A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[Michael]

Another tu-quoque, and an egregious example of moral relativity - what you do is justifiable because you think they do worse...

You're all accusing me of being wrong and yet you've provided me with no logical argument that holds any water. It's not like I haven't tried to address the issue scientifically based on the behaviors of light, including providing you with the the math on the relative brightness of Proxima Centauri.

I'll admit I'm getting frustrated, but I think I've been pretty fair all things considered. The "Gospel of Olber" commentary was maybe a little rude, but my frustration is aimed at the *issue itself*, not at a person as sjastro does to me *constantly*. I'm probably not a 100 percent innocent in terms of being "nice", but I'm being a lot more fair than most folks on your side of the aisle.

It's the same fallacious justification you use when your cosmology is criticised - "LCDM is worse".

In the end, we are looking for a "best" cosmology model and there is therefore going to be some need to compare the models in some way.

 

[Michael]

In both cases you simply haven't grasped the implications of cosmological scale.

And, as usual, when the flaws in your understanding are exposed, you resort to rudeness. It's a clear pattern now, and telling.

https://www.christianforums.com/thr...pe-ia-supernovae.8043450/page-8#post-72252224

In this post you suggested that I was a lone voice, like "John the Baptist", yet in the very reference that you cited in that same post, Harrison pointed out that Thomas Digges said the same thing that I did in the 1500's, long before Olber was even born.

I'm not the lone voice, nor am I the only one to point out the obvious. The vast distances involved and the inverse square law make it impossible for the whole sky to achieve the same brightness everywhere, and the laws of physics make it impossible for every object in the night sky to be as bright as the sun's disk. The limit of human eyesight also precludes us from ever seeing all the most distant light sources, therefore it should be no surprise that many areas of the sky look "dark" to us.

 

[sjastro]

You are clearly projecting again because I explained the relevant inverse square law math to you very carefully and very clearly in astronomical units and in terms of brightness, but apparently you can't follow it.



The problem for you is that your Gospel of St. Olber is so flawed as to be utterly ridiculous, and you don't have the backbone to admit it.



I'm certainly not stupid enough to believe that Proxima Centauri is 72+ billion times brighter than our sun.



You have no idea what you're talking about as my very simple math demonstrates. The inverse square law makes it *impossible* for even the various stars in our own galaxy to be as bright as our own sun. If you can't figure out that much, I simply cannot help you.

FYI, I wasn't the first one to figure out your problem. It turns out that Thomas Digges totally destroyed the Gospel of St. Olber before it was even written.

There's no way in hell that the next closest stars are 72 billion times brighter than our sun. That kind of brightness would require a whole galaxy to exist at a distance of 4+ light years, not just one or a few stars. You don't even begin to grasp the physics involved.

If you think I'm wrong, show us the error in my math.

You change the answers whenever it suits you, the lack of an infrared background in the Hubble deep field is no longer caused by magical scattered photons avoiding the CCD but now it’s all due to the inverse square law.
I don’t even have to look at your maths to realise it is wrong because it is based on a single point source.
Point sources such as stars meet the inverse square law, extended objects such as your mysteriously missing infrared background, galaxies, the Sun or any object that occupies a definable area in the sky do not.
The parameter in question is not brightness B=L/4Πr² for a point source but surface brightness SB=B/A where A is the area of the object in the sky.
The same principle applies to the shells in Oblers’ paradox, as they have a surface brightness which is independent of distance as shown in this post for the umpteenth time but unfortunately is beyond your comprehension.

If it’s all about the inverse square law by your logic the Andromeda galaxy should be invisible to the naked eye as each star as a point source is so far away as to be invisible.
Whether look you like or not surface brightness does not conform to the inverse square law; period.
Your failure to comprehend this is your problem alone and not a reflection of any issues in the paradox.

 

[sjastro]

DP.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... Harrison pointed out that Thomas Digges said the same thing that I did in the 1500's, long before Olber was even born.

Halley said much the same thing - but as Harrison and other serious analyses show, they were wrong.

The limit of human eyesight also precludes us from ever seeing all the most distant light sources, therefore it should be no surprise that many areas of the sky look "dark" to us.

The acuity of human eyesight isn't relevant when an infinite number of stars are emitting an infinite number of photons at every point of the sky. Alternatively, think of it from the POV of energy conservation.

 

[Michael]

Halley said much the same thing - but as Harrison and other serious analyses show, they were wrong.

What "serious analyses"? All I saw were handwaves.

The acuity of human eyesight isn't relevant when an infinite number of stars are emitting an infinite number of photons at every point of the sky.

Yes it is. The fact that a very distant star emits photons doesn't mean they will reach Earth to begin with, or that they will reach the Earth at a sufficient brightness to be observed by a human eye. The human eye cannot see those distant galaxies in a deep field Hubble image, even though Hubble does.

Alternatively, think of it from the POV of energy conservation.

Again, that's irrelevant. The fact that energy is conserved, doesn't mean that distant light is capable of reaching Earth in sufficient quantity to be observed by a human eye, even if every photon is "conserved".

 

[SelfSim]

So, surface brightness is constant with distance .. ie: as an object becomes fainter with distance, it also becomes correspondingly smaller (in a given field of view). The flux might decrease with the square of the distance, but the area also decreases by the same proportion .. resulting the same surface brightness.

An eternal universe would result in a lot of surface brightness because the sky would be filled with stars, (at varying distances), but each still occupying its own portion of the total area of the night sky.

A homogeneous, redshifting scattering medium would also appear to increase the surface brightness of Olber's shells, so it needs an energy loss mechanism in order to then reproduce the darkness in the night sky observation. The issue I have with this mechanism is that all we ever see is arm-waving about how this loss serendipitously results in exactly what we observe! .. Ie: show us the parameter values of what is required in a modelled homogeneous scattering medium, which convinces us that its a realistic possibility .. never seen it .. never seen it justified against any observed values!
(Dark matter and energy on the other hand are of course, prodigiously modelled and constrained).

 

[Michael]

You change the answers whenever it suits you,

No, you change the meaning of my statements whenever it suits you.

I don’t even have to look at your maths to realise it is wrong because it is based on a single point source.

Translation, my math is right. The number of point sources and the surface area is utterly irrelevant. You can add as many *more distant* point sources as you like, but assuming they all output the same number of photons they'll all be dimmer than Proxima Centauri based on the inverse square law.

Point sources such as stars meet the inverse square law, extended objects such as your mysteriously missing infrared background, galaxies, the Sun or any object that occupies a definable area in the sky do not.

What missing infrared background?

http://p-i-a.com/Magazine/Issue1/Physics_1_COBE.htm

Virtually every wavelength follows the same pattern because they all have the same point sources (suns) and they all follow the same inverse square law which is why our galaxy always sticks out a like a sore thumb in raw images in every wavelength, including microwaves.

The parameter in question is not brightness B=L/4Πr² for a point source but surface brightness SB=B/A where A is the area of the object in the sky.

Your statement makes no sense whatsoever because at that distance it's going to look like a "point source" regardless, and its still going to follow the inverse square law. Your argument isn't even consistent. Redshift isn't what makes Proxima Centauri so much dimmer than our sun, it's *distance* and the inverse square law that causes that effect. If you were right, then Proxima Centauri would be as bright as our sun, but it's not.

The same principle applies to the shells in Oblers’ paradox, as they have a surface brightness which is independent of distance

There is no such thing or every star in our galaxy would necessarily be as bright as our sun, but that is simply not the case as you can observe for yourself at night. Your expansion explanation doesn't even apply to any sun in our galaxy.

as shown in this post for the umpteenth time but unfortunately is beyond your comprehension.

You keep erroneously insisting that a lack of agreement with your bogus claim has anything to do with "comprehension". What I "comprehend" is that your claims are utterly false or we'd be blinded by stars in our own galaxy. Your expansion claims don't apply in our galaxy to start with and therefore your argument is completely self conflicted, and "debunked" by a glance at the night sky.

If it’s all about the inverse square law by your logic the Andromeda galaxy should be invisible to the naked eye as each star as a point source is so far away as to be invisible.

No, because it contains *hundreds of billions* of "point sources", each as bright as our own sun. If you were right, we'd be blinded by it too because it's not moving away from us either! Your argument is so self conflicted it's not even funny. It's also clearly *wrong* or we would blinded by stars in our own galaxy and our galaxy cluster, which obviously is not the case.

Whether look you like or not surface brightness does not conform to the inverse square law; period.

False, as a quick glance at the night sky will verify.

Your failure to comprehend this is your problem alone and not a reflection of any issues in the paradox.

The only one of us with a serious comprehension problem is you. Your "space expansion" argument doesn't even apply to suns in our galaxy, or galaxies in our local supercluster so by your logic they should all be as bright as our sun, but they are not. Your own claim is completely self conflicted and it's in direct opposition to the evidence as one can see for themselves on any clear night. Every point source (every sun) follows the very same inverse square law. They are all at different distances, so they cannot all possibly be equally bright as seen from Earth. Your Gospel of St. Olber is a myth.

I really have no idea how you cannot see how ridiculous your argument is. If your argument was right, then every star in our galaxy and every star in our supercluster would light up the night sky as brightly as our sun lights up the day. That's simply not the case.

This is *exactly* why we're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy. You guys don't even think for yourselves, you just parrot irrational nonsense that defies observation, just like this lame claim and just like your exotic matter claims.

 

[SelfSim]

Your failure to comprehend this is your problem alone and not a reflection of any issues in the paradox.

The only one of us with a serious comprehension problem is you. Your "space expansion" argument doesn't even apply to suns in our galaxy, or galaxies in our local supercluster so by your logic they should all be as bright as our sun, but they are not. Your own claim is completely self conflicted and it's in direct opposition to the evidence as one can see for themselves on any clear night. Every point source (every sun) follows the very same inverse square law. They are all at different distances, so they cannot all possibly be equally bright as seen from Earth. Your Gospel of Olber is a myth.

They are not sjastro's 'claims' alone!

What I don't understand is how you see you have the right to ignore basic principles of astronomy (like surface brightness) and then make proclamations which you then declare as being based on appropriately contextualised 'standard physics/science'.

Sjastro's points are not part of your plea-bargaining concept.

Someday you might realise that your advocacy based on your opinions is the root cause of what you perceive as being 'personal attacks' and 'thread hijacks'.

(Readers: yeah I know .. 'wishful thinking').

 

[Michael]

They are not sjastro's 'claims' alone!

None of the bogus claims in astronomy are his "alone", but that doesn't make them any less erroneous. The fact that *lots* of astronomers believe in exotic forms of matter didn't make any difference in the outcome of the experiments at LHC, LUX, PandaX, Xenon-1T, etc.

What I don't understand is how you see you have the right to ignore basic principles of astronomy (like surface brightness) and then make proclamations which you then declare as being based on appropriately contextualised 'standard physics/science'.

I don't believe I'm ignoring surface brightness, I simply choose to not ignore the inverse square law. I feel the same way with you two and the basic principles of plasma physics and basic experiments with photons and inverse square laws related to brightness. I don't know how you can "ignore" those principles either..

Sjastro's points are not part of your plea-bargaining concept.

I wasn't "bargaining" with him in the first place.

Someday you might realise that your advocacy based on your opinions is the root cause of what you perceive as being 'personal attacks' and 'thread hijacks'.

Nah. FB *never* attacks me personally nor does he hijack my threads. I'm sure he agrees with you two and that he believes that I'm wrong, but he doesn't turn the conversations into personal attacks and he always sticks to the topic. Most astronomers and scientists that I meet in cyberspace also conduct themselves in an exemplary manner, even when we disagree. Only a select few individuals seem to feel the need to attack the person rather than the topic/belief. It's an individual choice that one makes.

 

[SelfSim]

I don't believe I'm ignoring surface brightness, I simply choose to not ignore the inverse square law.

You are also ignoring the respective contexts in which both apply.

I wasn't "bargaining" with him in the first place.

Yes .. you are.
If you understood that all scientific models are contextual then you might have a chance of seeing the scientific ridiculousness of what you are saying.

Most astronomers and scientists that I meet in cyberspace also conduct themselves in an exemplary manner, even when we disagree.

And you constantly disqualify yourself from those ranks because of your deliberate ignorance(s) of scientific concepts .. so stop speaking as though you are one, by making proclaimations about 'how science is'. That's just plain dishonesty.

Only a select few individuals seem to feel the need to attack the person rather than the topic/belief. It's an individual choice that one makes.

When confronted with wilful ignorance of concepts, there is no alternative other than addressing the interrruptions caused by the mind choosing the path of deliberate ignorance.
No-one else here seems to share your proclaimations and persistent complaints .. why is that?

 

[Michael]

What I don't understand is how you see you have the right to ignore basic principles of astronomy (like surface brightness)

I think I can explain the problem with your surface brightness argument.

Suppose for a moment that we lived inside of a Dyson sphere and the inner surface of the sphere was 4.3 light years from Earth. Let's assume that it's inner surface is uniform and exactly as bright per square foot as our own sun.

While I would expect that such a condition would result in a "light" and homogeneous background at night, the surface of our sun (per square foot) would still appear to be "brighter" on Earth than the inside surface of the Dyson sphere during daylight hours based on the inverse square laws.

 

[Michael]

You are also ignoring the respective contexts in which both apply.

Nope. You're projecting again.

Yes .. you are.
If you understood that all scientific models are contextual then you might have a chance of seeing the scientific ridiculousness of what you are saying.

Even your "context" in this case is wrong.

And you constantly disqualify yourself from those ranks because of your deliberate ignorance(s) of scientific concepts ..

This is the key difference between you and FB. Unlike FB, you profess to read minds and you really stink at it. I'm not ignorant of your belief, but you seem to be deliberately ignorant of the alternatives to your beliefs, and unwilling to consider those alternatives. You also attack the *individual* rather that the belief itself.

so stop speaking as though you are one, by making proclaimations about 'how science is'. That's just plain dishonesty.

I have as much right to note how science is *practiced* as anyone else. It's not my personal fault that all of the DM "tests"/experiments failed in the lab, nor is it my fault that you personally choose to hold belief in exotic forms of matter anyway. I am not however obligated to hold those beliefs just because you don't consider me to be a "scientist". That doesn't make me "dishonest", it simply means that I disagree with you.

When confronted with wilful ignorance of concepts, there is no alternative other than addressing the interrruptions caused by the mind choosing the path of deliberate ignorance.

Your perception of "ignorance" is flawed because you automatically label anyone who disagrees with you as "ignorant". I've seen how so called "professional" astronomers describe alternative solar theories and alternative cosmology theories. Talk about willful ignorance. Wow!

No-one else here seems to share your proclaimations and persistent complaints .. why is that?

I'm just the only one who's willing to stand up to the personal bullying apparently.

You don't hear me complaining about the mainstream particle physics theory, or the theory of evolution, or circuit theory, or any other mainstream scientific theory, just LCDM and every goofy, half baked idea that comes with it, including the Olber's paradox nonsense.

 

[sjastro]

Translation, my math is right. The number of point sources and the surface area is utterly irrelevant. You can add as many *more distant* point sources as you like, but assuming they all output the same number of photons they'll all be dimmer than Proxima Centauri based on the inverse square law.

Your maths is clearly wrong because it is based on the misunderstanding of surface brightness and how it leads to your ridiculous criticism that each star in the shell should be “blindingly bright”.
Your lack of understanding is further highlighted by not realising adding point sources to a particular surface area of the sky will increase the surface brightness because the number of photons emitted increases while the surface area remains constant; irrespective of whether it is detected by the naked eye or not.

What missing infrared background?

Physics_1_COBE

Virtually every wavelength follows the same pattern because they all have the same point sources (suns) and they all follow the same inverse square law which is why our galaxy always sticks out a like a sore thumb in raw images in every wavelength, including microwaves.

So the story changes again.
Initially the infrared background was missing because of magical scattered photons; the argument was then discarded with the missing background being a justification of the inverse square law; now the infrared background is no longer missing!!
Apart from the fact you have demonstrated using your own standards; the inverse square law argument is wrong because it no longer supports a missing background; your posts are consistently incoherent and contradictory.
And you wonder why your capacity for comprehension is brought into question.

Your statement makes no sense whatsoever because at that distance it's going to look like a "point source" regardless, and its still going to follow the inverse square law. Your argument isn't even consistent. Redshift isn't what makes Proxima Centauri so much dimmer than our sun, it's *distance* and the inverse square law that causes that effect. If you were right, then Proxima Centauri would be as bright as our sun, but it's not.

What has redshift and any aspect of your response got to do with the equations B=L/4Πr² and SB=B/A?
Do you now feel the need of making up stories or lying to compensate for your lack of comprehension of simple maths?

You keep erroneously insisting that a lack of agreement with your bogus claim has anything to do with "comprehension". What I "comprehend" is that your claims are utterly false or we'd be blinded by stars in our own galaxy. Your expansion claims don't apply in our galaxy to start with and therefore your argument is completely self conflicted, and "debunked" by a glance at the night sky.

If you actually comprehended the subject matter like understanding the Wiki article or this post, you wouldn’t constantly be making the ridiculous claim of being “blinded by stars”.
With regards to the post I thought it was obvious enough it was representation of a static Universe as perceived in the early 19th century in Olbers’ time yet it still kills off your inverse square argument.
A modern day account would have galaxies occupying the shells instead of stars and while the result is quantitatively different; qualitatively it is still the same and refutes your argument.

No, because it contains *hundreds of billions* of "point sources", each as bright as our own sun. If you were right, we'd be blinded by it too because it's not moving away from us either! Your argument is so self conflicted it's not even funny. It's also clearly *wrong* or we would blinded by stars in our own galaxy and our galaxy cluster, which obviously is not the case.

And here you are blissfully unaware your answer leads to the very blinded by brightness scenario you accuse everyone else of.
The “hundreds of billions” of point sources would lead to a high integrated brightness.
The reason why we are not “blinded” is that the integrated brightness is spread out over the surface area the galaxy covers in the sky.
This is the surface brightness which is independent of distance.

False, as a quick glance at the night sky will verify.

Really you can demonstrate surface brightness is dependent on distance by looking at the night sky without changing your distance relative to the object.
Are you trying to outdo yourself with the inane statements?

The only one of us with a serious comprehension problem is you. Your "space expansion" argument doesn't even apply to suns in our galaxy, or galaxies in our local supercluster so by your logic they should all be as bright as our sun, but they are not. Your own claim is completely self conflicted and it's in direct opposition to the evidence as one can see for themselves on any clear night. Every point source (every sun) follows the very same inverse square law. They are all at different distances, so they cannot all possibly be equally bright as seen from Earth. Your Gospel of St. Olber is a myth.

I really have no idea how you cannot see how ridiculous your argument is. If your argument was right, then every star in our galaxy and every star in our supercluster would light up the night sky as brightly as our sun lights up the day. That's simply not the case.

This is *exactly* why we're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy. You guys don't even think for yourselves, you just parrot irrational nonsense that defies observation, just like this lame claim and just like your exotic matter claims.

People can read the subject matter analyse it and decide for themselves.
You on the other hand remain in a state of permanent ignorance because Olbers’ paradox is wrong because it clashes with your religious belief of a static Universe and therefore not worth the effort in trying to understand as is clearly indicated in your responses.
This of course assumes you have the capability of comprehension which is very doubtful as your posts consistently demonstrate.
The formulaic nature of your posts and being unable to address issues that are not part of the script is a dead giveaway of your own inability of thinking for yourself.
To use one of your formulaic catchphrases you’re projecting.

 

[Michael]

Your maths is clearly wrong because it is based on the misunderstanding of surface brightness and how it leads to your ridiculous criticism that each star in the shell should be “blindingly bright”.

Don't blame me for your own nonsensical claims:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, then any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright. This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night.[1]

http://physics.muni.cz/~novotny/-CSMLG/(Harrison E.-Cosmology_ The Science of the Universe-Cambridge University Press (2000)).pdf

In a universe of infinite extent, populated everywhere with bright stars, the entire sky should be covered by stars with no separating dark gaps. Hence, when all stars are bright like the Sun, the entire sky at every point should blaze with a brilliance equal to the Sun’s disk. The sky is 180000 times larger than the Sun’s disk, and starlight falling on Earth should be 180000 times more intense than sunlight.

Do you even read your own references? Even the image on the WIKI page shows the background to be as bright, or nearly as bright as the sun.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

Admittedly it could never happen, but hey, that's the claim that is being made by St. Olber. Anything *behind* any star would be blocked by the star so the stars in each shell would indeed have to be "blindingly bright" or "very bright".

Your lack of understanding is further highlighted by not realising adding point sources to a particular surface area of the sky will increase the surface brightness because the number of photons emitted increases while the surface area remains constant; irrespective of whether it is detected by the naked eye or not.

Eh? Only stars have "surface areas", not "space" and the distance between stars is huge. The further the distance, the less photons that reach Earth too.

I also noticed that you completely ignored my whole Dyson sphere analogy. Even in that case the background of the Dyson sphere would be appear to be much less bright on Earth than the surface of the sun at 1AU.

So the story changes again.

No, your strawman changes again, and your misrepresentation of my statements continues unabated (as usual).

Initially the infrared background was missing because of magical scattered photons;

I never claimed that all infrared light was "missing" to start with, and scattering isn't "magical", scattering is observed in the lab, unlike your space expansion genie, your dark energy gnomes and your invisible form of magical matter.

the argument was then discarded with the missing background being a justification of the inverse square law; now the infrared background is no longer missing!!

Oy Vey! Every sun as large as our sun emits *every* wavelength, from microwaves all the way up to gamma rays. Nothing is "missing". Some light is more likely to be blocked and absorbed and scattered by various elements in space, and some light is less likely to be absorbed and scattered on it's journey to Earth.

Apart from the fact you have demonstrated using your own standards; the inverse square law argument is wrong because it no longer supports a missing background; your posts are consistently incoherent and contradictory.

False. You just keep twisting my statements like a pretzel because you can't handle the physical reality of the inverse square law and how it blows huge holes in your St. Olber's paradox nonsense.

And you wonder why your capacity for comprehension is brought into question.

You're projecting again. What don't you understand about the inverse square law exactly?

What has redshift and any aspect of your response got to do with the equations B=L/4Πr² and SB=B/A?

The better question is what does your (highly erroneous) claim have to do with the inverse square law of light?

Do you now feel the need of making up stories or lying to compensate for your lack of comprehension of simple maths?

You're clearly projecting again and you're again engaged in attacking *people* rather than sticking to the topic.

If you actually comprehended the subject matter like understanding the Wiki article or this post, you wouldn’t constantly be making the ridiculous claim of being “blinded by stars”.

LOL! The WIKI article itself talks about the background being "very bright", and the PDF you folks suggested claimed it would be as bright as the sun. Don't blame me for your own confused nonsense.

With regards to the post I thought it was obvious enough it was representation of a static Universe as perceived in the early 19th century in Olbers’ time yet it still kills off your inverse square argument.

Boloney, as my Dyson sphere analogy demonstrates. Your math is again "made up" and irrelevant nonsense, just like your previous trumped up math. Our sun is located at a distance of 1AU, and there aren't any stars in the next 2AU shell, or even the next 250,000 more AU sized shells! You're making this up as you go. The mere fact that our galaxy is a *disk* rather than a sphere also precludes there ever being a homogeneously bright universe in all directions. Get real.

You have a bad habit of whipping up oversimplified mathematical nonsense and treating it as "gospel".

A modern day account would have galaxies occupying the shells instead of stars

Only because your theory falls apart before we even get outside of our own solar system, or our galaxy! You'd need four more stars, all evenly arranged at 2AU to even get started, and they'd have to be four times as bright as the sun to be as bright on Earth as the sun is. Your lame Gospel of St. Olber bites the dust before we even get outside of the solar system!

...and while the result is quantitatively different; qualitatively it is still the same and refutes your argument.

Quantitatively and qualitatively your math is a mess before even we get to 2AU, let alone 100AU. Forget about distances like Proxima Centauri.

And here you are blissfully unaware your answer leads to the very blinded by brightness scenario you accuse everyone else of.
The “hundreds of billions” of point sources would lead to a high integrated brightness.

Nope. Their distances preclude that from ever happening, and the disk like layout of stars in our own galaxy precludes that from ever happening too.

The reason why we are not “blinded” is that the integrated brightness is spread out over the surface area the galaxy covers in the sky.
This is the surface brightness which is independent of distance.

Horse pucky. Brightness is *not* independent of distance. That's your problem in a nutshell because it defies the laws of physics, specifically the inverse square law of light, and the fact that stars are few and far between.

Really you can demonstrate surface brightness is dependent on distance by looking at the night sky without changing your distance relative to the object.

I blew away your false claim with the Dyson sphere analogy. The observed brightness of the surface of the sphere on Earth would be *vastly* different from the brightness of the surface of the sun! Distance matters!

Are you trying to outdo yourself with the inane statements?

No, I'm trying to get you to address the inverse square law problem in your claim and the fact your claim bites star dust at 2AU.

People can read the subject matter analyse it and decide for themselves.

Hey, at least we agree on something.

You on the other hand remain in a state of permanent ignorance because Olbers’ paradox is wrong because it clashes with your religious belief

LOL! You're the one that has to *pray* that the inverse square laws don't apply to stars for some reason, and your religious dogma requires four different statements of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab), including space expansion, dark matter, inflation, and dark energy. You're the last one in the universe who should be talking about statements of faith and religious belief. You have four invisible friends in your religion and you have to defy the laws of physics to boot.

of a static Universe

FYI, that was in fact the "mainstream" belief for a very long time. Even Hubble himself entertained a tired light scenario.

and therefore not worth the effort in trying to understand as is clearly indicated in your responses.

You're projecting again because you refuse to try to understand how and why your St. Olber was ignoring the inverse square laws of physics.

This of course assumes you have the capability of comprehension which is very doubtful as your posts consistently demonstrate.

Blah, blah personal attack blah. You're a one trick personal attack pony.

The formulaic nature of your posts and being unable to address issues that are not part of the script is a dead giveaway of your own inability of thinking for yourself.

Says the guy who simply ignored the Dyson sphere analogy that destroys your claim.....

To use one of your formulaic catchphrases you’re projecting.

That's your gig, not mine. I can think for myself, just like Thomas Digges was able to think for himself in the 1500's. Apparently you can't do that because someone handed you nonsense and you drank the cool-aid. You apparently swallowed that physics defying nonsense, hook, line and sinker.

 

[Michael]

Is the universe static - Page 7

The thirty day rule at CQ has consequences that ultimately inhibit the whole concept of an open and honest scientific debate. I suppose that's the whole point however.

Evidently the short cutoff date is going to prevent JeanTate from attempting to replicate David's work, and she's the only one at CQ that seemed to be asking mostly relevant questions, and asking the right types of questions. Pity.

I think I will try to email David and invite him to discuss the idea here after they close the thread at CQ. I'd like to hear David respond to the criticisms that Hans provided us with.

 

[sjastro]

Don't blame me for your own nonsensical claims:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia



http://physics.muni.cz/~novotny/-CSMLG/(Harrison E.-Cosmology_ The Science of the Universe-Cambridge University Press (2000)).pdf



Do you even read your own references? Even the image on the WIKI page shows the background to be as bright, or nearly as bright as the sun.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

Admittedly it could never happen, but hey, that's the claim that is being made by St. Olber. Anything *behind* any star would be blocked by the star so the stars in each shell would indeed have to be "blindingly bright" or "very bright".



Eh? Only stars have "surface areas", not "space" and the distance between stars is huge. The further the distance, the less photons that reach Earth too.

I also noticed that you completely ignored my whole Dyson sphere analogy. Even in that case the background of the Dyson sphere would be appear to be much less bright on Earth than the surface of the sun at 1AU.



No, your strawman changes again, and your misrepresentation of my statements continues unabated (as usual).



I never claimed that all infrared light was "missing" to start with, and scattering isn't "magical", scattering is observed in the lab, unlike your space expansion genie, your dark energy gnomes and your invisible form of magical matter.



Oy Vey! Every sun as large as our sun emits *every* wavelength, from microwaves all the way up to gamma rays. Nothing is "missing". Some light is more likely to be blocked and absorbed and scattered by various elements in space, and some light is less likely to be absorbed and scattered on it's journey to Earth.



False. You just keep twisting my statements like a pretzel because you can't handle the physical reality of the inverse square law and how it blows huge holes in your St. Olber's paradox nonsense.



You're projecting again. What don't you understand about the inverse square law exactly?



The better question is what does your (highly erroneous) claim have to do with the inverse square law of light?



You're clearly projecting again and you're again engaged in attacking *people* rather than sticking to the topic.



LOL! The WIKI article itself talks about the background being "very bright", and the PDF you folks suggested claimed it would be as bright as the sun. Don't blame me for your own confused nonsense.



Boloney, as my Dyson sphere analogy demonstrates. Your math is again "made up" and irrelevant nonsense, just like your previous trumped up math. Our sun is located at a distance of 1AU, and there aren't any stars in the next 2AU shell, or even the next 250,000 more AU sized shells! You're making this up as you go. The mere fact that our galaxy is a *disk* rather than a sphere also precludes there ever being a homogeneously bright universe in all directions. Get real.

You have a bad habit of whipping up oversimplified mathematical nonsense and treating it as "gospel".



Only because your theory falls apart before we even get outside of our own solar system, or our galaxy! You'd need four more stars, all evenly arranged at 2AU to even get started, and they'd have to be four times as bright as the sun to be as bright on Earth as the sun is. Your lame Gospel of St. Olber bites the dust before we even get outside of the solar system!



Quantitatively and qualitatively your math is a mess before even we get to 2AU, let alone 100AU. Forget about distances like Proxima Centauri.



Nope. Their distances preclude that from ever happening, and the disk like layout of stars in our own galaxy precludes that from ever happening too.



Horse pucky. Brightness is *not* independent of distance. That's your problem in a nutshell because it defies the laws of physics, specifically the inverse square law of light, and the fact that stars are few and far between.



I blew away your false claim with the Dyson sphere analogy. The observed brightness of the surface of the sphere on Earth would be *vastly* different from the brightness of the surface of the sun! Distance matters!



No, I'm trying to get you to address the inverse square law problem in your claim and the fact your claim bites star dust at 2AU.



Hey, at least we agree on something.



LOL! You're the one that has to *pray* that the inverse square laws don't apply to stars for some reason, and your religious dogma requires four different statements of faith in the "unseen" (in the lab), including space expansion, dark matter, inflation, and dark energy. You're the last one in the universe who should be talking about statements of faith and religious belief. You have four invisible friends in your religion and you have to defy the laws of physics to boot.



FYI, that was in fact the "mainstream" belief for a very long time. Even Hubble himself entertained a tired light scenario.



You're projecting again because you refuse to try to understand how and why your St. Olber was ignoring the inverse square laws of physics.



Blah, blah personal attack blah. You're a one trick personal attack pony.



Says the guy who simply ignored the Dyson sphere analogy that destroys your claim.....



That's your gig, not mine. I can think for myself, just like Thomas Digges was able to think for himself in the 1500's. Apparently you can't do that because someone handed you nonsense and you drank the cool-aid. You apparently swallowed that physics defying nonsense, hook, line and sinker.

Let me briefly summarize your post which is confusing, irrational, contradictory, and indcates a serious lack of basic comprehension skills.

Suggesting surface brightness follows an inverse square law is not only comprehensively wrong, but as much a work of science fiction as invoking Dyson spheres.
The use of science fiction to show Olbers’ paradox is wrong is plain idiotic and simply confirms you do not understand how the paradox works.
If you want to continue to perpetrate science fiction as not to lose face which is now your primary motivation, then you have created the physics version of your 1=0.5 nonsense.


For those more interested in science than science fiction, here is an explanation of why surface brightness is constant with respect to distance at local scales and where z is not too large in an expanding Universe.

 

[SelfSim]

Is the universe static - Page 7

The thirty day rule at CQ has consequences that ultimately inhibit the whole concept of an open and honest scientific debate. I suppose that's the whole point however.

Evidently the short cutoff date is going to prevent JeanTate from attempting to replicate David's work, and she's the only one at CQ that seemed to be asking mostly relevant questions, and asking the right types of questions. Pity.

And as usual, you totally ignore RC's points in your rush to blame the CQ moderation for Crawford's evasion of them. We can only take it that your disgrace prior to your being banned there, is showing up in your biased take on what's actually happening in that thread.

RC's points are:

- you have removed all variance from the curves except how well they fit the reference curve;
The actually working methods are the ones that experts who know about astronomy and type 1a supernova use in the papers that find time dilation in the light curves.

Repeating unsupported assertions and not understanding clear points is not support for your ATM idea. We still have:

1. The fatal error of removing light curve width variance by scaling ("interpolating") the light curves to fit a reference light curve.
2. The fatal error of removing light curve peak magnitude variance by scaling ("interpolating") the light curves to fit a reference light curve.
3. Not justifying using raw data when astronomers do not use raw data for this type of analysis.
4. Analyzing a file of many supernovae observations from several different telescopes as if it were 1 supernova observation from 1 telescope.
5. Ignoring the fact that SALT2 is not the only calibration method that exists.
6. Ignoring (denying in the thread) the independent evidence for time dilation in type 1a supernova light curves.
7. An incorrect conclusion (concluding whether the universe is contracting, static or expanding needs evaluation of all lines of evidence, not one).

ETA: I will try yet again to explain point 4 above:
Equations for 1 telescope with 1 filter gain function looking at 1 supernova at 1 redshift cannot be applied without justification to a template file derived from several different telescopes (with different filter gain functions) of many supernova observations at different redshift because:
- Several telescopes are not 1 telescope.
- Many supernova are not 1 supernova.
- The process that produced that template file may not even have generated data for an "average" supernova.

The next flaw is "If we assume that the intrinsic light curve of a type Ia supernova is the same at all redshifts..."
Do astronomers assume this? Luminosity-Decline Rate Relation

I think I will try to email David and invite him to discuss the idea here after they close the thread at CQ. I'd like to hear David respond to the criticisms that Hans provided us with.

Dream on!
Hans' critique was also along the same/similar lines as RC's, JT's and UT4Life.

 

[Michael]

Let me briefly summarize your post which is confusing, irrational, contradictory, and indcates a serious lack of basic comprehension skills.

Oh look, more personal attacks and more pure projection. Who would have guessed?

Suggesting surface brightness follows an inverse square law is not only comprehensively wrong, but as much a work of science fiction as invoking Dyson spheres.

Science fiction? LOL! Your whole cosmology belief system is 'science fiction", including inflation, space expansion, dark energy and dark matter, *none* of which show up in a lab! The science fiction doesn't end there either. In order for your Gospel of St. Olber to be true, we'd have to live in a "dust free" spacetime, devoid of EM fields and temperature gradients. We have to apply a fictional claim about 'surface areas' to empty space too. Give me a break. Your whole belief system is pure science fiction.

The use of science fiction to show Olbers’ paradox is wrong is plain idiotic and simply confirms you do not understand how the paradox works.

Your so called "paradox" is a complete joke. It's an oversimplified bunch of pure nonsense, starting with your denial of the fact the you can't apply a grossly oversimplifed "surface brightness" formula to something without a single surface to start with, and to *empty space* no less. It includes no accounting for scattering, no accounting for the types of plasma redshift we observe in the lab, and it requires a healthy does of pure denial of empirical physics, starting with the inverse square laws of light.

If you want to continue to perpetrate science fiction as not to lose face which is now your primary motivation, then you have created the physics version of your 1=0.5 nonsense.

Ah, and more dishonest personal attacks to boot. You're so predictable it's not even funny. You attack *people* using strawmen and your own make believe claims.

For those more interested in science than science fiction,

What "science" do you have to offer anyone? You're dreaming. There is no such thing as inflation, no such thing as "space expansion", no such thing as "dark energy", and no such thing as exotic forms of 'dark matter'. A full 95+ percent of your cosmology beliefs are "science fiction" and most of the remaining 5 percent is pure pseudoscience according to the Nobel Prize winning author of MHD theory.

here is an explanation of why surface brightness is constant with respect to distance at local scales and where z is not too large in an expanding Universe.

For those paying attention, he's trying to apply a make believe surface brightness formula to a universe that is full of dust and plasma that scatters light. He's ignoring the inverse square law which absolutely *does* apply to distant stars since none of them in our own galaxy are anywhere near as bright as our own sun.

If I had any doubt at all that astronomers are incapable of thinking for themselves, this thread reaffirms the fact that they simply do not think for themselves and therefore we're stuck in the dark ages of physics.

FYI, in order for your claims to be true, no scattering could take place in space, no plasma reshift could occur in space like it does in the lab, stars would have to be *much* closer together than they actually are, and even then your whole claim falls apart inside the solar system. There aren't four stars found at 2AU. There aren't 9 of them at 3AU. There aren't 100 of them at 10AU. You're just making this up as you go.

Don't even think about lecturing me about 'science fiction' while you peddle such oversimplified nonsense to an unsuspecting public.

 

[Michael]

And as usual, you totally ignore RC's points in your rush to blame the CQ moderation for Crawford's evasion of them.

Ninety percent of what RC has posted is unrelated to the actual topic of the paper and the rest is just made up nonsense. The only one guilty of 'evasion' is the mainstream, starting with their need to silence (by force) all critics, including David. He gets a couple more days and then its virtual death by force at CQ.

We can only take it that your disgrace prior to your being banned there, is showing up in your biased take on what's actually happening in that thread.

What disgrace? I wear my banning at CQ (actually bad astronomy) like a badge of honor. They couldn't handle a real debate so they shut me up by force, just like they'll do to David soon. I think they should have left their name as "Bad Astronomy" because at least then there was truth in their advertising.

They're certainly not on a "quest" for cosmological truth there, that's for sure. That much is blatantly obvious, hence the whole Spanish Inquisition routine.

RC's points are:

Utter nonsense.

Dream on!
Hans' critique was also along the same/similar lines as RC's, JT's and UT4Life.

UT4Life has actually touched a bit on some of what Hans mentioned, but certainly not RC. Talk about dreaming.... LOL!

The bottom line is that astronomy is in such a sorry shape in the 21st century that it cannot handle any open debate on these topics, so it has to rely on virtual execution and brute force. It's ironic fact is that astronomers blame the Christian church for persecuting Galileo *hundreds* of years ago for daring to think outside the box, but in 2018 the only place one can openly debate cosmology is on a Christian website. Gah!