that will determine what my next step is.