A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[Michael]

Here is another example of your lack of comprehension.

This is another example of an off topic personal attack. You'd make a fine grand inquisitor over at CQ. You constantly take every conversation off topic only so you can attack the individual.

Do you have the scientific ability to answer Jerry's *on topic* questions, yes or no?

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?

 

[Michael]

I give JeanTate some credit for asking some on topic questions over at CQ. Until now only Jerry's questions have really been on target, and David has already answered Jerry's questions from his perspective.

I'd love to see JeanTate answer Jerry's questions. I guess in CQ's "Spanish Inquisition" format, that kind of two way dialog probably won't happen. Pity. A typical free style dialog and a friendly exchange of scientific ideas is not even permitted on CQ. That's just sad.

I think that such a draconian type of rule system speaks to the mainstream's total lack of self confidence in the LCDM model. If their own cosmology beliefs held up to scientific scrutiny they wouldn't worry about alternative beliefs and alternative cosmology models being discussed openly.

LCDM proponents however must rely on mostly placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe our universe, and that puts them in a very awkward scientific position. Open debate isn't comfortable for them, and they're not used to open debate either. LCDM is mostly taught in a formal classroom setting where the 'student' is simply 'told' what to think. When they get into the 'real world' and have to think for themselves, it gets uncomfortable, particularly when they finally discover that there are other cosmology models to choose from.

 

[sjastro]

Here is another variant of Olber’s paradox which refutes the existence of an infinitely old static Universe.
The mean free path of a photon in my post#24 was found to be.

Instead of using the mean free path length we can utilize the mean collision time defined as.

In post #24 the shells were occupied by either stars or galaxies in this case let’s assume they are occupied by stars that have exactly the same physical characteristics as the Sun.

We now have:

Where:

N is the number of stars in the shell.

Combining the above two equations gives.

Where:

Since the Sun’s mass and radius are known as is the luminous matter density ρ the mean collision time is found to be.

This humungous value exceeds all known estimates of the age of the Universe by 13 orders of magnitude.

The mean collision time represents the time frame for the Olber’s paradox to take effect, however the lack of a bright night sky indicates there are no stars that have had enough radiation time to achieve this which contradicts the infinite age of a static Universe.

 

[SelfSim]

... I'd love to see JeanTate answer Jerry's questions.

I've got an even better idea .. why don't you answer JT's question about the missing reference light curves and the missing third scaling factor?

Or even better again, try answering sjastro's Olber's paradox challenge?

Or this: (the Tolman surface brightness test):

To date, the best investigation of the relationship between surface brightness and redshift was carried out using the 10m Keck telescope to measure nearly a thousand galaxies' redshifts and the 2.4m Hubble Space Telescope to measure those galaxies' surface brightness. ...
We show that this is precisely the range expected from the evolutionary models of Bruzual & Charlot. We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion.

and that's on top of RC's questions (listed earlier).

 

[sjastro]

I've got an even better idea .. why don't you answer JT's question about the missing reference light curves and the missing third scaling factor?

I'd take it a step further.
Since Michael has boldly proclaimed to have found no problems in the paper he obviously possesses a far greater level of understanding than we mere mortals.
He obviously has all the answers and should address Jerry's "excellent questions" as well.

 

[SelfSim]

I'd take it a step further.
Since Michael has boldly proclaimed to have found no problems in the paper he obviously possesses a far greater level of understanding than we mere mortals.
He obviously has all the answers and should address Jerry's "excellent questions" as well.

Not sure if I can muster the 'staying power' that particular challenge calls for(?)

 

[Michael]

I'd take it a step further.
Since Michael has boldly proclaimed to have found no problems in the paper he obviously possesses a far greater level of understanding than we mere mortals.
He obviously has all the answers and should address Jerry's "excellent questions" as well.

I already answered Jerry's questions earlier in the thread.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

It's hardly "bold" or surprising to acknowledge the fact that I didn't see any obvious problems in the first read through of a paper. I didn't notice any overt procedural problems in the first gravitational wave paper from the first read through either, but I ultimately found quite a few problems with their procedures after I'd read through it a few times.

I'll read through David's paper again as I get time.

I think what's most telling is that only JeanTate from CQ seems to have picked up on some relevant and important questions after her first read through, and she didn't point out any overt mathematical errors in David's paper.

 

[Michael]

I've got an even better idea .. why don't you answer JT's question about the missing reference light curves and the missing third scaling factor?

Sorry, but it's not my paper, and I don't profess to read minds.

Or even better again, try answering sjastro's Olber's paradox challenge?

It's not a "challenge", it's on old wives tale based on *pitiful* scattering estimates.

Or this: (the Tolman surface brightness test):

Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com

Expansion models *fail* that test at the larger redshifts, whereas a static universe works *perfectly*!

and that's on top of RC's questions (listed earlier).

I already answered them.

Is this really the best you folks can do? I give JeanTate some credit for asking *relevant* questions, but thus far she's the only one to even do that much, and nobody has pointed out any mathematical errors.

 

[Michael]

Here is another variant of Olber’s paradox which refutes the existence of an infinitely old static Universe.
The mean free path of a photon in my post#24 was found to be......

Give me a break! You folks have been *consistently* underestimating the amount of dust, plasma and other material in space, and underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in space since Obler's paradox was first proposed.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

You folks had not even found most of the mass of our own galaxy until the last five years and it's sitting in two different hot plasma and hydrogen gas halos *surrounding every galaxy*. I have no confidence whatsoever in your collision estimates of photons in space. Hubble shows all sorts of gas clouds out there in space.

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas
Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Everywhere!

 

[sjastro]

I already answered Jerry's questions earlier in the thread.

You are either one hopefully confused individual that doesn't know what questions I am referring to or to use your own terminology a pathological liar.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
Here are the questions.

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?

You either answer the questions or admit the questions (and the paper) are beyond your scope of comprehension.

It's hardly "bold" or surprising to acknowledge the fact that I didn't see any obvious problems in the first read through of a paper. I didn't notice any overt procedural problems in the first gravitational wave paper from the first read through either, but I ultimately found quite a few problems with their procedures after I'd read through it a few times.

I'll read through David's paper again as I get time.

There are two major prerequisites in critiquing.
(1) Understanding the subject matter.
(2) Being objective.

You have consistently shown to fail on both accounts.

 

[SelfSim]

Give me a break! You folks have been *consistently* underestimating the amount of dust, plasma and other material in space, and underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in space since Obler's paradox was first proposed.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

You cite an article that's 10 years old as evidence that current models haven't been updated in the light of that evidence? Pfftt!:

"The equation balanced perfectly", said Dr Cristina Popescu, "and for the first time we have a total understanding of the energy output of the Universe over a monumental wavelength range. With the new calibrated model in hand we can now calculate precisely the fraction of starlight blocked by the dust."

Thank goodness there's an equation to balance in the first place! Where's yours?

You think the gross physical issues highlighted by Olber's paradox just vaporise because of a 10 year old study?

 

[SelfSim]

It's hardly "bold" or surprising to acknowledge the fact that I didn't see any obvious problems in the first read through of a paper. I didn't notice any overt procedural problems in the first gravitational wave paper from the first read through either, but I ultimately found quite a few problems with their procedures after I'd read through it a few times.

There are two major prerequisites in critiquing.
(1) Understanding the subject matter.
(2) Being objective.
You have consistently shown to fail on both accounts.

And obviously Michael's analysis of the above mentioned LIGO study specifically failed on both counts .. as LIGO demonstrated by detecting the NS merger using the same supposedly 'problem procedures', whilst Michael's 'prediction' simultaneously fell flat on its face!

 

[Michael]

You are either one hopefully confused individual that doesn't know what questions I am referring to or to use your own terminology a pathological liar.

Must you engage in personal attacks in every single post? I have answered those questions by agreeing with David's assessment. Sorry if that bugs you, but that's just too bad.

I'll give you the benefit of doubt.
Here are the questions.



You either answer the questions or admit the questions (and the paper) are beyond your scope of comprehension.

I did answer Jerry's questions by agreeing with David's conclusions. The denial thing you're doing is just absurd, along with your ridiculous need to attack *people*.

There are two major prerequisites in critiquing.
(1) Understanding the subject matter.
(2) Being objective.

You have consistently shown to fail on both accounts.

Pffft. Irony overload. I've spent *far* more time studying and understanding the LCDM model than both of you put together have spent time understanding the most common alternative cosmology model and solar models. I don't think you have a right to preach at anyone when it comes to knowing the subject matter from *multiple* perspectives, or in terms of being objective.

 

[Michael]

You cite an article that's 10 years old as evidence that current models haven't been updated in the light of that evidence? Pfftt!

When were they updated? When did anyone do another big important study on that Bullet Cluster collision after all those revelations of stellar and plasma underestimation problems in your galaxy mass estimation techniques? I think they found that last gas halo less than a year ago, so let's see one in the last year that includes that figure, the hot plasma figure, and the stellar underestimation problem "fixes".

:Thank goodness there's an equation to balance in the first place! Where's yours?

The fact that you think that space dust and plasma is even homogeneous enough to be described by "an" equation is amusing IMO.

You think the gross physical issues highlighted by Olber's paradox just vaporise because of a 10 year old study?

No, I think they vaporized the moment one stops "assuming" that scattering has a minor effect on the process, and you realize it took 10 days to generate a single deep field Hubble image.

 

[Michael]

And obviously Michael's analysis of the above mentioned LIGO study specifically failed on both counts .. as LIGO demonstrated by detecting the NS merger using the same supposedly 'problem procedures', whilst Michael's 'prediction' simultaneously fell flat on its face!

Not really. I don't have a problem with the NS/NS paper, but I still have zero confidence in any of the other BH/BH claims by LIGO. There's still that correlated noise problem observed by the Danish team that LIGO hasn't responded to, and there's still no evidence that all black holes are "naked uncharged" black holes that emit whole solar masses of energy in a 1/4 of a second, and yet not enough light to be visible on Earth.

Their procedural problems in their numerous BH/BH papers didn't go away only because they actually did it right *one time*.

 

[sjastro]

Give me a break! You folks have been *consistently* underestimating the amount of dust, plasma and other material in space, and underestimating the amount of scattering taking place in space since Obler's paradox was first proposed.

2008 | Universe shines twice as bright | University of St Andrews

You folks had not even found most of the mass of our own galaxy until the last five years and it's sitting in two different hot plasma and hydrogen gas halos *surrounding every galaxy*. I have no confidence whatsoever in your collision estimates of photons in space. Hubble shows all sorts of gas clouds out there in space.

NASA's Chandra Shows Milky Way is Surrounded by Halo of Hot Gas
Hydrogen, Hydrogen, Everywhere!

This is so ridiculously wrong because Olber’s paradox looks at the worse case scenario of scattering, namely a scattered particle doesn’t reach the observer.

In reality scattered photons do reach the observer because they are measurable and observable.
Even if scattering somehow refutes the paradox it amazes me you are incapable of seeing such an obvious flaw in this argument.

I suggest you go outside at look at the night sky.
Every star you see or galaxies through a telescope in the opposite direction to the centre of our Milky Way galaxy are “magical” photons that are not scattered.

Here is the maths to also show up your nonsense.
Let’s look at Alpha Centauri which is 4.3 light years away.
According to data based on Ha emissions, the Ha photons have a mean path length of around 1000 parsecs or 3260 light years in the interstellar medium, so let’s use this data for photons in the visible range of the spectrum.

From a previous post:

Using l=3260 light years and r=4.3 light years the thickness of the shell gives the result:
P(r)= 0.0003 which is the probability of photons travelling a distance of 4.3 light years not being scattered.

Alpha Centauri is a binary star system but one of the components, Alpha Centauri A is similar to the Sun so we can use the photon statistics for the Sun as an estimate for this star.
The Sun emits around 10⁴⁵ photons/sec and if Alpha Centauri emits the same rate of photons, then 0.0003 X 10⁴⁵photons /sec = 3.0 X 10⁴¹ photons/sec are not scattered after travelling 4.3 light years.

Of these photons, the flux rate hitting a 1 cm² target on Earth after travelling a distance of 4.3 light years (= 4.068 X 10¹⁸ cm) is:

(3.0 X 10⁴¹)/4Π(4,068 X 10¹⁸)² ≈ 1500 photons/sec/cm².

Although Alpha Centauiri is 1.5 times more luminous than the Sun most of the photons reaching the Earth are in the visible range of the spectrum.
It makes a complete mockery of your statement that photons reaching us that are not scattered occurs is a "once in a blue moon event".

If your scenario was correct, close objects such as stars are going to be heavily obscured and galaxies invisible at optical wavelengths in telescopes as photons will be inelastically scattered to longer wavelengths beyond the visual range.
Olber’s paradox would certainly be resolved but at the cost of the night sky being devoid of stars visible to the naked eye.

It is yet another example of a subject matter beyond your level of comprehension.
You have also inadvertently provided a counterargument to redshift being caused by scattering.

 

[sjastro]

I did answer Jerry's questions by agreeing with David's conclusions. The denial thing you're doing is just absurd, along with your ridiculous need to attack *people*.

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?

So let me see you answered Jerry's questions by agreeing to David's conclusions.
Apart from the fact this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, it appears you are prepared to debase yourself at any cost because you don't have the backbone of admitting you have zero comprehension of David's paper.

 

[Michael]

So let me see you answered Jerry's questions by agreeing to David's conclusions.
Apart from the fact this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever,

It makes perfect sense to David and it makes sense to me as well. The fact you don't understand it probably has more to do with your lack of researching alternative views than it has to do with anything else.

it appears you are prepared to debase yourself at any cost because you don't have the backbone of admitting you have zero comprehension of David's paper.

Yawn. Does it give you psychological comfort somehow to personally attack individuals in every single post? You're the worst mind reader in the universe.

 

[Michael]

This is so ridiculously wrong because Olber’s paradox looks at the worse case scenario of scattering, namely a scattered particle doesn’t reach the observer.

If Obler's paradox "looks at" a distant galaxy where no light, or extremely little light is reaching the Earth on a specific wavelength from a distant galaxy, it sees exactly nothing but a big black area. Our human eyes don't see individual photons in the first place, they seem *streams* and *patterns* of streams of photons.

A Hubble deep field image might take 10 days to complete and it's an "open shutter" experience over the whole duration of the image. Photons are added together to create those images of distant galaxies ot the higher redshifts. When we look at the same region of space in short duration Hubble images, those distant galaxies look "dark", just as they would appear to our naked eye on Earth, and even our eyes through a telescope on Earth.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about because your arguments don't even make any logical sense.

Dust and scattering have a *much* larger role in space than you imagine, and there are no magic bullets. Even photons reaching Earth can be and are forward scattered.

In reality scattered photons do reach the observer because they are measurable and observable.

Sure, but over what timeline and *relative* to what? Our eyes don't see individual photons in the first place. Long distance images take *longer timelines* and they have to add photons over very long intervals to see what's there.

Even if scattering somehow refutes the paradox it amazes me you are incapable of seeing such an obvious flaw in this argument.

What I see before me is someone who's spent very little time "thinking outside of the box" in terms of astronomy and in terms of actual empirical cause/effect relationships.

I suggest you go outside at look at the night sky.
Every star you see or galaxies through a telescope in the opposite direction to the centre of our Milky Way galaxy are “magical” photons that are not scattered.

There's your problem in a nutshell. Not every photon that reaches Earth must do so without being scattered or diverted in various ways.

Here is the maths to also show up your nonsense.

Yawn. Your math is all based upon "dogma". You have a "dogma" related to the density of spacetime. You had a "dogma" about the density of the areas around our own galaxy that fell apart over the last five years too.

Your math is all based on a desire to 'debunk' all possible concepts other than your own preconceived ideas. You're not even trying to "make it work", you're trying to make it "not work". That's a sure sign of desperation if you ask me.

Let’s look at Alpha Centauri which is 4.3 light years away.
According to data based on Ha emissions, the Ha photons have a mean path length of around 1000 parsecs or 3260 light years in the interstellar medium, so let’s use this data for photons in the visible range of the spectrum.

You're talking about a *very close* object in relative terms! Try one at say a Z>10 image that doesn't show up in 5 second Hubble exposure.

The Sun emits around 10⁴⁵ photons/sec and if Alpha Centauri emits the same rate of photons, then 0.0003 X 10⁴⁵photons /sec = 3.0 X 10⁴¹ photons/sec are not scattered after travelling 4.3 light years.

Does your figure include or exclude those two different halos they found in the last five years?

If your scenario was correct, close objects such as stars are going to be heavily obscured and galaxies invisible at optical wavelengths in telescopes as photons will be inelastically scattered to longer wavelengths beyond the visual range.

That's another example of a strawman. I'm not making any claims, you're making them *for me* based on your own made up mind reading process apparently. PS, you're not good at it either.

There's a *huge* difference between a stellar object that is in our own galaxy and a galaxy at a Z>10 redshift! Give it a rest already.

Olber’s paradox would certainly be resolved but at the cost of the night sky being devoid of stars visible to the naked eye.

If stars didn't emit every wavelength under the sun, your argument might make sense. As it stands, not so much.

It is yet another example of a subject matter beyond your level of comprehension.

Oh the irony. I really don't think you even understand the basics of static universe or tired light models (plural).

You have also inadvertently provided a counterargument to redshift being caused by scattering.

No, you created another strawman, *as usual*. Yawn.

The irony is that some galaxies cannot be observed by Hubble only because their light has been redshifted out of the spectrum that Hubble can observe, but Webb will be able to see them.

 

[SelfSim]

If Obler's paradox "looks at" a distant galaxy where no light, or extremely little light is reaching the Earth on a specific wavelength from a distant galaxy, it sees exactly nothing but a big black area. Our human eyes don't see individual photons in the first place, they seem *streams* and *patterns* of streams of photons.

A Hubble deep field image might take 10 days to complete and it's an "open shutter" experience over the whole duration of the image. Photons are added together to create those images of distant galaxies ot the higher redshifts. When we look at the same region of space in short duration Hubble images, those distant galaxies look "dark", just as they would appear to our naked eye on Earth, and even our eyes through a telescope on Earth.
...
Dust and scattering have a *much* larger role in space than you imagine, and there are no magic bullets. Even photons reaching Earth can be and are forward scattered.

Huh???
What on earth does this have to do with the Olber's paradox discussion????

Other readers: Is this just me, or is there some kind of general communications singularity going on here???

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about because your arguments don't even make any logical sense.

And I don't think you know what you're talking about from what you just said above!?!