Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
OK, that's the abstract, which is for a technical audience. Would you care to summarize it for a non-scientific audience?
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?
Jerry said: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.
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?
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?
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
Reality Check said: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.
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.
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:... 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.
RC's above question (for eg) is a direct challenge to Crawford's above underlined claim.David F Crawford said:The static cosmology used here is Curvature Cosmology[7] that is a complete cosmology that shows excellent agreement with all major cosmological observations.RC said:IF01: Cite your sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2X10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre.
It is also his own Cosmology (see 'References': [7] Crawford, D. F. 2009,...)Crawford said: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 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).Crawford said: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?
As per the first point I made above, clearly his 'static Curvature Cosmology' has a major impact and challenges to it are relevant.Michael said: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.
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).
Don’t make claims that extend beyond what your data (or the data you’re referencing) can support.
As per the first point I made above, clearly his 'static Curvature Cosmology' has a major impact and challenges to it are relevant.
You mean apart from his own declaration that his model required these numbers (in the CQ thread)?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?
Crawford said: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.
Relevant yet?Crawford said: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).
I don't know .. why did he post his ATM idea there?Then what's the point of discussing any paper there?
An "I don't know" response is acceptable.Michael said:The various questions asked of David are by their very definition "beyond what his (SN1A) data can support".
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.Michael said: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.
.. (An all-too-familiar chant from Michael) ..Michael said: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.
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.Michael said: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.
<Hmm sounds like yet another massive 'Michael rant' to me?..>Michael said: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)?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?