• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

Discussion in 'Physical & Life Sciences' started by Michael, Jan 4, 2018.

  1. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    [1711.11237] A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Hans Blaster

    Hans Blaster New Member

    50
    +67
    Atheist
    Private
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
    • List
  3. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    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
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    Is the universe static - Page 3

    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.
     
  5. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    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. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  6. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    Is the universe static - Page 3

    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.
     
  7. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    Is the universe static - Page 3

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

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2018
  8. DogmaHunter

    DogmaHunter Code Monkey

    +8,434
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    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?
     
  9. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    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.

    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. :)
     
    Last edited: Jan 5, 2018
  10. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
  11. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    [​IMG]
     
  12. Hans Blaster

    Hans Blaster New Member

    50
    +67
    Atheist
    Private
    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
     
  13. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    Thanks. I look forward to your comments.
     
  14. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    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.
     
  15. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +578
    Humanist
    Private
    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?)

     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  16. Michael

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    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.

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

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2018
  17. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +578
    Humanist
    Private
    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,...)

    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).

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

    Michael Contributor Supporter

    +1,089
    Christian
    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?

    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.

    The rules of the CQ ATM forum specifically state:

    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.

    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)?
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2018
  19. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +578
    Humanist
    Private
    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

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

    Relevant yet?
     
  20. SelfSim

    SelfSim A non "-ist"

    +578
    Humanist
    Private
    I don't know .. why did he post his ATM idea there?

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

    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.

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

    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.

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