A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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???

You got me there; to me, the Hubble Deep Field simply reinforces Olber's paradox. Scattering doesn't resolve the paradox, and the HDF shows there's no significant scattering anyhow, so it seems clear (pun!) that the universe can't be static and eternal - at least, if the rest of it is anything like what we observe locally (which is all we have to base our models on).

 

[Michael]

You got me there; to me, the Hubble Deep Field simply reinforces Olber's paradox. Scattering doesn't resolve the paradox,

Oh yes it does. Scattering absolutely does resolve the paradox.

http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

When Eddington calculated the average temperature of spacetime based on the scattering of light on the dust of spacetime, he came within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature of spacetime. The clouds of the universe are indeed aglow in a microwave temperature range just as Eddington predicted based on the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime.

However, when we look at your mythical Obler's paradox "problem", here's the kind of utter and total *nonsense* that LCDM proponents "hold faith" in, or "believe" in:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

While dark clouds could obstruct the light, these clouds would heat up, until they were as hot as the stars, and then radiate the same amount of light.

What?!?!? I know how Eddington came up with an average temperature of those clouds, but I have *no* idea where that calculation comes from. Let's see the math on that claim.

Clouds, and the dust they are composed of wouldn't have to fully absorb the light in the first place, they would simply have to deflect most of the light off course and pick up some relatively *minor* amount of kinetic energy. There aren't just a "few" clouds in space, there are *billions* (if not an infinite number) of dust particle to deflect light in spacetime.

I want to see the math from you guys to support the claim that a dust cloud is magically going to heat up to 6000K out in deep space somewhere. I know how Eddington came up with his temperature figure, but that claim sounds utterly preposterous.

Math please.

and the HDF shows there's no significant scattering anyhow,

That's not true. It takes Hubble *days* to collect enough photons from those distant galaxies to be able to "see" them. Most of the photons from those galaxies never reaches Earth because they are simply knocked off course on the way way to the Earth.

This is the whole core of your problem. In order for this to work, space would have be a perfect vacuum without any scattering at all.

so it seems clear (pun!) that the universe can't be static and eternal - at least,

That's simply not true, and it wouldn't be true even if scattering wasn't involved because the universe doesn't have to be "infinite" in scope. There would still be some variation in "lighter" areas and "darker" areas simply due to the distances involved.

if the rest of it is anything like what we observe locally (which is all we have to base our models on).

LCDM model are based on nonsense like that nonsense about clouds reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin, space expansion as a "cause" of photon redshift, "dark energy" that determines our fate, and exotic forms of matter that simply toss out the mainstream particle physics model.

I'm beginning to believe that mainstream astronomers are incapable of thinking for themselves. Why should I have to be the one to point out the utter absurdity of that Obler's paradox cloud temperature claim on the WIKI page? How can you guys peddle such utter nonsense or believe that nonsense?

 

[Michael]

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???

Evidently so because apparently you don't spend much time looking at your own claims. Where will I find your calculations to support that whopper of a Obler's paradox claim that clouds in deep space will reach the same temperatures as the surface of stars?

Do you guys even think about your own claims or do you just blindly believe everything that you're told?

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

Your math, or lack thereof to support your Obler's paradox claims about the temperature of the clouds of spacetime will tell the whole story. If you can support that claim mathematically, we'll see some math. If you can't support that absurd claim about deep space dust reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin, we'll see nothing but excuses and deflections. This is definitely going to be another Clinger/MRx scenario where the requested math formula to support the bogus claim is non existent.

 

[SelfSim]

You got me there; to me, the Hubble Deep Field simply reinforces Olber's paradox. Scattering doesn't resolve the paradox, and the HDF shows there's no significant scattering anyhow, so it seems clear (pun!) that the universe can't be static and eternal - at least, if the rest of it is anything like what we observe locally (which is all we have to base our models on).

Yes .. Michael and Justatruthseeker tried to pull the swifty that HUDF images demonstrated the blurriness expected from scattering here. Michael abandoned that thread when it became obvious that the basis of that claim was his own pareidolia and lack of understanding about astro imaging.

 

[Michael]

Yes .. Michael and Justatruthseeker tried to pull the swifty that HUDF images demonstrated the blurriness expected from scattering here. Michael abandoned that thread when it became obvious that the basis of that claim was his own pareidolia and lack of understanding about astro imaging.

Must you hijack every thread and make it about 'Michael"?

I really resent when you try to play mind reader and make false accusations about me and my beliefs and actions. It's irrational behavior of course, but you do it anyway and you're a *horrible* mind reader. Keep your day job.

Even the opening paragraph of your Obler's paradox argument is oversimplified and absurd:

In astrophysics and physical cosmology, Olbers' paradox, named after the German astronomer Heinrich Wilhelm Olbers (1758–1840), also known as the "dark night sky paradox", is the argument that the darkness of the night sky conflicts with the assumption of an infinite and eternal static universe. The darkness of the night sky is one of the pieces of evidence for a dynamic universe, such as the Big Bang model. In the hypothetical case that the universe is static, homogeneous at a large scale, and populated by an infinite number of stars, then any line of sight from Earth must end at the (very bright) surface of a star and hence the night sky should be completely illuminated and very bright.

What a lame and misleading claim and argument to begin with. Even if it were true that little or no scattering took place in spacetime, there would be a *noticeable* variation in brightness of various regions due to the distance of various objects. The term "very bright" is misleading due to the fact that brightness tapers off based on an inverse square law. Vast distance alone blows the "whole sky would be very bright" claim out of the water. Some areas (like the sun) would still be *much* brighter than any other area of the sky. Stars in our own galaxy would be brighter than very distant galaxies. It could not possibly be the same brightness everywhere in the night sky based on the inverse square law alone.

This contradicts the observed darkness and non-uniformity of the night.[1]

No it doesn't because of the inverse square law. We would *expect* non-uniformity based on nothing but the inverse square law related to light. Any variation of dust clouds would also produce variation. Furthermore, our eyes are not 100 percent efficient at observing every photon.

This is the *cheesiest* and most absurd argument that you two have ever tried to defend. I can't believe that you two actually believe this garbage. It's the most oversimplified and absurd argument I've seen you two try to make.

Really? Do you mean to tell me that this is your very "best" criticism of David's entire paper? Sheesh.

 

[SelfSim]

... Even the opening paragraph of your Obler's paradox argument is oversimplified and absurd:

Which is why most people would read on ..

What a lame and misleading claim and argument to begin with. Even if it were true that little or no scattering took place in spacetime, there would be a *noticeable* variation in brightness of various regions due to the distance of various objects. The term "very bright" is misleading due to the fact that brightness tapers off based on an inverse square law. Vast distance alone blows the "whole sky would be very bright" claim out of the water. Some areas (like the sun) would still be *much* brighter than any other area of the sky. Stars in our own galaxy would be brighter than very distant galaxies. It could not possibly be the same brightness everywhere in the night sky based on the inverse square law alone.
...
No it doesn't because of the inverse square law. We would *expect* non-uniformity based on nothing but the inverse square law related to light. Any variation of dust clouds would also produce variation. Furthermore, our eyes are not 100 percent efficient at observing every photon.

This is the *cheesiest* and most absurd argument that you two have ever tried to defend. I can't believe that you two actually believe this garbage. It's the most oversimplified and absurd argument I've seen you two try to make.

Really? Do you mean to tell me that this is your very "best" criticism of David's entire paper? Sheesh.

If you had actually read onwards, you would see 'The Paradox' section:

The paradox is that a static, infinitely old universe with an infinite number of stars distributed in an infinitely large space would be bright rather than dark.


A view of a square section of four concentric shells
To show this, we divide the universe into a series of concentric shells, 1 light year thick. A certain number of stars will be in the shell 1,000,000,000 to 1,000,000,001 light years away. If the universe is homogeneous at a large scale, then there would be four times as many stars in a second shell, which is between 2,000,000,000 and 2,000,000,001 light years away. However, the second shell is twice as far away, so each star in it would appear one quarter as bright as the stars in the first shell. Thus the total light received from the second shell is the same as the total light received from the first shell.

Thus each shell of a given thickness will produce the same net amount of light regardless of how far away it is. That is, the light of each shell adds to the total amount. Thus the more shells, the more light; and with infinitely many shells, there would be a bright night sky.

While dark clouds could obstruct the light, these clouds would heat up, until they were as hot as the stars, and then radiate the same amount of light.

 

[Michael]

Which is why most people would read on ..
If you had actually read onwards, you would see 'The Paradox' section:

Oh I read on until I got to the clouds supposedly achieving 6000 degrees Kelvin and then I just stopped. It was bad enough that they didn't talk about distance as a factor of brightness, but when they got to that preposterous claim, I just stopped reading.

If and when you two produce a math formula to support that preposterous cloud temperature claim, I'll take you seriously, but not a moment sooner.

 

[sjastro]

Evidently so because apparently you don't spend much time looking at your own claims. Where will I find your calculations to support that whopper of a Obler's paradox claim that clouds in deep space will reach the same temperatures as the surface of stars?

Do you guys even think about your own claims or do you just blindly believe everything that you're told?



Your math, or lack thereof to support your Obler's paradox claims about the temperature of the clouds of spacetime will tell the whole story. If you can support that claim mathematically, we'll see some math. If you can't support that absurd claim about deep space dust reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin, we'll see nothing but excuses and deflections. This is definitely going to be another Clinger/MRx scenario where the requested math formula to support the bogus claim is non existent.

Here we go again. (yawn)
Recall this formula.

And how the mean collision time was defined as:

We can now throw another formula into the mix the distance travelled by a photon emitted since the time of creation of the Universe.

Combining the three equations we get:

P(r) being the probability can be expressed as a fraction, it can be the average radiation density of the dust cloud divided by the average radiation density of a star.
In this case the cloud is absorbing photons emitted by the star.

The equation can therefore be rewritten as:

In an infinitely old static Universe t₀ is infinitely large hence:

Hence the radiation densities of the star and dust cloud are equal and their temperatures are the same in an infinite static Universe.
QED.
There is nothing incredulous about this.

 

[sjastro]

Now that Michael's “maths formula” has been dealt with let’s analyse this post.

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

Absolutely nothing and let’s not lose sight of the fact Michael’s primary motivation is to convey the impression of comprehension on a subject he has little understanding of.
The paradox tells you the background will be very bright at any location in a static infinitely old Universe as shown in my last post where the average background radiation density equals the average star radiation density.
His Hubble analogy is therefore nonsense as it would be like trying to take an image of an object in broad daylight, accentuated if background photons are being scattered.
Hubble images would end up as horribly overexposed white backgrounds.
The paradox isn’t confined to visible wavelengths, if visible wavelengths are scattered to say infrared, the night sky or background will be bright instead in the infrared.
Hubble’s infrared sensitive CCDs would also produce images of white backgrounds.
Scattering doesn’t refute the paradox it simply describes the problem for a different range of wavelengths.

He then goes on and mentions this point in his post.

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

Recall Michael claimed previously photons that are not scattered are once in a blue moon event which caused the sky to be dark.
He failed to comprehend the baby is thrown out with the bathwater and nothing should be visible in the sky.
Now he has changed the goalposts by suggesting that photons that are not scattered reach the observer in more liberal amounts but is blissfully unaware the paradox in visible wavelengths comes back to bite him.
He can’t take a trick.
It’s this lack of critical thinking that lead to the all too common contradictions found in his posts.

Then we have this typical ignorant reaction against mathematics.

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.

Note the maths I presented was clearly beyond Michael’s comprehension.
Its purpose is not only to convey an argument in its most logical format, but hopefully educational as well as the maths provides a clearer insight into the workings of Olber’s paradox.

Not be outdone Michael calls it into an exercise in desperation.

Then there is this gem.

Does your figure (10⁴⁵ photons/sec) include or exclude those two different halos they found in the last 5 years?

If I am correct the halos he is referring to are the ones around our galaxy in which case I plead guilty.
Michael can set the record straight about what halos he is referring to and how they affect the stellar photon emission rate.

If he runs away from this one, we have found the physics version to his 1=0.5 fiasco for maths.

 

[SelfSim]

Michael can set the record straight about what halos he is referring to and how they affect the stellar photon emission rate.

Yep .. ok ... Michael: Let's see what ya got!?!

('Yawn'!)

What blows me away is that, thus far in this thread, Michael has been convincingly demonstrated as:

i) not having a clue about the implications of the paradox, even though its Wiki description and the implications in it, are quite clear;

ii) being totally incorrect in supporting Crawford's contention that: 'For curvature-cosmology, Olber’s paradox is not a problem. Curvature redshift is sufficient to move distant starlight into the visible band. Visible light from distant galaxies is shifted into the infrared where it is no longer seen' .. namely because absorbed light warms up 'invisible interstellar matter' (eg: interstellar dust), causing to it radiate in the infrared, which would result in the night sky being ablaze with infrared radiation. Whether it is 'absorbed' or 'shifted', it is still contradicted by observation.

iii) not being able to cite sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2x10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre;
iv) not being able to explain the absence of Crawford's missing reference light curves and the missing third scaling factor;
v) not being able to provide supporting evidence of significant scattering from any cosmologically distant light sources;
vi) being incorrect about LIGO's procedures being flawed to the extent that BH mergers would not be detectable (as the same procedures led to the NS merger discovery);
vii) being incorrect about the non-existence of a 'requested math formula to support the' not 'bogus claim about deep space dust reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin'.

Have I forgotten anything?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh yes it does. Scattering absolutely does resolve the paradox.

http://www.redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/Pre2001/V02NO3PDF/V02N3ASS.PDF

When Eddington calculated the average temperature of spacetime based on the scattering of light on the dust of spacetime, he came within 1/2 of one degree of the correct temperature of spacetime. The clouds of the universe are indeed aglow in a microwave temperature range just as Eddington predicted based on the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime.

However, when we look at your mythical Obler's paradox "problem", here's the kind of utter and total *nonsense* that LCDM proponents "hold faith" in, or "believe" in:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia



What?!?!? I know how Eddington came up with an average temperature of those clouds, but I have *no* idea where that calculation comes from. Let's see the math on that claim.

Clouds, and the dust they are composed of wouldn't have to fully absorb the light in the first place, they would simply have to deflect most of the light off course and pick up some relatively *minor* amount of kinetic energy. There aren't just a "few" clouds in space, there are *billions* (if not an infinite number) of dust particle to deflect light in spacetime.

I want to see the math from you guys to support the claim that a dust cloud is magically going to heat up to 6000K out in deep space somewhere. I know how Eddington came up with his temperature figure, but that claim sounds utterly preposterous.

Math please.



That's not true. It takes Hubble *days* to collect enough photons from those distant galaxies to be able to "see" them. Most of the photons from those galaxies never reaches Earth because they are simply knocked off course on the way way to the Earth.

This is the whole core of your problem. In order for this to work, space would have be a perfect vacuum without any scattering at all.



That's simply not true, and it wouldn't be true even if scattering wasn't involved because the universe doesn't have to be "infinite" in scope. There would still be some variation in "lighter" areas and "darker" areas simply due to the distances involved.



LCDM model are based on nonsense like that nonsense about clouds reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin, space expansion as a "cause" of photon redshift, "dark energy" that determines our fate, and exotic forms of matter that simply toss out the mainstream particle physics model.

I'm beginning to believe that mainstream astronomers are incapable of thinking for themselves. Why should I have to be the one to point out the utter absurdity of that Obler's paradox cloud temperature claim on the WIKI page? How can you guys peddle such utter nonsense or believe that nonsense?

OK, well that pretty much speaks for itself.

You could have simply summed it up as, "I don't understand Obler's paradox or the physics behind it."

 

[sjastro]

Yep .. ok ... Michael: Let's see what ya got!?!

('Yawn'!)

What blows me away is that, thus far in this thread, Michael has been convincingly demonstrated as:

i) not having a clue about the implications of the paradox, even though its Wiki description and the implications in it, are quite clear;

ii) being totally incorrect in supporting Crawford's contention that: 'For curvature-cosmology, Olber’s paradox is not a problem. Curvature redshift is sufficient to move distant starlight into the visible band. Visible light from distant galaxies is shifted into the infrared where it is no longer seen' .. namely because absorbed light warms up 'invisible interstellar matter' (eg: interstellar dust), causing to it radiate in the infrared, which would result in the night sky being ablaze with infrared radiation. Whether it is 'absorbed' or 'shifted', it is still contradicted by observation.

iii) not being able to cite sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2x10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre;
iv) not being able to explain the absence of Crawford's missing reference light curves and the missing third scaling factor;
v) not being able to provide supporting evidence of significant scattering from any cosmologically distant light sources;
vi) being incorrect about LIGO's procedures being flawed to the extent that BH mergers would not be detectable (as the same procedures led to the NS merger discovery);
vii) being incorrect about the non-existence of a 'requested math formula to support the' not 'bogus claim about deep space dust reaching thousands of degrees Kelvin'.

Have I forgotten anything?

Listing all the errors leads to cataloguing problems.
The best method is to count the number of correct statements.
Currently this stands at a nice round number....... zero.

 

[sjastro]

Another piece of nonsense that Michael is throwing up is the inverse square law.
This can be shown to be wrong by illustrating one of the concepts of Olber’s paradox that is hard to grasp intuitively, why the integrated brightness of the shells should equal the surface brightness of a star such as the Sun.
The use of mathematics clears up this issue.

As shown previously Olber’s paradox is built around concentric shells with an observer at the centre.
In any given shell there are a number of stars N of average luminosity L and their average number density in a volume V is n=N/V.
If the shell has a thickness dR and surface area 4ΠR², the number of stars in the shell is 4ΠR²ndR.

Each star in the shell takes up a solid angle Ω= a/R² steradians where a is the area of the star.
For total sky coverage to occur Ω=4Π steradians.
An example for a single star is illustrated:

We want to find a value R=R₀ such that all the stars in this shell have their areas overlapped and cover the entire sky to satisfy Olber’s paradox.

This is done by solving the equation:

Which gives R₀=1/an.

The total integrated brightness is therefore:

L/a is simply the surface brightness of a star which can be the Sun.
QED.

 

[sjastro]

OK, well that pretty much speaks for itself.

You could have simply summed it up as, "I don't understand Obler's paradox or the physics behind it."

The funny thing he doesn't even understand Eddington's work.
Eddington made it perfectly clear the 3.2K temperature is in our galaxy's frame of reference and therefore it cannot explain the dipole temperature of the CMB.

To make things more embarrassing for Michael, Eddington accepted an expanding Universe.

I think, however, that we shall have to accept the expansion. My reason is that it now seems possible to calculate the cosmical constant λ by pure physical theory. The value is the same as that given by the recession of the nebulae, so that there is full confirmation.

Eddington on the Expanding Universe

PS Very quaint language from the 1930s with the use of the term "cosmical".

 

[SelfSim]

Another piece of nonsense that Michael is throwing up is the inverse square law.
This can be shown to be wrong by illustrating one of the concepts of Olber’s paradox that is hard to grasp intuitively, why the integrated brightness of the shells should equal the surface brightness of a star such as the Sun.
The use of mathematics clears up this issue.
...
L/a is simply the surface brightness of a star which can be the Sun.
QED.

Thanks for that. The Wiki model I posted before has certainly been 'dumbed down' a lot and, at least for me, the counter-intuitiveness of the underlying concept led to a weaker explanation, but your derivation makes it a lot clearer and way more robust!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The funny thing he doesn't even understand Eddington's work.
Eddington made it perfectly clear the 3.2K temperature is in our galaxy's frame of reference and therefore it cannot explain the dipole temperature of the CMB.

To make things more embarrassing for Michael, Eddington accepted an expanding Universe.

Eddington on the Expanding Universe

PS Very quaint language from the 1930s with the use of the term "cosmical".

Maybe Eddington turned to the 'dark' side of the force...

 

[sjastro]

Maybe Eddington turned to the 'dark' side of the force...

Funny(!) you should state this given that poor Albert was forced to introduce a "cosmical" constant to prevent the static Universe from crashing and burning where as Eddington's use of the term has a far more modern connotation.

 

[SelfSim]

Whilst I may have to wait for a response on the Olber's issue from 'Davd' (Crawford), in his ever-growing queue for responses on the CQ thread, I notice the poster 'UT4Life', has raised some serious issues about both the logic and misunderstandings in Crawford's analysis here. (Jean Tate's highly valid questions are still awaiting answers also).

Its a pity that thread might time out before Crawford can answer the questions (based on his quite slow response frequency to date). The thread will then be locked and the matter cannot be raised again at CQ, which I think is a pity as Crawford's work appears to be deeply flawed and yet, it is also widely distributed.

 

[SelfSim]

Somewhat more trivially also, I notice Michael has run away from the issues raised in this thread and gone back to his treatment ward (his Friday Jan 12 post) and accused myself and sjastro:

.. Selfsim and sjastro aren't able to offer up any specific and direct criticism of David's paper at CF either, just handwaves based on their own (Obler's Paradox) dogma ..

Dogma?? Really??

 

[sjastro]

Somewhat more trivially also, I notice Michael has run away from the issues raised in this thread and gone back to his treatment ward (his Friday Jan 12 post) and accused myself and sjastroogma?? Really??

I didn't realise it was compulsory in this thread to critique David Crawford's paper.
Unlike Michael I am not prepared to lie through my teeth and claim I understand his paper given my background is in Applied Mathematics with the emphasis on the theoretical aspects of Cosmology, rather than specifics such as the use of templates to create type1A supernovae light curves in their rest frames.
Since the paper concludes the existence of a static Universe it was more appropriate of me to discuss this aspect.
I hope David Crawford responds to your question regarding Olber's paradox because it will only add further to Michael's embarrassment if he confirms what he wrote about the paradox as being the real deal rather than some mainstream made up nonsense as Michael suggests.

The other point worth mentioning is Michael's description of the behaviour of both moderators and members at CQ implying that David was being subjected to a bloodbath over there.
In reality discussions have been mostly civil and apologies issued where necessary, the moderators being heavy handed at times have come down on both sides of the argument.

It seems to me Michael is carrying some emotional baggage as a result of his own banishment and is giving a dishonest account of affairs.