A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[Michael]

Oh, and with respect to that listed link:

Luminosity-Decline Rate Relation

With the advent of charge coupled devices and systematic supernova searches, the quality of Type Ia supernova (SNIa) light curves improved enormously. Originally thought to be identical, it quickly became obvious that SNIa showed significant variation in the shapes and peak brightnesses of their light curves, and were therefore not standard
candles as previously assumed.

In other words, it quickly became obvious that the whole basis of your "dark energy" claim was flawed from the start and SN1A events are not "standard candles" as you presumed when you claimed "dark energy did it".

This thread really does demonstrate the oversimplified nature of LCDM. It's held together with oversimplified nonsense and it is propped up with ridiculously oversimplified arguments that are related to "science fiction", not science fact.

SN1A events were never standard candles to begin with, but that was *exactly* what you folks *assumed* when you originally claimed that dark energy did it. It's also been shown to be false now, but the dogma of dark energy continues unabated. A larger set of SN1A events even put the whole concept at around 3 sigma at *best* case, *far* too low to be called a "discovery" of something new in physics.

 

[sjastro]

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



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

The false dichotomy fallacy used to change the subject whenever you embarrass yourself.
It doesn't matter what I or mainstream think, you are the one that has changed the laws of physics and and used Dyson spheres to support it.
If you don't think this is science fiction than procure a Dyson sphere and demonstrate how surface brightness follows the inverse square law.
Otherwise it is as idiotic as to claim particles can travel faster than the speed of light because the Enterprise can exceed Warp One.

 

[SelfSim]

The false dichotomy fallacy used to change the subject whenever you embarrass yourself.
It doesn't matter what I or mainstream think, you are the one that has changed the laws of physics and and used Dyson spheres to support it.
If you don't think this is science fiction than procure a Dyson sphere and demonstrate how surface brightness follows the inverse square law.
Otherwise it is as idiotic as to claim particles can travel faster than the speed of light because the Enterprise can exceed Warp One.

The whole 'Dyson sphere thought experiment' is pure and utter garbage, IMO.

If Michael thinks it 'proves' something then he should demonstrate it by producing his calculations .. as opposed to his blunt-force approach by invoking one of his 'special pleading' arguments in order to pummel it into the realms of physical significance!

 

[SelfSim]

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.

Nonsense .. Crawford has had a full month to convince CQ scientific thinkers .. He hasn't managed to do that. He certainly hasn't convinced me.

Has he convinced anyone? (Not counting yourself, of course .. which really goes without saying).

What disgrace? I wear my banning at CQ (actually bad astronomy) like a badge of honor.

In general, recognition of dishonour requires honesty ..

They couldn't handle a real debate so they shut me up by force ..

You mention that as though there's something wrong with penal servitude?

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.

He had his shot at it! They didn't ask him to post his paper in the ATM Forum. He did that .. all by himself!

Ninety percent of what RC has posted is unrelated to the actual topic of the paper and the rest is just made up nonsense.
...
Utter nonsense.
...
UT4Life has actually touched a bit on some of what Hans mentioned, but certainly not RC. Talk about dreaming.... LOL!

Your previous 'run ins' with RC prevent you from seeing the reality of what he has stated. Perhaps RC's points will remain unanswered .. which is how Crawford's static universe ideas will be continue to be viewed (unless he can somehow correct his errors and oversights in some future revised version).

 

[sjastro]

The whole 'Dyson sphere thought experiment' is pure and utter garbage, IMO.

If Michael thinks it 'proves' something then he should demonstrate it by producing his calculations .. as opposed to his blunt-force approach by invoking one of his 'special pleading' arguments in order to pummel it into the realms of physical significance!

Give him a chance he is probably shopping around for a second hand Dyson sphere at the Star Fleet Academy surplus store.
In the meantime it might be interesting to describe how surface brightness does behave in Big Bang and Steady State cosmologies particularly at high redshift.

 

[SelfSim]

Give him a chance he is probably shopping around for a second hand Dyson sphere at the Star Fleet Academy surplus store.

He'll have to find one that fits *in the lab* though ..

In the meantime it might be interesting to describe how surface brightness does behave in Big Bang and Steady State cosmologies particularly at high redshift.

Sure .. sounds interesting .. (feel free ..)

 

[Michael]

The false dichotomy fallacy used to change the subject whenever you embarrass yourself.

Me embarrass myself? LOL! Your entire belief system is a one big science fiction fantasy. Worse yet, you seem to have to ignore the inverse square law and you think that some oversimplified math formula is a valid argument against a static universe theory. Wow! You're out of touch with reality, hence the whole dark ages of astronomy routine.

It doesn't matter what I or mainstream think, you are the one that has changed the laws of physics and and used Dyson spheres to support it.

I did not, I simply used it as a "thought experiment", which certainly isn't any worse than your dark energy nonsense, or your inflation genies in the sky.

If you don't think this is science fiction than procure a Dyson sphere and demonstrate how surface brightness follows the inverse square law.
Otherwise it is as idiotic as to claim particles can travel faster than the speed of light because the Enterprise can exceed Warp One.

The ironic part is that it is probably possible to create an experimental example (small scale of course) of the idea I proposed and test it in the lab. Your nonsense on the other hand *defies* testing because it's pure science fiction.

 

[Michael]

The whole 'Dyson sphere thought experiment' is pure and utter garbage, IMO.

Of course you think so because it destroys your claim.

If Michael thinks it 'proves' something then he should demonstrate it by producing his calculations .. as opposed to his blunt-force approach by invoking one of his 'special pleading' arguments in order to pummel it into the realms of physical significance!

I already provided you with math that demonstrated that Proxima Centuari would have to be over 72 billion times as bright as our sun to be as "bright as" our own sun as viewed from Earth. You utterly ignored that math. You two don't actually care about math in the first place.

 

[Michael]

Nonsense .. Crawford has had a full month to convince CQ scientific thinkers .. He hasn't managed to do that. He certainly hasn't convinced me.

Right, and of course Einstein was able to convince the majority of astronomers in the value of GR in the first 30 days, right? You're a riot.

Has he convinced anyone? (Not counting yourself, of course .. which really goes without saying).

Apparently he's convinced Jerry and John Hunter that his ideas are worth consideration, so of course the moderators flogged them both as well. The Inquisition routine hates dissent.

In general, recognition of dishonour requires honesty ..

Ya, and since there is no "honesty" going on at CQ, I don't personally feel bad about being banned there.

You mention that as though there's something wrong with penal servitude?

Penal servitude? It's a witch hunt forum! I answered their numerous questions for *months on end* as did Dr. Manuel. For our efforts we got virtually executed anyway. They actually had the audacity to claim that I didn't answer questions after *months* of doing exactly that. You have a warped and overly simplified sense of reality as your whole Olber's paradox nonsense also clearly demonstrates.

He had his shot at it! They didn't ask him to post his paper in the ATM Forum. He did that .. all by himself!

I doubt he expected a ton of irrelevant and off topic questions, personal threats and attacks by the moderators against everyone who supported him however.

Your previous 'run ins' with RC prevent you from seeing the reality of what he has stated.

Boloney. I know him well enough to know that *all* of his arguments are circular and "made up", including that whole nonsense about electric sun models predicting "no neutrinos". Nothing that he says have any scientific value. That's the same guy that never provided a math formula to support his claim that magnetic reconnection was a plasma optional process, and its the same guy that claimed that electrical discharges are "impossible" in plasma. What a scientific train wreck.

Perhaps RC's points will remain unanswered ..

I'm sure most of them will go unanswered since most of them were totally off topic and unrelated to the paper itself. I'd certainly ignore them in David's position.

which is how Crawford's static universe ideas will be continue to be viewed (unless he can somehow correct his errors and oversights in some future revised version).

I'm sure his arguments will be ignored just like Lerner's paper on surface brightness was ignored, and just like all arguments that support a static universe are ignored by the witch hunters. What bothers me is not that they simply ignore arguments they don't like, but that they attempt to squash all dissent by brute force, including John Hunter's very succinct insights were were also met with brute force:

The impression from this ATM thread is:

Of a serious scientist who has for about 25 years or more tried to point out evidence that the universe is static...and of a mainstream group who believe in the Big Bang and LCDM cosmology.

The remarks against David's theories have been unimaginative and repetitive....it might be better if LCDM Big-Bang cosmologists were less intransigent and willing to accept that alternatives are possible e.g. many little bangs perhaps producing the plasma which David mentions.

So good luck to you David! Don't worry if you can't provide all the answers to the flood of objections. Your proposal has many positives!

And the obligatory intransigent response by the inquisition committee?

john hunter,

Your impression is irrelevant and contrary to our rules. Infraction issued.

Translation: How dare you support a heretic! You too shall be flogged for supporting the heretic!

Gah. It's pathetic that the only place David's paper can be discussed openly and fairly is on a religious website. It demonstrates the corrupt nature of astronomy and astronomers today. Science fiction is treated as "fact" and any questioning of that science fiction is met with anger, hostility, brute force, the stifling of free speech, and outright denial.

 

[Michael]

Give him a chance he is probably shopping around for a second hand Dyson sphere at the Star Fleet Academy surplus store.

Ya, it's located right next to the inflation, dark energy and exotic matter. Oh wait. Never mind, your science fiction is so bad it doesn't even get mentioned in Star Trek! Silly me.

In the meantime it might be interesting to describe how surface brightness does behave in Big Bang and Steady State cosmologies particularly at high redshift.

Your whole "surface brightness" nonsense is a big ruse. It's a meaningless term, particularly in a *real* universe with actual scattering involved. You two have nothing to support your claims other than horrifically bad science fiction and oversimplified arguments.

 

[Michael]

He'll have to find one that fits *in the lab* though ..

The hysterical part is that a scaled down model of my thought experiment *could* be performed in a lab, unlike your dark energy gnomes and your "space expansion' nonsense. Where would I get some "inflation" to play with in a lab?

LOL! Irony overload.

 

[SelfSim]

The hysterical part is that a scaled down model of my thought experiment *could* be performed in a lab, unlike your dark energy gnomes and your "space expansion' nonsense. Where would I get some "inflation" to play with in a lab?

LOL! Irony overload.

Well the irony is that your 'scaled down model' can't be scaled up to your ridiculous >4.5 lyr radius and then magically given a surface brightness equivalent to Earth's. Its a 'special pleading' argument!

 

[Michael]

Well the irony is that your 'scaled down model' can't be scaled up to your ridiculous >4.5 lyr radius and then magically given a surface brightness equivalent to Earth's. Its a 'special pleading' argument!

Ya, well, there would be realistic limitations on the outside sphere, but at least it's theoretically possible to test the idea in a lab. That's still light yeas ahead of anything you could hope to do with 'space expansion", inflation or dark energy. Where would I get any "dark energy"? Answer: You haven't a clue.

 

[SelfSim]

... but at least it's theoretically possible to test the idea in a lab.

As I said, and in your chosen position, anything having only 'theoretical' support to justify the argument, in your limited '*lab testing*' paradigm, is a case of 'special pleading' according to you. The case gets even worse when math is needed for your scaling process.

That's still light yeas ahead of anything you could hope to do with 'space expansion", inflation or dark energy. Where would I get any "dark energy"? Answer: You haven't a clue.

DE exists in the theoretical model .. and is testable in that model.

 

[Michael]

As I said, and in your chosen position, anything having only 'theoretical' support to justify the argument, in your limited '*lab testing*' paradigm, is a case of 'special pleading' according to you. The case gets even worse when math is needed for your scaling process.

No. My thought experiment could be tested in a general sense in a lab. I also accept your "dark matter" hypothesis to some (limited) degree in the sense that it can at least be "tested" in a lab. Unfortunately however your DM claims *failed* all of those billions of dollar worth of tests. It's an unfalsifiable concept. Dark energy, inflation and space expansion can't even be tested in controlled experimentation.

DE exists in the theoretical model .. and is testable in that model.

How is that any better than my thought experiment again? Funny how every *other* star in the universe is in fact "dimmer" than the star in our own backyard.

 

[SelfSim]

... Boloney. I know him well enough to know that *all* of his arguments are circular and "made up", .. Nothing that he says have any scientific value.
...
That's the same guy that ...
..
What a scientific train wreck.

RC's posts at CQ seem different to me from his usual posts. He has demonstrated a depth in understanding of the calibration and curve fitting processes, (this time round).

Other than your personal incredulity broadside, why don't you show us how his below critique is 'circular and made up' and 'lacking in any scientific value'?

For the record, RC's points on Crawford's paper 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?

 

[SelfSim]

... Dark energy, inflation and space expansion can't even be tested in controlled experimentation.

And your internally bright Dyson sphere, (of presumably 4.5lys+1AU radius), can be shown to be successfully scaled, resulting in an internal surface brightness the same as on Earth?
... 'Special pleading' given your paradigm!

How is that any better than my thought experiment again?

Its logically consistent ... and demonstrably so .. yours isn't (and can't be demonstrated as such).
... 'Special pleading' given your paradigm!

 

[Michael]

RC's posts at CQ seem different to me from his usual posts.

Only in the sense that he doesn't include the term "liar", "fantasy", 'crackpot' or any of the other absurd language in every single post at CQ like he's become imfamous for everywhere else. Apparently he's on a shorter leash at CQ, but other than that, it's pretty much the same circular and off topic nonsense.

He has demonstrated a depth in understanding of the calibration and curve fitting processes, (this time round).

Sure, just like he's demonstrated a "depth of understanding" about EU solar models, electrical discharges in plasma, magnetic reconnection, etc. Give me a break. He makes it up as goes!

Other than your personal incredulity broadside, why don't you show us how his below critique is 'circular and made up' and 'lacking in any scientific value'?

Easy: Let's look at points 6&7 in his last post:

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).

David isn't ignoring all other lines of evidence in the first place because there *are* other lines of evidence that support a static universe including Lerner's paper on the epic fail of expansion models in the Tolman surface brightness test, and other complicated tests of a static universe that passed those tests. I've listed them earlier in this thread.

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com
ALCOCK-PACZYŃSKI COSMOLOGICAL TEST - IOPscience

Even if David *were* ignoring other lines of evidence, some of the original claims they were based on have since been falsified, like the belief that SN1A are 'standard candles'. They've been shown to be *less than standard* in later studies!

RC's whole attitude is "I'm right because I say so", just like he erroneously claimed that electrical discharges are impossible in plasma or that he could describe a non-zero rate of "reconnection" without particle acceleration, or that EU solar models predict "no neutrinos". He simply makes stuff up as he goes! When asked for references or a math formula to support his nonsense, he runs, he refuses to provide them, and he repeats the same erroneous nonsense over and over and over again.

At least half the questions he's asked at CQ are simply *off topic* in terms of David's paper, including those to supposedly valid "points". They aren't even valid points to start with.

 

[Michael]

And your internally bright Dyson sphere, (of presumably 4.5lys+1AU radius), can be shown to be successfully scaled, resulting in an internal surface brightness the same as on Earth?
... 'Special pleading' given your paradigm!

Nope. I couldn't create or directly use a scaled 4.3 light year sphere, but I could use a smaller diameter sphere for testing, and scale it mathematically.

Its logically consistent ... and demonstrably so .. yours isn't (and can't be demonstrated as such).

Boloney. It's logically *inconsistent* with everything else we know about energy and physics, including your DE retaining a constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume which no other field in nature does. The whole concept defies the conservation laws of energy as we know them. Every other field we know of in nature would decrease in density with expansion.

 

[Michael]

Actually, David has already addressed *every* one of the 7 points made by RC:

Is the universe static - Page 7

1, As explained in the paper fitting the raw supernovae light curves is using a reference light curve to interpolate the observed data for each supernova. The fitted width is the best estimate of the width for the data and os essentially independent of the reference curve. I challenge you to come up with a better method.
2. As frequently explained the calibrated data is FLAWED.
3. I have no idea of what you mean.
4. I have not ignored them. Although I have not specifically mentioned other calibration methods I showed that any method that used the same method as SALT2 in getting templates as a function of the emitted wavelengths is also flawed. Can you tell me of any other calibration method that does not use this basic method.
5. I have written previous papers about the evidence (or lack of evidence) for universal expansion. My paper is about the evidence from supernovae light curves. They are very important because they provide the most direct evidence for time dilation which is the most important characteristic of expansion.
6. I don't
7. It is not one line of evidence. The fact that this analysis provides overwhelming evidence that the universe is not expanding cannot be ignored. I agree that all other lines of evidence must be investigated is true. But I have to the best of my ability have done that and I concluded that based on observations that a static model is better or as good as the expansion model. The dominant question for anyone who supports expansion is to explain my results.

None of RC's point are valid to begin with, just like his nonsense about reconnection. I've waited 7 years for a non zero rate of magnetic reconnection formula from RC to support his nonsense. It's never going to happen either.