A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[SelfSim]

Hmm .. so 'Davd' (Crawford) kindly responded to my question at CQ as follows:

In my static universe photons continuously lose energy by the curvature redshift interaction thus Olber's Paradox is easily explained. The age is unknown in that this would require a different model. Note that the static model is stable and indeed if it could be disturbed it would oscillate withe period of about the Hubble time.

I'm reading up more on his Curvature Cosmology at the moment and how his above mentioned mechanism works.

'Twill be interesting to discuss this further here (which is probably more appropriate than in the CQ ATM Forum thread).

PS: That's as long as Michael doesn't distract us with his usual 'spin' on it all!

 

[Michael]

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

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

It's utterly *amazing* how you guys can believe in this kind of nonsense, and how *oversimplified* your arguments have to be in order to even attempt to justify it. Let's see how oversimplified this argument really is:

First of all, in a "dusty" universe, the you can't "assume" that a travel path of any photon is "infinite". Nothing like that could possibly happen. You also ignored bremsstrahlung. You ignored the fact that a cloud isn't a "singular" item it's made of individual particles the also emit heat. You essentially *assumed* light has to be absorbed in order for it to be deflected. You didn't make any allowance whatsoever in terms of loss of brightness due to distance, and you assumed that simply extending distance *automatically* increases the number of photons based on increasing the number of light sources. Other than that, it's a fine (and totally meaningless) calculation.

Sheesh.

 

[Michael]

I didn't realise it was compulsory in this thread to critique David Crawford's paper.

That's because you never ever stick to the *actual topic* of any thread. You attack *people* instead. Case in point:

Unlike Michael I am not prepared to lie through my teeth.....

Yawn. You're a one trick personal attack pony.

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.

But you didn't. You discussed *me* instead.

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 whole Obler's paradox argument is pure made up nonsense for all the reasons that I cited above. You oversimplified every possible aspect of the process, starting with the fact that a photon doesn't have be completely absorbed by a cloud to be deflected from it's path and never reach the Earth. Photons cannot travel indefinitely in a dusty environment either without hitting something.

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.

Actually my complaint is that the whole "against the mainstream" forum and process at CQ is a "burn the heretic" mentality, including the threatening of Jerry simply for trying to explain the paper to the CQ audience. It's ridiculously heavy handed too since no controversial topic can be discussed at CQ for more than 30 days. Talk about draconian rule systems.

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.

Civil? LOL! Is that how you would you characterize Jerry's treatment so far? Why the heavy handed threats towards Jerry?

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.

"Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael...." Do you two ever stick to the *topic* of any thread? You're an absolutely horrible mind reader so I'd suggest that you keep your day job. I'm simply noting that the "burn the witch" attitude, and the rule system at CQ isn't conducive to intelligent conversation and there hasn't been much of it there as a result. It's doomed to be a short lived conversation too because the mods will close the thread in less than two weeks and then David will be forbidden to ever discuss his paper there ever again.

So far only JeanTate has asked any *on topic* intelligent questions. At least David has pointed out the off topic nature of several of the questions (demands) that were asked of him.

 

[Michael]

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.

You ignored the fact that the further the photons have to travel, the more *likely* that dust will interfere, deflect and block the potential light sources. Every single part of your argument is *oversimplified* for obvious reasons.

 

[Michael]

The funny thing he doesn't even understand Eddington's work.

The funny thing is that you consistently misrepresent my statements. How desperate are you?

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.

So what? It doesn't have to. It's just an average temperature estimate that was unrelated to the movement of our galaxy.

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

That's utterly irrelevant to my point however.

 

[Michael]

Dogma?? Really??

Ya, really. You folks are taught a "dogma package" in school and you're taught how to think in lockstep. It's apparently all that you know too. Neither of you seems to have any idea how alternative (scattering) cosmology models or alternative solar models work for instance. When asked to support your views, I get nothing but oversimplified math that doesn't even apply to alternative models.

 

[sjastro]

It's utterly *amazing* how you guys can believe in this kind of nonsense, and how *oversimplified* your arguments have to be in order to even attempt to justify it. Let's see how oversimplified this argument really is:

First of all, in a "dusty" universe, the you can't "assume" that a travel path of any photon is "infinite". Nothing like that could possibly happen. You also ignored bremsstrahlung. You ignored the fact that a cloud isn't a "singular" item it's made of individual particles the also emit heat. You essentially *assumed* light has to be absorbed in order for it to be deflected. You didn't make any allowance whatsoever in terms of loss of brightness due to distance, and you assumed that simply extending distance *automatically* increases the number of photons based on increasing the number of light sources. Other than that, it's a fine (and totally meaningless) calculation.

Sheesh.

What a sore loser.
You demanded the maths, you got it.
Your response confirms yet again the maths and associated physics is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension, despite your feeble and dishonest attempts in trying to suggest otherwise.

The discussion is over.
Other participants in this thread have no problem with the paradox, your comprehension issues are your problem and a waste my time in further addressing, particularly when you don’t even have the backbone of admitting it.

 

[sjastro]

Hmm .. so 'Davd' (Crawford) kindly responded to my question at CQ as follows:
I'm reading up more on his Curvature Cosmology at the moment and how his above mentioned mechanism works.

'Twill be interesting to discuss this further here (which is probably more appropriate than in the CQ ATM Forum thread).

PS: That's as long as Michael doesn't distract us with his usual 'spin' on it all!

I had a quick look at David Crawford’s CC paper and I must admit I am impressed with the depth of detail and a thorough knowledge of mainstream science which is not surprising as he is a physicist.

This is totally unlike the Electric Universe nonsense which is so ridded with errors anyone with even a basic knowledge of science can drive a truck trough.

He recognizes that a static Universe is unstable and therefore requires a “curvature pressure” to counterbalance the effects of collapse.
Einstein had the same idea with the cosmological constant which is today’s equivalent of dark energy.
Curvature pressure however is analogous to Newton’s third law for reaction forces that prevents collapse from occurring.
Along with curvature pressure is curvature redshift which is based on the principle that a family of geodesics curves which are the shortest distance taken by particles and photons in spacetime are compressed or focused. This assumes that the Universe has a closed or spherical spacetime geometry.
Photons travelling on these geodesics as waves undergo focussing which alters the angular momentum and produces photons of lower energy which is the primary mechanism for redshift and not through scattering.
I am not too sure of this mechanism.

I can see problems as the theory doesn’t match observation.
First of all the evidence is very strong through the angular separations of structures in the CMB that the geometry of the Universe is flat which prevents his curvature redshift mechanism.

Secondly the presence of gravitational lensing should be an environment for local curvature redshift, yet there is no evidence of photons passing through gravitational lenses being redshifted.
This is consistent with the mainstream mechanism of gravitational redshift/blueshift where a photon entering the gravitational lens initially undergoes gravitational redshift which is cancelled out by blueshift when it exits the lens.

Thirdly Olber’s paradox is not resolved.
Assuming curvature redshift exists the redshifting of visible photons still results in a bright night sky in wavelengths other than the visible spectrum.
In David Crawford’s response there is the suggestion of a finite age which that could resolve the paradox but opens up a can of worms as to how a static Universe can be created.

I hope you can continue the dialogue with him, at least you are guaranteed an intelligent discussion.

 

[Michael]

What a sore loser.

Projection at it's finest.

You demanded the maths, you got it.

What I got was "bad math" (inapplicable math) that assumes that light can travel forever without interacting with the medium.

Your response confirms yet again the maths and associated
physics is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension,

Horse manure. I picked out the exact *mathematical assumption* that you made that was false.

despite your feeble and dishonest attempts in trying to suggest otherwise.

Do you even know how to have a discussion without engaging in personal attacks?

The discussion is over.

What "discussion"? With the exception of a couple of posts, your whole input in this thread has been one big personal attack from start to finish *as usual*. When your math trick got busted, you got upset!

Other participants in this thread have no problem with the paradox,

You mean *other* LCDM proponents that were taught the same lame dogma as you?

your comprehension issues are your problem

I didn't have any problem picking out your math error.

and a waste my time in further addressing, particularly when you don’t even have the backbone of admitting it.

Bah. You just don't have the backbone to admit that your math *assumption* (which I picked out) was false to start with! You botched your math.

 

[SelfSim]

... PS: That's as long as Michael doesn't distract us with his usual 'spin' on it all!

And as usual, he did.

 

[sjastro]

I didn't have any problem picking out your math error.

Ok Mr Narcissist point out the error in calculation.

 

[Michael]

I had a quick look at David Crawford’s CC paper and I must admit I am impressed with the depth of detail and a thorough knowledge of mainstream science which is not surprising as he is a physicist.

Ya, but for his efforts he is being put through the Spanish Inquisition nonsense anyway, and Jerry got slapped upside the head just for trying to help explain the paper to those less literate members of CQ. So much for professional courtesy.

This is totally unlike the Electric Universe nonsense which is so ridded with errors anyone with even a basic knowledge of science can drive a truck trough.

You wouldn't know since you don't understand the first thing about any of it, starting with the neutrino predictions of it's various solar models. You folks don't even have any "basic knowledge" of it to start with.

He recognizes that a static Universe is unstable and therefore requires a “curvature pressure” to counterbalance the effects of collapse.
Einstein had the same idea with the cosmological constant which is today’s equivalent of dark energy.

Einstein's brief introduction of a non-zero cosmological constant could have been anything *ordinary*, including something as simple as an electromagnetic field.

I can see problems as the theory doesn’t match observation.

Projection. As David pointed out, raw data from SN1A events show no signs of time dilation, so your theory doesn't match observation.

Thirdly Olber’s paradox is not resolved.

Bah! It *is* resolved with ordinary scattering, and your formula demonstrates it. If you can't simply *assume* that light can travel forever, your formula falls apart.

Assuming curvature redshift exists the redshifting of visible photons still results in a bright night sky in wavelengths other than the visible spectrum.

Right, the *microwave* spectrum.

In David Crawford’s response there is the suggestion of a finite age which that could resolve the paradox but opens up a can of worms as to how a static Universe can be created.

How is that any more of a can of worms than explaining how *any* universe can be created?

I hope you can continue the dialogue with him, at least you are guaranteed an intelligent discussion.

Hurry though. They'll close the thread in about 11 or 12 days and then David will be forbidden to ever discuss it at CQ ever again.

 

[Michael]

And as usual, he did.

Oh heaven forbid I should point out your math error (trick).

 

[Michael]

Ok Mr Narcissist point out the error in calculation.

I already did that for you when I pointed out that you *assumed* that photons could travel forever through any medium.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

Your verbally abusive behavior won't save you.

 

[sjastro]

I already did that for you when I pointed out that you *assumed* that photons could travel forever through any medium.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

Your verbally abusive behavior won't save you.

Try again I asked to show the error in the calculation which constitutes a maths error.
If you do not show this error then I suggest you retract the statement or I will report this post as an example of making up a blatant lie and attributing it to me.

 

[SelfSim]

... He recognizes that a static Universe is unstable and therefore requires a “curvature pressure” to counterbalance the effects of collapse.
Einstein had the same idea with the cosmological constant which is today’s equivalent of dark energy.
Curvature pressure however is analogous to Newton’s third law for reaction forces that prevents collapse from occurring.
Along with curvature pressure is curvature redshift which is based on the principle that a family of geodesics curves which are the shortest distance taken by particles and photons in spacetime are compressed or focused. This assumes that the Universe has a closed or spherical spacetime geometry.
Photons travelling on these geodesics as waves undergo focussing which alters the angular momentum and produces photons of lower energy which is the primary mechanism for redshift and not through scattering.
I am not too sure of this mechanism.

Hmm .. the way I read it, it seems he's running with two hypotheses simultaneously .. one is tired light, the other is curvature pressure which leads to 'modified Friedmann equations which have a simple solution for a uniform cosmic gas' ... (pages 8 & 9), although, it looks a bit like he's backing both horses to me(?)

I can see problems as the theory doesn’t match observation.
First of all the evidence is very strong through the angular separations of structures in the CMB that the geometry of the Universe is flat which prevents his curvature redshift mechanism.

Hmm .. I think he's proposing that the CMB is the end product of both scattering and curvature interactions .. so I'm not sure that, in that model, that the CMB structures could then be viewed as a test of the universe geometry(?)

Secondly the presence of gravitational lensing should be an environment for local curvature redshift, yet there is no evidence of photons passing through gravitational lenses being redshifted.
This is consistent with the mainstream mechanism of gravitational redshift/blueshift where a photon entering the gravitational lens initially undergoes gravitational redshift which is cancelled out by blueshift when it exits the lens.

Hmm .. interesting ..

Thirdly Olber’s paradox is not resolved.
Assuming curvature redshift exists the redshifting of visible photons still results in a bright night sky in wavelengths other than the visible spectrum.
In David Crawford’s response there is the suggestion of a finite age which that could resolve the paradox but opens up a can of worms as to how a static Universe can be created.

Well I found that his response of 'unknown' on the age of the universe question actually then conveniently constitutes immediate positive justification for skirting around Olber's p. As Jean Tate mentioned, it may be premature to ask the age question from the perspective of: 'because he hasn't figured out the model for it yet', but it pretty clearly makes all the difference!

I hope you can continue the dialogue with him, at least you are guaranteed an intelligent discussion.

Do you mind if I ask questions at CQ based on our above discussion? I need to be careful as they aren't necessarily directly related to the SN lightcurve topic .. it would be great if they'd agree to discuss the cosmology, perhaps even as a separate 'Science & Technology Forum' thread(?)

 

[Michael]

Try again I asked to show the error in the calculation which constitutes a maths error.

A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

I highlighted the formula! There is no t sub 0 in a static universe and the maximum distance traveled is related to the likelihood of *scattering*, not time!

If you do not show this error then I suggest you retract the statement or I will report this post as an example of making up a blatant lie and attributing it to me.

The only one lying (to themselves) is you. There is no T sub 0 in a static universe and the distance a photon can travel is limited by the likelihood (limit) of scattering not *time*! You can't just make r->infinity on a whim in a *dusty* environment!

 

[Michael]

Do you mind if I ask questions at CQ based on our above discussion? I need to be careful as they aren't necessarily directly related to the SN lightcurve topic .. it would be great if they'd agree to discuss the cosmology, perhaps even as a separate 'Science & Technology Forum' thread(?)

Whatever you do, do it soon before they burn the heretic at the stake at CQ, and/or they forbid David from ever discussing it again at CQ in a week or two.

 

[Michael]

Secondly the presence of gravitational lensing should be an environment for local curvature redshift, yet there is no evidence of photons passing through gravitational lenses being redshifted.

Alright, I'll bite. How would you know if it's redshifted as a result of passing through the gravitational lens?

 

[SelfSim]

.. I hope you can continue the dialogue with him, at least you are guaranteed an intelligent discussion.

I've proposed that Davd might be able to raise his 'Observational evidence favors a static universe' paper in the easier going S&T forum at CQ (which should raise a few CQ moderator eyebrows).
(Its a real pity Michael forced them to create the draconian rules in the ATM forum via his ideologically motivated advocation-at-all-costs style back in the olden days) ..