Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
!!!!Reality Check said:...davd said:A major part of the paper is to prove that the SALT2 (and similar calibration methods) are flawed.
No answers and ignoring what your section 3.2 is about so:
IF06: List the Type 1a supernova that are contained in the SALT2 template file.
The template file does not even have 1 real supernova! So the answer is obviously none.
David said:A major part of the paper is to prove that the SALT2 (and similar calibration methods) are flawed. It cannot distinguish between intrinsic emitted wavelength variations in widths and and ths those due to redshift. It very successfully eliminates both from the calibrated light curves. Thus previous investigators who where unaware of this flaw thought the calibrated widths contained genuine cosmological information.
And for readers out there, just to put all this back into perspective:
What is the evidence for the Big Bang?:
"The evidence for the Big Bang comes from many pieces of observational data that are consistent with the Big Bang. None of these prove the Big Bang, since scientific theories are not proven. Many of these facts are consistent with the Big Bang and some other cosmological models, but taken together these observations show that the Big Bang is the best current model for the Universe. These observations include:
• The darkness of the night sky - Olbers' paradox.
• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.
• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.
• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
• Time dilation in supernova light curves.
The observations listed above are consistent with the Big Bang or with the Steady State model, but many observations support the Big Bang over the Steady State:
• Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux. These show that the Universe has evolved.
• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.
Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.
• Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.
Finally, the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy that does exist at the several parts per million level is consistent with a dark matter dominated Big Bang model that went through the inflationary scenario".
The above is what Crawford (and Michael) are really up against. Taken altogether, the argument is overwhelmingly convincing (and that's in spite of Michael's rants).
They would be pretty much everyone who's proposed a redshift mechanism that doesn't involve expansion, including David.
Boloney. Pure projection on your part. I've even noted what a cheesy and irrational argument it is by pointing out the inverse square law problems that are inherent in the basic argument. You're clearly projecting (again) as you demonstrated very clearly when you failed to address *any* of the many different complications that are related to scattering. You lamely tried to justify your thousand degree cloud temperature claims with a couple of lines of oversimplified math that didn't even deal with your inverse square law problems, or any form of scattering which doesn't involve absorption, etc.
What a bald faced lie.
Show me where David claims Olber’s paradox is nonsense because it doesn’t take scattering by matter into consideration or the inverse square law.
I have addressed these issues and I am not going to repeat myself.
There are four main participants in this thread, three of whom understand Olber’s paradox who along with the general reader don’t need a repeat performance as to why the maths explains the thermal equilibrium of dust clouds and stars in a static Universe, the significance of scattering and adsorption, and the irrelevance of the inverse square law.
You are the one with the comprehension issues
and the usual chip on the shoulder,
and frankly you are starting to bore me and probably the majority with your repetition.
The rest of your post is also repetitious, ignorant, insulting and not worth a response.
Here is something to consider since you make such a big deal about the inverse square law, why have you never raised a peep about the Tolman surface brightness test which is an offshoot of Olber’s paradox?
Sjastro's question may be subtlely different, but your over-generalisation in your Post#125 response to my question, justifies his above question:I never said that David was using inelastic scattering to explain redshift. You're resorting to strawmen and sticking words in my mouth again, as usual. You're a one trick personal attack pony.sjastro said:Show me where David claims Olber’s paradox is nonsense because it doesn’t take scattering by matter into consideration or the inverse square law.
Davd's model is a Static Universe model. Michael needs to be way clearer in his critical generalisations (rants), as I also am getting tired of his lack of specificity .. which then evolve into outright deceptions based on word-salad.Michael said:That's exactly what I'm saying. It's easily explained as a function of distance, dust and ordinary inelastic scattering. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.SelfSim said:I think this comment takes the prize in the all-time classic Michael comments! (Just thought I'd repost it for posterity).
Let me understand the context of what you're saying here .. are you saying you outright reject the paradox as a valid argument when applied to a static universe model? Is this correct?
Sjastro's question may be subtlely different, but your over-generalisation in your Post#125 response to my question, justifies his above question:
Davd's model is a Static Universe model. Michael needs to be way clearer in his critical generalisations (rants), as I also am getting tired of his lack of specificity .. which then evolve into outright deceptions based on word-salad.
Meanwhile, I've waded a little deeper into the CQ debate expressing what (I think) may be some of our collective concerns on Davd's paper here.
Unfortunately, time is running out on the thread .. (I'm wondering if there may be a chance of extending its timeframe somehow .. its probably wishful thinking, but it maybe possible via appeal to the mods?)
...Michael said:I can't think of a single thread I've started in recent memory that you two haven't hijacked just so you can discuss "Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael". Sheesh.
Gotta chuckle at the irony stemming from these two back-to-back posts.Any "normal" website (like CF) would allow for the free exchange of ideas on something as insignificant as a message board in cyberspace. Maybe you should take that up with the mods at CQ?
...
Gotta chuckle at the irony stemming from these two back-to-back posts... The first one advocating censorship and the second arguing against it.
'A free exchange of ideas' requires specificity and clarity by OPs .. which then normally leads to honest exchanges, no(?).
Michael said:Boloney. You haven't addressed any of them.....
....In other words you have no actual explanation for any of those complications related to inelastic scattering, and none of them were included in your oversimplified math.
You should have complained because the Tolman test explicitly states the surface brightness of a galaxy is the same everywhere in a static Universe and therefore “contradicts” the inverse square law.Why would I complain about that? The LCDM model fails the Tolman surface brightness test at larger redshifts too, whereas a static universe theory passes that particular test just fine.
Universe is Not Expanding After All, Controversial Study Suggests | Astronomy | Sci-News.com
Get real. The inverse square law absolutely applies or Edwin Hubble would never have been able to use a Cepheid variable star to demonstrate that Andromeda was a completely different galaxy at a much greater distance than any Cepheid variable star that was located inside our own galaxy! Were it not for the inverse square law, a distant Cepheid variable star would have the same exact brightness as every other Cepheid variable star inside of our own galaxy.
In fact, based on your flawed Obler's paradox logic, galaxies would be *brighter* than individual stars because galaxies contain hundreds of billions of stars. Give it rest. Obler's paradox is a 17th century hoax.
Let me get this right David Crawford doesn't think there is a relationship between wavelength and curve width in the supernova's rest frame???Its beginning to look like Crawford's paper is a thought experiment which commences with the unstated (hidden) assumption that (in Crawford's own words):
"the width of the type Ia supernova light curve is an unknown function of its emitted wavelength".
This assumption however, is not put to the test, and so Crawford substitutes the 'unknown' with, (apparently), his own implied view that it there is no dependence.
From that point onwards, Crawford was not following the scientific process which puts everything immediately testable to the test and builds on those results, (or at least, denotes argument dependencies on possibly testable hypotheses which themselves, may depend on future research).
This deviation from the scientific process so often presents itself when people confuse logic with science.
It also appears that the data source he cites, ('SNANA [17]'), doesn't contain the information he thinks it does (more on that as the CQ discussion evolves).
It seems that its more than him just thinking (believing) this .. He commences from this position and then, (perhaps unintentionally), proceeds assuming that there is no dependence.Let me get this right David Crawford doesn't think there is a relationship between wavelength and curve width in the supernova's rest frame???
It would seem so ..sjastro said:I'm afraid the case against him is very strong.
“In other words” if the maths is beyond your intellectual capacity of comprehension then lie about it by claiming it is wrong or oversimplified.
To everyone else who understands the maths realises scattered photons follow a negative exponential distribution as defined in the maths with P(r) being the probability of photons reaching the observer....
and (1- P(r)) the probability of scattered or absorbed unobservable photons, while this post explains why the inverse square law is irrelevant in Olber’s paradox.
You should have complained because the Tolman test explicitly states the surface brightness of a galaxy is the same everywhere in a static Universe and therefore “contradicts” the inverse square law.
Your response shows a total failure to comprehend the nature of the question by being unable to see the contradiction of accepting the test yet rejecting Olber’s paradox on the grounds of the inverse square law.
Irrelevant.There were no "cameras" or long exposure CCD images when Obler talked about his "paradox" nonsense.
Irrelevant.
Odd that distinguished astronomer and cosmologist, Edward 'Ted' Harrison, devoted an entire chapter of his book 'Cosmology - The Science of the Universe' to the Olber's paradox 'nonsense' (see chapter 24).
"...developments in cosmology have made little difference to the riddle. In a universe of infinite extent, populated everywhere with bright stars, the entire sky should be covered by stars with no separating dark gaps..."Seems like you are the lone voice - the St. John the Baptist, if you will - of cosmology
Nevertheless, I recommend a read of Chapter 24 - it's 22 pages of easy reading - it might have been written for novices and lone voices
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?