Upvote
0
A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
This whole conversation about Olber's paradox is a great example of why astronomy is still stuck in the dark ages.
I can to choose to believe a several hundred year old "dogma package", or I can choose to trust my own eyes. I choose to trust my own eyes, whereas astronomers swallow a really old and really bad dogma package hook, line and sinker, even when it directly conflicts with observations of the night sky, and the huge number of stars in our own galaxy which we are incapable of observing with our own eyes.
You choose to *assume* that some concept called "surface brightness" has to either be false in all cases, or true in all cases, but you exclude the possibility that the concept of surface brightness has a *limited* usefulness in *some* cases. Your whole argument is based on a false dichotomy fallacy, one which directly conflicts with observations of the night sky.
We do *not* see every star in our own galaxy, nor do we see more than a few galaxies with our eyes at night. Obler's paradox is destroyed by that observation alone.
The whole "shells of stars" argument fails miserably inside the confines of our own solar system, and it falls 268,770 AU shells short of a valid scientific argument.
The goal post shifting exercise related to galaxies is a red herring because Olber had no idea that other galaxies even existed, and they too follow the inverse square law as their angular size shrinks with distance until they too simply act like "point sources" and grow dimmer and dimmer with distance.
There's literally no physical, scientific or logical basis for your paradox claim, yet you cling to it like a security blanket based on a few math formulas that clearly do *not* apply in all cases.
Anyone who points out that problem is automatically attacked as a *person* because you have no valid scientific basis for your claim, and you have no way to defend it scientifically.
Your whole argument is based on bad dogma, and your resistance to embracing reality is based on an emotional response to your damaged pride rather than a valid scientific argument.
I can to choose to believe a several hundred year old "dogma package", or I can choose to trust my own eyes. I choose to trust my own eyes, whereas astronomers swallow a really old and really bad dogma package hook, line and sinker, even when it directly conflicts with observations of the night sky, and the huge number of stars in our own galaxy which we are incapable of observing with our own eyes.
You choose to *assume* that some concept called "surface brightness" has to either be false in all cases, or true in all cases, but you exclude the possibility that the concept of surface brightness has a *limited* usefulness in *some* cases. Your whole argument is based on a false dichotomy fallacy, one which directly conflicts with observations of the night sky.
We do *not* see every star in our own galaxy, nor do we see more than a few galaxies with our eyes at night. Obler's paradox is destroyed by that observation alone.
The whole "shells of stars" argument fails miserably inside the confines of our own solar system, and it falls 268,770 AU shells short of a valid scientific argument.
The goal post shifting exercise related to galaxies is a red herring because Olber had no idea that other galaxies even existed, and they too follow the inverse square law as their angular size shrinks with distance until they too simply act like "point sources" and grow dimmer and dimmer with distance.
There's literally no physical, scientific or logical basis for your paradox claim, yet you cling to it like a security blanket based on a few math formulas that clearly do *not* apply in all cases.
Anyone who points out that problem is automatically attacked as a *person* because you have no valid scientific basis for your claim, and you have no way to defend it scientifically.
Your whole argument is based on bad dogma, and your resistance to embracing reality is based on an emotional response to your damaged pride rather than a valid scientific argument.
Upvote
0
... Breaking News! ... Donald Scott Stumbles in and Blunders Yet Again! ..
Sjastro's post #73, (way back), clearly refutes Scott's argument (from the paper in the link) that:
Ie: it takes a finite number of stars to cover the infinite number of stars behind them (19th century static universe).
While Ro will change in value, it will remain finite since the average star’s area 'a' and average density 'n', are both non zero.
Sorry Dr Scott .. you're wrong ... (yet again)!
The Static Universe still needs to overcome the Paradox!
The Paradox lives on!
Sjastro's post #73, (way back), clearly refutes Scott's argument (from the paper in the link) that:
Scott's step 4 is:Scott said:
However, post#73 clearly demonstrates that Ro is not an infinite number, (Ro=1/an; where a= avg star area, n = avg density .. both of which are clearly non-zero). It thus takes only a finite number of stars to completely cover the sky.Scott said:4. These two effects cancel each other. So, every spherical shell of radius r should add the same small additional amount of light. Thus the total lumens received will be:
Ie: it takes a finite number of stars to cover the infinite number of stars behind them (19th century static universe).
While Ro will change in value, it will remain finite since the average star’s area 'a' and average density 'n', are both non zero.
Sorry Dr Scott .. you're wrong ... (yet again)!
The Static Universe still needs to overcome the Paradox!
The Paradox lives on!
Upvote
0
Who cares? Even if that is true, and Scott is wrong, your bogus claim was utterly *destroyed* in this thread either way.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but whether Scott's argument is right or wrong, Olber's paradox has been completely *obliterated* in this thread, particularly when sjastro admitted that stars act like point source and obey the inverse square law.
A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae
Their surface brightness is *not* preserved indefinitely as your theory requires.
You're still whistling Dixie regardless of what you think of Scott's paper. It's irrelevant to you own errors.
Your argument amounts to "Some third party to our discussion made an error, therefore none of our own errors matter".
Upvote
0
What I notice, is:
i) Michael's reluctance to publically tell Dr Scott that he is wrong (yet again) and;
ii) Michael changing the goalposts over the surface brightness vs distance issue throughout this thread.
According to Michael, surface brightness is now independent of distance over particular distance range (until it becomes a 'point source), yet in early posts this was not his case.
For example, when sjastro first presented the derivation of the surface brightness equation in post#217, this was Michael's response (post #219):
Also, Michael hasn't managed to counter the argument that a static Universe that it is infinitely old, allows photons from any point in the Universe, ample time to reach the observer (unlike in a finite expanding Universe).
i) Michael's reluctance to publically tell Dr Scott that he is wrong (yet again) and;
ii) Michael changing the goalposts over the surface brightness vs distance issue throughout this thread.
According to Michael, surface brightness is now independent of distance over particular distance range (until it becomes a 'point source), yet in early posts this was not his case.
For example, when sjastro first presented the derivation of the surface brightness equation in post#217, this was Michael's response (post #219):
Yet, when presented with same equation in post#307, this was Michael's response (post#317):Michael said:
So which is the correct version of the formula itself: 'make believe' or 'theoretically/technically correct'?Michael said:
Also, Michael hasn't managed to counter the argument that a static Universe that it is infinitely old, allows photons from any point in the Universe, ample time to reach the observer (unlike in a finite expanding Universe).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then of course, distant objects appear to increase in size:
Isn't it wonderful that we don't have to rely on Michael's miscomprehensions and his confused, babbling favorite EU 'theorists' like Scott, when we have wonderful professional astrophysicists (and authors) like Brian to help us clarify they way it really is in mainstream cosmology, eh?Koberlein said:
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Ophiolite
Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
What we need is a little award icon, to go along with the "Like", "Agree", "Winner" icons. This would be the Emotion Icon. It would be awarded to posts one considered to be so emotionally charged one almost fails to notice they are bereft of fact. Until we have such an icon please accept this brief comment as a temporary, sub-standard replacement.
Upvote
0
Eh? Scott has never posted to this thread. Talk about a red herring.
You're the one alleging that Scott is wrong. Go take it up with him directly on the appropriate forum and leave me out of it. I debunked your Olber nonsense in my own way, in this thread and it had nothing to do with Scott. Scott is irrelevant to this thread and your pitiful claim.No. You're the one moving the goal posts. First you claimed Olber's paradox is based on stars. Then sjastro claimed that suns acted as point sources and obey the inverse square law, and he tried moving the goalposts to galaxies. The silly part of that argument is that galaxies work exactly the same way as stars because a galaxy is nothing more than a collection of stars. The angular size of a galaxy shrinks with increasing distance, and eventually they act like point sources too.
You guys *still* can't explain why we see so few galaxies in the night sky. Where's that missing homework assignment/explanation? Let me guess.....your dog ate it?
Apparently it's "make believe" beyond some unspecified distance because sjastro freely admitted that surfaces of stars act like point sources and they obey the inverse square laws. So much for your stellar surface brightness staying constant with distance claim. Then the goalposts got put into warp of course.
That's simply not true. Even if distant photons have ample time to reach Earth, they obey the inverse square law as sjastro admits, so they'll eventually be too dim to see with the naked eye anyway. We'd receive so few photon from such sources, we'd never register then with our human eyes and brain. That's even *assuming* that absolutely no scattering at all takes place in space, and we know for a fact that isn't the case.
The fact you're still clinging to this nonsense and defending this nonsense only demonstrates your inability to think for yourselves. Even worse, you can't even keep your own stories straight. First you tell me that surface brightness is unrelated to distance, and then you tell me that the surfaces of stars act like point sources and become too dim to observe. Which is it?
The whole galaxy ruse was a complete red herring (like your mention of Scott) because Olber hadn't a clue that any other galaxies even existed. His entire argument was based on stars not galaxies. sjastro already admitted that stars act like point sources and they eventually become too dim to observe with the naked eye which is why we see less than 10,000 of the 250+ *billion* stars in our own galaxy, and less than 10 galaxies.
You're 268,770 AU shells short, and 250 *billion* stars short of a valid argument. How can you even continue to peddle such nonsense to unsuspecting students? Do you threaten to fail them if they refuse to believe such nonsense? You can't even logically defend this horse pucky on a public science forum!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Then of course, distant objects appear to increase in size:
Isn't it wonderful that we don't have to rely on Michael's miscomprehensions and his confused, babbling favorite EU 'theorists' like Scott, when we have wonderful professional astrophysicists (and authors) like Brian to help us clarify they way it really is in mainstream cosmology, eh?
If that's true, it only hurts your case because we should see *more* galaxies with our naked eyes if they're bigger than they would be, not less of them! Why do we see less than 10 galaxies with our naked eyes? You're just digging the galaxy hole deeper and deeper and burying yourself in the process.
In terms of stellar physics, you blew Olber's claim out of the water by claiming they behave like point sources and that's all Olber's claim was based on in the first place.
Gah. What utter nonsense.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Bereft of fact? Get real. The *fact* is that human eyes observe less than 10,000 stars out of over 250 billion stars in our own galaxy and the fact is that we observe less than 10 galaxies. Your argument is bereft of facts. You handwave an oversimplified math formula at me and then admit that it doesn't apply in the first place and that stars act like point sources and obey the inverse square laws just like I said!
We also need a horse pucky icon to respond to your "bereft of facts" nonsense. A simple glance at the night sky shows that the starlight "facts" destroy your bogus claim. Your side has no logical explanation for that, or the fact we see so few galaxies!
Even your galactic sized goal posts shifting routine doesn't help your case because we observe less than 10 galaxies including our own!
sjastro already admitted that stars act like point sources (and he's right about that too), which utterly destroys Olber's whole claim. If stars act like point sources and they obey the inverse square laws, then Digges was right all along, and Obler confused himself and you along with him.
I really can't imagine how you folks could have destroyed your whole claim more completely. The moment you admitted that stars obey the inverse square laws as I claimed all along, Olber's nonsense was toast. His whole claim was based on stars, not galaxies. His argument was based on the concept that stellar surfaces do *not* obey the inverse square laws. Since they do obey the inverse square laws, Olber's claim is made to look utterly ridiculous.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Sorry, but that doesn't fly. The stars in our own galaxy aren't expanding away from us, and there are far more galaxies in our own supercluster than we observe at night.
The resolution to Olber's paradox is the inverse square law and scattering. Period.
Your shell argument came up 268,770 shells short of a valid argument, and your surface brightness argument came up 250 billion stars short at night of a valid scientific argument. Other than that, it's just a ridiculous idea that had already been explained by Thomas Digges before Olber was even born.
But you folks go right ahead and stuff that ridiculous nonsense down another naive generation's throat in the classroom and threaten to fail them if they ask any serious questions or they don't toe the party line so they too can wallow around in the dark ages and give their homage to absurd metaphysical dogma.
Upvote
0
FYI, this conversation really does explain why we're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy.
First you folks claimed that the so called "Olber's paradox" was demonstrated by concentric shells of stars, but that claim ended up failing miserably, long before we even left the solar system. It came up 268,770 AU shells short of a valid scientific argument.
Then you claimed that surface brightness always stayed constant regardless of distance. But then when asked why we see so few stars in the night sky with our eyes, you backtracked instantly, and claimed that stars do indeed act as point sources and obey the inverse square laws of physics as I first claimed. That surface brightness argument ended up being 250+ billion stars short of a valid scientific argument too.
Then you tried to move the goal posts at warp speed and blame the whole paradox on galaxies, in spite of the fact that Olber never knew that there even were any other galaxies in the universe and his whole claim was based on stellar brightness, not galactic brightness.
Now none of you can explain why we see less than 10 galaxies at night including our own, far short of the number of galaxies in our own supercluster. Never mind the fact that galaxies are simply groups of "point sources" (by your own admission), and they too change their angular size with distance just as stars do at first, thus obeying the inverse square laws of light in the process, until they become so small that they too simply act like point sources and continue to obey the inverse square laws.
Your whole argument amounts to "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes"?
Even when your claims obviously and *directly conflict* with what we observe in the night sky with our own eyes, you don't care. You don't ever think to reconsider the validity of your argument. You don't even bat an eye at the fact that's *obviously* wrong by 268,770 AU shells, and 250+ billion stars.
Whatever argument you were spoon fed in the classroom is treated as 'gospel' even though it doesn't pass a simple observational test or hold up to any serious scientific scrutiny. Your unwavering faith in your absurd metaphysical dogma trumps everything, including direct observation.
Oy Vey.
I personally think you got away with this nonsense for so long because until the advent of the internet, astronomy has always been taught and discussed in a classroom setting. If the student didn't toe the party line they failed the class. As Cosmoquest so clearly demonstrates, God forbid that anyone should directly question the bad dogma, lest they get themselves burned at the heretical stake. Astronomers can't handle a real debate on any topic, so every controversial thread is simply closed after 30 days and it can never be discussed again, *or else*.
The fact of the matter is that you have *no way of knowing* if the universe is expanding or it is static based on what we observe in the night sky, and Olber's paradox has *always* been ridiculously wrong since Olber first dreamed it up in his head. Like good sheeple however, you don't even question the legitimacy of the claim, not even now when it's been ripped to shreds in this thread.
No wonder we're still stuck in the dark ages of astronomy.
First you folks claimed that the so called "Olber's paradox" was demonstrated by concentric shells of stars, but that claim ended up failing miserably, long before we even left the solar system. It came up 268,770 AU shells short of a valid scientific argument.
Then you claimed that surface brightness always stayed constant regardless of distance. But then when asked why we see so few stars in the night sky with our eyes, you backtracked instantly, and claimed that stars do indeed act as point sources and obey the inverse square laws of physics as I first claimed. That surface brightness argument ended up being 250+ billion stars short of a valid scientific argument too.
Then you tried to move the goal posts at warp speed and blame the whole paradox on galaxies, in spite of the fact that Olber never knew that there even were any other galaxies in the universe and his whole claim was based on stellar brightness, not galactic brightness.
Now none of you can explain why we see less than 10 galaxies at night including our own, far short of the number of galaxies in our own supercluster. Never mind the fact that galaxies are simply groups of "point sources" (by your own admission), and they too change their angular size with distance just as stars do at first, thus obeying the inverse square laws of light in the process, until they become so small that they too simply act like point sources and continue to obey the inverse square laws.
Your whole argument amounts to "Who are you going to believe, us or your lying eyes"?
Even when your claims obviously and *directly conflict* with what we observe in the night sky with our own eyes, you don't care. You don't ever think to reconsider the validity of your argument. You don't even bat an eye at the fact that's *obviously* wrong by 268,770 AU shells, and 250+ billion stars.
Whatever argument you were spoon fed in the classroom is treated as 'gospel' even though it doesn't pass a simple observational test or hold up to any serious scientific scrutiny. Your unwavering faith in your absurd metaphysical dogma trumps everything, including direct observation.
Oy Vey.
I personally think you got away with this nonsense for so long because until the advent of the internet, astronomy has always been taught and discussed in a classroom setting. If the student didn't toe the party line they failed the class. As Cosmoquest so clearly demonstrates, God forbid that anyone should directly question the bad dogma, lest they get themselves burned at the heretical stake. Astronomers can't handle a real debate on any topic, so every controversial thread is simply closed after 30 days and it can never be discussed again, *or else*.
The fact of the matter is that you have *no way of knowing* if the universe is expanding or it is static based on what we observe in the night sky, and Olber's paradox has *always* been ridiculously wrong since Olber first dreamed it up in his head. Like good sheeple however, you don't even question the legitimacy of the claim, not even now when it's been ripped to shreds in this thread.
No wonder we're still stuck in the dark ages of astronomy.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Let me remind you of what you posted at TBolts:Eh? Scott has never posted to this thread. Talk about a red herring.
No. You're the one moving the goal posts. First you claimed Olber's paradox is based on stars. Then sjastro claimed that suns acted as point sources and obey the inverse square law, and he tried moving the goalposts to galaxies. The silly part of that argument is that galaxies work exactly the same way as stars because a galaxy is nothing more than a collection of stars. The angular size of a galaxy shrinks with increasing distance, and eventually they act like point sources too.
You guys *still* can't explain why we see so few galaxies in the night sky. Where's that missing homework assignment/explanation? Let me guess.....your dog ate it?
Apparently it's "make believe" beyond some unspecified distance because sjastro freely admitted that surfaces of stars act like point sources and they obey the inverse square laws. So much for your stellar surface brightness staying constant with distance claim. Then the goalposts got put into warp of course.
That's simply not true. Even if distant photons have ample time to reach Earth, they obey the inverse square law as sjastro admits, so they'll eventually be too dim to see with the naked eye anyway. We'd receive so few photon from such sources, we'd never register then with our human eyes and brain. That's even *assuming* that absolutely no scattering at all takes place in space, and we know for a fact that isn't the case.
The fact you're still clinging to this nonsense and defending this nonsense only demonstrates your inability to think for yourselves. Even worse, you can't even keep your own stories straight. First you tell me that surface brightness is unrelated to distance, and then you tell me that the surfaces of stars act like point sources and become too dim to observe. Which is it?
The whole galaxy ruse was a complete red herring (like your mention of Scott) because Olber hadn't a clue that any other galaxies even existed. His entire argument was based on stars not galaxies. sjastro already admitted that stars act like point sources and they eventually become too dim to observe with the naked eye which is why we see less than 10,000 of the 250+ *billion* stars in our own galaxy, and less than 10 galaxies.
You're 268,770 AU shells short, and 250 *billion* stars short of a valid argument. How can you even continue to peddle such nonsense to unsuspecting students? Do you threaten to fail them if they refuse to believe such nonsense? You can't even logically defend this horse pucky on a public science forum!
Scott’s conclusion is based on the shells having the same surface brightness but are summed to an infinite value. (Oh that's in in spite of his actual overall point .. which is claiming that mainstream science must have it all wrong because it must be a finite sum .. rather than his in error infinite sum strawman).:Michael Mozina said:
Scott said:4. These two effects cancel each other. So, every spherical shell of radius r should add the same small additional amount of light. Thus the total lumens received will be:
5. Ergo: In an infinite universe, when we sum (integrate as in step 4 above) the light coming from all the infinite and uncountable number of possible radial distances, r, the sky should be infinitely bright.
By your claiming to have reached 'the same conclusion' as Scott, you have completely contradicted yourself here in this thread, where you claim the integrated brightness of the shell plays no role, and surface brightness of the shells cannot be constant.Scott said:
Its perfectly clear that your statement 'we ultimately seem to have arrived at the same conclusions' was an outright lie!
Also, you are not fooling anyone in this thread by the disinformation campaign against sjastro’s presented analysis and comments.
And I predict you'll now try playing the victim by claiming this post as a personal attack.
You bring this stuff on yourself because 'tis you who undertake false disinformation campaigns against individuals .. Koberlein, Klinger, Bridgman, RC are the classic examples, and now you do the same directed at sjastro. This is very nasty habit of yours, (and its gotten you banned many times before on multiple science websites). Stop doing it .. right now!
Last edited:
Upvote
0
We both concluded that Olber's paradox is false. I didn't even bother going through his whole paper because I'd already blown your arguments away in this thread by the time he'd even posted it.
Scott is just another red herring to take the heat off the fact that your claim fails a simple observational test of the night sky.
Oh goodie, more personal attacks because you can't handle the fact that you lost this debate in *epic* fashion. Yawn.
What "disinformation"?
Your "liar liar pants on fire" routine was absolutely a perfect example of another of your famous personal attacks. You spend way too much time talking about me only so you can avoid discussing the topic. This case is no different. You're losing this debate *badly* so you're blaming me for it.
Like what? Be specific. In which specific post and paragraph did I do such a thing?
It's not my fault that Scott and Thornhill both predicted neutrinos. I just pointed it out.
It's definitely not my fault that Clinger couldn't come up with a non zero rate of reconnection formula without plasma as promised either. Strike two. He even went to the extreme of putting up a website page that is *full* of disinformation about me personally.
I didn't make Bridgman post inaccurate statements about Birkeland supporting 3 different solar models, or oversimplify Birkeland's solar wind predictions, he did that all by himself. I just noted the problems. Strike three.
Oh please! He's made so many major scientific errors that I've lost count, including the same error (and missing math formula) that Clinger did and several more.
When and where did I do that in this thread to sjastro? Be specific. Apparently you perceive me pointing out obvious scientific *errors* as a "nasty habit" of mine. Guilty as charged.
I won't even get into that false 0=.1 strawman nonsense that you and sjastro keep spewing. Pots and kettles.
That's a false statement too. That wasn't what got me banned at CQ or anywhere else for that matter. I've never had to misrepresent other people's position in the first place. In the few instances that I have simply misunderstood someone's position, I've apologized.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Your attempt to redirect and hijack this thread again isn't going to cut it. You lost the Olber's paradox debate badly, by a total of 268,770 AU shells, 250+ billion stars, and countless galaxies. That's why you're trying to hijack this thread again. You aren't fooling anyone.
Upvote
0
And that statement doesn't reflect the net scope of knowledge available prior to stating its conclusion. In fact, its obvious its only based on your baggage of artificially constraining visibility of the bigger theoretical picture.
Your argument therefore relies solely on the special pleading case of (in a whimpery voice) of:
"An infinite universe is still possible .. And in order to support my ideology of deliberately constraining the total sum of knowledge on the topic, I'm going to continue to claim that the knowledge based arguments supporting an expanding universe are therefore also bogus".
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I don't care about your other supporting arguments about an expanding universe model as it relates to Olber's paradox. I'm only interested in the fact that Olber's paradox is a bogus argument against a static universe model!
Speaking of 'bigger pictures", you're also *at least* 100,000 galaxies short of a valid scientific argument related to galaxies:
Laniakea Supercluster - Wikipedia
Face it. The only reason we observe so few of those 100,000 nearby galaxies in our local supercluster is because the inverse square laws and the limitations of human eyesight apply to them too!
You're 268,770 AU shells, 250 billion stars in our galaxy, and a hundred thousand galaxies in our supercluster short of a valid scientific argument. Somehow that's all my fault?
Give it a rest. You're only demonstrating that your own beliefs are not based on science, they're based on bad and easily falsifiable dogma.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
