A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[Michael]

[1711.11237] A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

The major evidence that supports the hypothesis of a static universe is that the measurements of the widths of the raw light curves of type Ia supernovae do not show any time dilation. The intrinsic wavelength dependence shown by the SALT2 calibration templates is also consistent with no time dilation. Using a static cosmological model the peak absolute magnitudes of raw type Ia supernovae observations are also independent of redshift. These results support the hypothesis of a static universe.

 

[Hans Blaster]

[1711.11237] A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

OK, that's the abstract, which is for a technical audience. Would you care to summarize it for a non-scientific audience?

 

[Michael]

OK, that's the abstract, which is for a technical audience. Would you care to summarize it for a non-scientific audience?

I just noticed that the author of the paper is apparently discussing it right now over at Cosmoquest:

Is the universe static

The best summary that I've seen so far came from Jerry on page three of that thread.

Is the universe static - Page 3

 

[Michael]

Is the universe static - Page 3

David, there are some advantages of a static universe, e.g. the perfect cosmological principle.

However as you know the mainstream view is the Big Bang cosmology which has explanations for:

1) Background radiation of temperature approx. 2.7K
2) Abundances of the elements
3) Redshift with distance

So would you explain please, without links, (a quick simple sentence or two for each is fine to start with), how your high temperature plasma (Curvature Cosmology) accounts for each of 1-3) Also, has the plasma been detected? If not, why not?

I really dislike the whole 'witch hunt' format and mindset of Cosmoquest. It takes what should be a friendly scientific conversation and turns it into the Spanish Inquisition, with the inevitable and obligatory closing of the thread in 30 days and typically it includes the ever popular burning (banning) of the heretical witch at the end. Gah!

I know from experience that the questions and threats come fast and furious from every direction, so I'll see if I can pick off a few of the low hanging fruit for David.

1. The CMB is a piece of cake in a static universe. Eddington himself nailed the background temperature of the universe to within 1/2 of one degree based upon the scattering of starlight on the dust particles in spacetime. It took expansion models and big bangers three or four tries to get any closer to that background temperature than Eddington, and they basically only did so by leaving out/flat out replacing the heating effects that Eddington wrote about.

http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

2. The abundance of elements that are found in solar wind and cosmic rays are pretty much based on the charge/mass ratio of the ion in question. Hydrogen protons, He++ and He+ are the three most common ions found in solar wind in that specific order. The rest of the elements are typically less than 7 or 8 percent of total. That's essentially an electrically driven feature that is related to the strong electric fields that are present around stars.

The abundance of the stars themselves have always been presumed to be of similar composition to the solar wind, the ISM and cosmic rays. The suns presumably stay pretty much "mixed together" due to 'jet speed' convection according to standard solar theory. Such fast speeds might explain how wispy light hydrogen manages to stay mixed together with heavy elements like iron, nickel, gold, etc. However, five years ago studies using SDO equipment discovered that the *actual* speed of convection is more like walking speeds, two whole orders of magnitude less than 'predicted'. There's no telling what the composition of stars might really be.

Abundance of elements are related to the fact that most of the mass of the universe is found *between* stars, and most of that mass is related to the elements that stars most easily "shed', specifically lighter, more positively charged particles with the highest charge/mass ratios.

3. Redshift as a function of distance is called "tired light" and numerous such proposals have been around since Fritz Zwicky wrote the very first paper on that topic.

It looks like the thread was started on the 28th of last month, which means that thread could stay in discussion for another 3 weeks or so, assuming that they don't decide to burn the witch a bit sooner. Already however the hostility seems to be reaching a fevered pitch, the pitchforks are out, and the threats have already begun.

 

[Michael]

Is the universe static - Page 3

Why? Instead of allowing for free dialog, and allowing anyone to 'help' David answer all the numerous and various cosmology questions that get tossed out in the inquisition, David is personally obligated to try to explain all the secrets of the universe all by himself, without any help from anyone. He must explain everything all by himself, in real time, while they continuously take and endless number of pot shots at him. What a draconian rule system.

This is a good paper. I smell fear at Cosmoquest.

 

[Michael]

Is the universe static - Page 3

The essence of David’s argument can be found in his paper in figure 2 and in figure 3:

Supernova type Ia light curves are well defined: It is the progress of the explosion from first light to peak brightness, usually about 10 to 15 days, then a rapid fade from the peak, normally fading one magnitude in 15 days then dimming more gradually over a period of several months. The shape of the curve is known, so that even though we general only observe the event no more than once a day, a the collection of a half dozen or so events over a few weeks allows the complete light curve to be constructed from points collected near the peak and during a few weeks of fading.

Supernova events near us are used to construct ‘rest frame’ light curves. These templates are then compared with the dotes collected during a new event, and the magnitude of the new event is estimated from the best light curve fit.

For cosmic light curves at redshifted distances, researchers normally correct for time dilation by shorten the time between the collected data points by a relativistic time dilation factor (1+z)^-1. So a light curve at a redshift of two is rescaled on the x-axis by a factor of ½. There is also a magnitude correction for time dilation, but since the magnitude of supernova events are considered distant standard, it is the distance to the event that is adjusted, not the magnitude. (Any error in the way the distance is calculated translates into an error in the size of the universe.)

In David’s paper, Figure 2 plots the light curve widths of supernova (type 1a) as they explode over time. David has used a templating process just like researchers in the field, but without correction for time dilation. What he has plotted is the light curve widths in multiple wavelengths verses time.

Notice that they are almost, but not quite, normally distributed about the x-axis, which is what you would expect to see if there was a small selection effects towards brighter events with increasing distance. But this is NOT the normal distribution one expects to see if redshifted space is also corrected for relativistic effects – this is the red line in David’s plot. If supernova events are consistent over time, the light curve widths should be normally distributed about the red line in David’s plot. David is arguing that it is unreal to accept the red line as the normalizing standard in cosmology when natural events fail to follow it – they are not even close.

There is no reason to look at the statistical significance of David ‘s plot: The events we have observed have failed to follow the ‘red line’ so dramatically that it is obvious there is a gross error in the way supernova are analyzed. Cosmologists such as Ned Wright are completely aware of this phenomenon, and to the best of my knowledge they are still trying to understand it.

Figure three is a plot of the calculated absolute magnitude of supernova events when their light curve widths are correlated with local events. Here again it is clear that without the time dilation included in the magnitude calculation, the distant supernova events have very near the same average intensity as local events, but when time dilation is included in the calculation of the intensity, the absolute magnitude appears to be decreasing dramatically if not absurdly as we look back into the time frame of these cosmic events.

Again, these are not new observations, just an extension of the ‘weirdness’ of supernova data that has persisted for two decades. A similar trend is apparent in gamma ray burst data, but it is currently to widely scattered to draw hard conclusions.

I've been through the whole Cosmoquest thread now, and I believe this is the best response and the best post of the whole thread since it began on the 28th. It's a concise recap of the key points of David's paper. Jerry's synopses is a fair and informative explanation of about 9 pages of published paper in less than a couple of pages. Nicely done Jerry.

 

[Michael]

Is the universe static - Page 3

That's another *great* post by Jerry. He asks some very important scientific questions:

Why do the observational data demonstrate such a much better "fit" to curves when cosmological factors are not included in the data reduction? Why does the data normalize so well about a major axis that does not correct for cosmological factors?

It seems to me that the logical explanation is because there is no time dilation occurring in a static universe where photons simply transfer some of their momentum to the plasma medium of spacetime.

This observation (and a static universe interpretation) is also perfectly congruent with recent studies of galaxy surface brightness tests of higher redshift galaxies which are consistent with a static universe, and less congruent with an expanding universe.

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

Astrotimer wanted evidence from other sources, and there it is. In case he (or anyone else) would like yet another one, static universe models also pass some *extremely* complicated astronomical tests as well:

ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience

That's *at least three* different studies of three different astronomical observations that all either favor a static universe interpretation or which offer as good of a mathematical explanation as any expansion interpretation.

How many sources should be required before such important topics can be discussed openly and fairly on astronomy oriented websites anyway? Why the inquisition routine, complete with threats toward anyone even trying to help David?

It's amazing how far the tables have turned in astronomy. Astronomers used to complain that religion was the bane of their existence and an impediment to progress because powerful religious figures stifled their right to free speech, and put them through the inquisition routine.

Now the only place that anyone can openly and freely discuss all aspects of astronomical theory is in the science forum of a religious website! LOL!

Poor Jerry. He's done his very best to help explain the complicated aspects of SN1A events to the masses, and for his efforts he too is being threatened by the astronomy overlords. Wow that's sad.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why are you holding a monologue discussing the policies of mods in a thread on another forum?
Were you banned on that forum and was your urge to continue posting so great that you decided to just post your replies and thread analysis here?

 

[Michael]

Why are you holding a monologue discussing the policies of mods in a thread on another forum?

Actually my link to the thread at Cosmoquest was in response to Hans Blaster's request for a recap of the paper. I thought Jerry did an *excellent* job, probably far better than I would have done.

Were you banned on that forum and was your urge to continue posting so great that you decided to just post your replies and thread analysis here?

Yes I've personally been burned at the stake on "Bad Astronomy" about a decade ago, and they've since changed their name to Cosmoquest. I have in fact personally been in David's position, and I've been through their inquisition process. I was ultimately burned at the stake and banned for my heretical beliefs (I believe by Phil Plait himself) because they felt I had not answered enough of their questions about our published paper, even though I had repeatedly answered their questions for many months, as had Dr. Oliver Manuel from the University of Missouri at Rolla. They also banned Dr. Manuel, a Phd of nuclear chemistry, and a co-author of the paper for presumably the same offense, and for eventually getting testy with them. Dr. Manuel and I did actually go through many months of Q&A before eventually being banned. They've since put a "time limit" on the length of the discussions allowed there. Had their current rule system been in place a decade ago, Dr. Manuel and I survived the first 30 days of our inquisition process, but the thread would have been closed and we would have been forbidden to ever discuss it again there. Either way, it's not like their rule system or their forum is conducive to friendly public scientific dialog.

In response to your question of motivation, no. I was just appreciative of the fact that the paper in question was being publicly discussed on the internet by the author himself, and some of the posts in that specific thread are very useful and quite informative.

I am mildly curious to find out if David's fate works out the way mine did.

 

[Michael]

It's very interesting to me, and rather telling, that after more than a full week since David presented his paper at Cosmoquest, not a single specific formula, page number, or paragraph has been cited by any critic at Cosmoquest as being a problem in David's paper. To me that says volumes. All that hostility has been directed at David and even directed at Jerry just for trying to summarize David's work, but not a single specific problem in the paper has been pointed out by any of David's critics.

The inquisition routine seems to be focused on the person(s), not the actual material or the content of the paper. That's just wrong. It really is like a "virtual" Spanish Inquisition routine, complete with virtual threats, the whole guilty until proven innocent mentality, the angry mob mentality, and of course the intent of burning the witch or forbidding the witch to ever speak again.

The public burning actually has a tangible effect in the real world too because while all the critics remain 'anonymous", the author cannot. His name is publicly smeared for all time by individuals hiding in anonymity. The angry mob has no public face, but the witch sure does.

It would be rational, and logical to discuss the specific content of David's paper. That would actually make the conversation a "real scientific conversation". It's only reasonable to expect one of the critics of David's work to present an actual scientific argument about some *highly specific content of the paper*. What's going on right now however is anything but rational.

It's completely irrational to expect David to support a static universe concept based on *external* (to his own paper) observations, and answer a billion and one other possible unrelated questions, "or else". That is never a requirement of any "peer review" process. How childish and irrational can David's critics get anyway? If I were David, I'd be highly disappointed (more like disgusted) in the lack of useful conversation to date. Only Jerry has has responded to the actual material which David presented, and Jerry was immediately threatened by the mob leaders for doing it. The burn the heretic routine is already off scale.

There hasn't been a single specific criticism about the content of David's actual paper that has even been cited by the angry mob or the leaders of the angry mob after more than a full week. They won't even bring any specific charges against the witch while trying to publicly burn him at the stake.

There's no desire to learn anything at Cosmoquest, nor any desire to even help David understand any specific problem if they thought there was a real problem in his paper. The only "intent' of that whole angry mob is to burn the witch. Run David, run!

I for one think that David's paper is a pretty good paper. If there's an actual scientific problem in his presentation, I didn't find it. It doesn't appear that anyone else at Cosmoquest has found a valid scientific argument related to any specific content of David's paper either.

 

[Michael]

 

[Hans Blaster]

I just noticed that the author of the paper is apparently discussing it right now over at Cosmoquest:

Is the universe static

The best summary that I've seen so far came from Jerry on page three of that thread.

Is the universe static - Page 3

Thanks for those links Michael. It wasn't quite what I was thinking of, but still interesting.

I read the paper a few weeks ago and I think I know what the author did wrong. I need to check with a few sources, but I hope to post a write-up about the paper in a few days. Then I'll discuss any issues on that topic (time dilation in supernovae) and not on others (static cosmology, "soulless minions of orthodoxy", etc.)

Ciao

 

[Michael]

Thanks for those links Michael. It wasn't quite what I was thinking of, but still interesting.

I read the paper a few weeks ago and I think I know what the author did wrong. I need to check with a few sources, but I hope to post a write-up about the paper in a few days. Then I'll discuss any issues on that topic (time dilation in supernovae) and not on others (static cosmology, "soulless minions of orthodoxy", etc.)

Ciao

Thanks. I look forward to your comments.

 

[Michael]

Well, I just checked the CQ link again and there's still no specific criticisms that have been pointed out in David's entire paper. That's rather anticlimactic. I suspect that David is likely to bail from the conversation unless someone posts an actual specific criticism of the paper. The responses thus far look like a complete waste of David's time.

 

[SelfSim]

So Michael completely overlooks Reality Check's questions and dismisses them (along with all other comments) as 'a complete waste of time'.

Perhaps Michael could answer 'em them then .. (ie: to spare 'Davd' from 'wasting his time')?:
(Especially so, as Michael also claims to have already provided Davd with his 'answers' .. as per the Tbolts thread?)

IF01: Cite your sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2X10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre.
IF02: Cite the standard nuclear physics equations that you plugged those values into and the rate of fusion into D, Li, etc. that resulted?
IF03: Now explain how in a static universe that is presumably infinitely old, there is any H in the inter-galactic plasma?
Or give the age of the universe in your ATM idea.

 

[Michael]

So Michael completely overlooks Reality Check's questions and dismisses them (along with all other comments) as 'a complete waste of time'.

I did overlook them *yesterday* because they weren't there yesterday. They are of course a complete waste of time, and unrelated to the paper itself as I noted today at Thunderbolts.

I did give David a hand earlier in this thread with some of the previous questions (prior to today), so maybe I'll humor you.

Perhaps Michael could answer 'em them then .. (ie: to spare 'Davd' from 'wasting his time')?:
(Especially so, as Michael also claims to have already provided Davd with his 'answers' .. as per the Tbolts thread?)

You'll find that I did answer a number of the peanut gallery questions prior to anything that was asked today.

IF01: Cite your sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2X10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre.

I can't find that figure anywhere in the David's paper, it's off topic, and I don't profess to read minds, so I'll have pass on that one.

IF02: Cite the standard nuclear physics equations that you plugged those values into and the rate of fusion into D, Li, etc. that resulted?

That question is not within the scope of David's paper either so it's off topic. That's 0 for 2 in terms of addressing the topic. However, my previous answer about elemental abundance figures and solar wind composition probably applies to that topic.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

See answer number 2 on elemental abundances.

IF03: Now explain how in a static universe that is presumably infinitely old, there is any H in the inter-galactic plasma?
Or give the age of the universe in your ATM idea.

It could be infinitely old for all anyone knows, and it's also *off topic*. Strike three. None of his questions are even on topic! Holy cow.

As far as the hydrogen recycling process is concerned, I've already answered that question over a decade ago.

[astro-ph/0511379] The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars: Fusion, Gravitational Collapse and Dissociation

The questions that are being asked at CQ aren't even directly related to the actual content of David's paper. It's all off topic nonsense and nothing but intentional distractions.

Are any of you "skeptics" going to point out an actual *specific* flaw in David's paper, or were planning a 'death by a thousand unrelated paper cuts' approach to dealing with this material?

If I were David, I'd just ignore the off topic nonsense and off topic questions that have been posted to CQ so far. Jerry is the only individual who has discussed the actual material in the paper, and for his valiant efforts at explaining the paper to the CQ public, he was threatened by the lynch mob. The Spanish Inquisition routine at CQ is just childish. I sure hope David has the wisdom to simply walk away from that vacuous thread. None of his inquisitors have asked an intelligent question that is even remotely *related to the actual paper*, or the answer is clearly explained in the paper itself.

 

[SelfSim]

... I can't find that figure anywhere in the David's paper, it's off topic, and I don't profess to read minds, so I'll have pass on that one.
...
The questions that are being asked at CQ aren't even directly related to the actual content of David's paper. It's all off topic nonsense and nothing but intentional distractions.

Hmm ... I believe the question(s) are, in fact, related to the actual content of the paper and are not 'distractions'. For example: Section A Static Cosmology:

IF01: Cite your sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2X10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre.

The static cosmology used here is Curvature Cosmology[7] that is a complete cosmology that shows excellent agreement with all major cosmological observations.

RC's above question (for eg) is a direct challenge to Crawford's above underlined claim.

Crawford's static 'Curvature Cosmology[7]', is used elswehere thoughout the paper:

3.4 Type Ia supernovae magnitudes:
The analysis for magnitudes is more complicated than that for widths in that a distance modulus derived from a cosmological model must be used in order to obtain the absolute magnitudes. For the static cosmological model the distance modulus (equation 10) for curvature cosmology is used here because it shows excellent results from quasar observations. For the standard expansion cosmology the distance modulus give in Appendix B (equation 12) is used.

It is also his own Cosmology (see 'References': [7] Crawford, D. F. 2009,...)

Are any of you "skeptics" going to point out an actual *specific* flaw in David's paper, or were planning a 'death by a thousand unrelated paper cuts' approach to dealing with this material?

It is well known that the ATM Forum of CQ is not a place where members have to find specific flaws in someone's paper. Its up to Crawford in this case, to convince the members scrutinising his ATM arguments, that he has in fact, considered the broader evidence (and its implications).

None of his inquisitors have asked an intelligent question that is even remotely *related to the actual paper*, or the answer is clearly explained in the paper itself.

As per the first point I made above, clearly his 'static Curvature Cosmology' has a major impact and challenges to it are relevant.

 

[Michael]

Hmm ... I believe the question(s) are, in fact, related to the actual content of the paper and are not 'distractions'. For example: Section A Static Cosmology:RC's above question (for eg) is a direct challenge to Crawford's above underlined claim.

Crawford's static 'Curvature Cosmology[7]', is used elswehere thoughout the paper:
It is also his own Cosmology (see 'References': [7] Crawford, D. F. 2009,...)

Please cite the specific page number and sentence of that earlier reference[7] where David mentioned a 2X10^9 density figure. You appear to be off topic, *and* you appear to be sending me on another wild goose chase with respect to the reference you listed. I did a quick search of the referenced citation and I found no such density discussion, but perhaps you've read his previous paper and you can cite me the *specific* page number and paragraph where that figure comes from? Does every word David utters in the thread become grounds from another red herring series of unrelated questions?

It is well known that the ATM Forum of CQ is not a place where members have to find specific flaws in someone's paper.

Then what's the point of discussing any paper there? Nothing asked of David is even *on topic*, or it is *easily* answered in the original paper.

Its up to Crawford in this case, to convince the members scrutinising his ATM arguments, that he has in fact, considered the broader evidence (and its implications).

The rules of the CQ ATM forum specifically state:

Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support.

The various questions asked of David are by their very definition "beyond what his (SN1A) data can support". The specific paper that David cited doesn't cover every topic in astronomy, just the SN1A data that he looked at and he wrote about. The CQ inquisitioners are asking David questions that are *way* off topic and have nothing to do with the SN1A data that he actually presented in his paper.

The whole Spanish Inquisition routine is *completely off topic* by design! They did that hijacking nonsense to me too. It's totally annoying and it's a complete waste of time.

As per the first point I made above, clearly his 'static Curvature Cosmology' has a major impact and challenges to it are relevant.

What actual "challenges" to it? All I've seen so far from the folks at CQ (and you) are handwavy claims/questions with no specific paper, page number or paragraph citation, and nothing that even remotely looks like a legitimate scientific question about the actual contents of any of his papers.

In fact, the whole thread at CQ is series of never ending red-herring questions, all specifically designed to take the thread *off the SN1A topic*, and focus the discussion onto some other (any other) topic *other than* the topic of the paper itself.

The whole ATM section of CQ reeks of witch hunts and red herrings. I haven't heard one decent *on topic* question in that thread in over a week at CQ. The only posts that I've seen that's that were actually on topic so far were two posts by Jerry who provided a really excellent (and fair) recap of David's paper. Jerry was then immediately body slammed by the mods for trying to help summarize David's work for the benefit of the CQ community. What a ridiculous response to Jerry's very insightful and helpful posts!

All those mathematical aficionados at CQ and they can't find a single specific flaw in his entire paper(s)?

 

[SelfSim]

Please cite the specific page number and sentence of that earlier reference[7] where David mentioned a 2X10^9 density figure. You appear to be off topic, *and* you appear to be sending me on another wild goose chase with respect to the reference you listed. I did a quick search of the referenced citation and I found no such density discussion, but perhaps you've read his previous paper and you can cite me the *specific* page number and paragraph where that figure comes from? Does every word David utters in the thread become grounds from another red herring series of unrelated questions?

You mean apart from his own declaration that his model required these numbers (in the CQ thread)?

Ok .. see here:

Page 73: Section 6.3.2 Temperature of the cosmic plasma

Provided the temperatures are small enough for the proton’s kinetic energy to be much less than its rest mass energy, we can put γp2 = 1 and thus for pure hydrogen, the result is γe2 = 3. Using a more realistic composition that has 8.5% by number (Allen, 1976) of helium we find that γe2 = 2.927. Hence using Eq. 48 the predicted electron temperature is 2.56×10^9K.

then: page 39 Section 5.2.2 X-rays in CC:

In CC the argument against bremsstrahlung based on the Sunyaev–Zel’dovich effect is not valid because the density of the gas is much less and the CMBR has a different source. It has been shown that the X-ray data in the range from about 10 Kev to about 300 kev can be explained by bremsstrahlung from the cosmic gas. The fitted temperature was 2.62±0.04×10^9 K and the fitted density was N = 1.55 ± 0.01 hydrogen atoms per cubic meter (2.57×10^−27 kg m−3).

Relevant yet?

 

[SelfSim]

Then what's the point of discussing any paper there?

I don't know .. why did he post his ATM idea there?

The various questions asked of David are by their very definition "beyond what his (SN1A) data can support".

An "I don't know" response is acceptable.

The specific paper that David cited doesn't cover every topic in astronomy, just the SN1A data that he looked at and he wrote about. The CQ inquisitioners are asking David questions that are *way* off topic and have nothing to do with the SN1A data that he actually presented in his paper.

Clearly Crawford's problem is that he didn't manage to get a proper peer review in a proper mainstream journal. If he had, he wouldn't be looking for the CQ folk to find the 'flaws' (your word) in his work.

The whole Spanish Inquisition routine is *completely off topic* by design! They did that hijacking nonsense to me too. It's totally annoying and it's a complete waste of time.

.. (An all-too-familiar chant from Michael) ..

What actual "challenges" to it? All I've seen so far from the folks at CQ (and you) are handwavy claims/questions with no specific paper, page number or paragraph citation, and nothing that even remotely looks like a legitimate scientific question about the actual contents of any of his papers.

RC's questions (which I posted previously) are relevant because they are about Crawford's modelling/fitting assumptions which underpin his Cosmology which in turn, is used throughout his SN1a paper.

In fact, the whole thread at CQ is series of never ending red-herring questions, all specifically designed to take the thread *off the SN1A topic*, and focus the discussion onto some other (any other) topic *other than* the topic of the paper itself.

The whole ATM section of CQ reeks of witch hunts and red herrings. I haven't heard one decent *on topic* question in that thread in over a week at CQ. The only posts that I've seen that's that were actually on topic so far were two posts by Jerry who provided a really excellent (and fair) recap of David's paper. Jerry was then immediately body slammed by the mods for trying to help summarize David's work for the benefit of the CQ community. What a ridiculous response to Jerry's very insightful and helpful posts!

All those mathematical aficionados at CQ and they can't find a single specific flaw in his entire paper(s)?

<Hmm sounds like yet another massive 'Michael rant' to me?..>