A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[Hans Blaster]

Clearly Crawford's problem is that he didn't manage to get a proper peer review in a proper mainstream journal. If he had, he wouldn't be looking for the CQ folk to find the 'flaws' (your word) in his work.

I reread the paper and took notes. I would definitely say that a lack of proper or appropriate review is the primary problem with this paper.

* The equations in section 2 mangle their own notation badly leading to inconsistent expressions.

* The data sources don't all trace back to the references quoted for finding them. I needed to use Google to find the one data set I wanted to see.

* Crawford arbitrarily removes a number of points from curve fit and provides no reasoning for the choice.

* In the analysis of section 3 it is difficult to determine what analysis is being performed (i.e., how does he deal with the redshifts) because it is poorly described.

Then there are numerous small editing failures like units in figures that don't match the units in the caption and a figure (#3) that isn't even mentioned in the text.

These are all aside from whether the analysis itself was appropriate or the outcome supports the conclusion of the paper. I will address those later.

The journal "Open Astronomy" used to be called "Baltic Astronomy" (until 2016) and seems to mostly publish conference proceedings. Conference proceedings are not typically rigorously reviewed in physics or astronomy. There nothing wrong with that or a journal that is mostly proceedings. With proceedings the conference organizers take some responsibility for the quality of the published proceedings. Perhaps the editors of "Open Astronomy" should not be publishing anything else, because I have serious doubts that anyone seriously read this paper before publishing it. (None of the problems I saw in the arXiv version were corrected in the published version.)

 

[Michael]

You mean apart from his own declaration that his model required these numbers (in the CQ thread)?

Ok .. see here:

Page 73: Section 6.3.2 Temperature of the cosmic plasma

Hey, what do you know, an actual citation to work with finally.

It still seems like a minor side issue, but at least it's not entirely off topic now.

then: page 39 Section 5.2.2 X-rays in CC:

Relevant yet?

Perhaps it's relevant, but you'd have to explain why it's the most relevant piece of information as it relates to the first paper. It seems like a minor side issue at best case.

It's the equivalent of asking to see your evidence of "dark energy" *without/before* trying to use it to explain SN1A data.

 

[Michael]

I don't know .. why did he post his ATM idea there?

Beat me. Poor choice on David's part? Thanks to Hans Blaster there is actually more useful feedback to his paper in this thread.

An "I don't know" response is acceptable.

Ok.

Clearly Crawford's problem is that he didn't manage to get a proper peer review in a proper mainstream journal. If he had, he wouldn't be looking for the CQ folk to find the 'flaws' (your word) in his work.

I think everyone would like to reach a useful target audience. Maybe that's what he thought he'd get at CQ, but that certainly hasn't been the case so far.

RC's questions (which I posted previously) are relevant because they are about Crawford's modelling/fitting assumptions which underpin his Cosmology which in turn, is used throughout his SN1a paper.

If you say so, but it's not like he's proposing a whole new form of mass or energy so it seems like a relatively minor issues all things considered.

<Hmm sounds like yet another massive 'Michael rant' to me?..>

It seems like another typical Inquisition/heretic burning routine at CQ to me, complete with useless feedback, off topic questions galore, and even threats to poor Jerry.

 

[sjastro]

Since David’s paper leads to the conclusion of a static Universe or more precisely his “Curvature Cosmology” model it’s actually easier to analyse the conclusion than the paper.
The biggest problem encountered in an infinitely large Static Universe model is Olber’s paradox.

How does David's model address this issue:
From his Google Book “Curvature Cosmology”

“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.”

This explanation is wholly unsatisfactory and is similar to Olber’s own refutation of the paradox by suggesting that invisible interstellar matter absorbs light.
Absorbed light warms up interstellar dust causing to it radiate in the infrared.
While the paradox is “resolved” as the visible light is “no longer seen”, it is replaced by another problem with the night sky being ablaze in infrared radiation.
Whether it is “absorbed” or “shifted” it is still contradicted by observation.

Even scientists in the mid 19th century had good reasons to reject the idea of an infinitely large Universe even though at the time the Milky Way galaxy was considered the Universe.

An updated version of Lord Kelvin’s method is used to show the only way of resolving the paradox that agrees with observation is for the Universe to be finite in size.
Kelvin’s method is updated to incorporate the statistical nature of collisions.

Consider sources of light such as stars or very distant galaxies of area A constrained to a shell and emitting radiation at a distance r from the Earth which is at the centre of the shell.
This radiation reaches an observer on Earth covering a fraction of the sky A/4Πr².
If the shell has a thickness dr then the total number of stars or galaxies in the shell is 4nΠr²dr where n is the stellar or galaxy number density in the shell.

The product of the numbers of stars or galaxies in the shell and the fraction of sky covered is:

The An term has the dimensions of number of stars or galaxies per linear distance and the inverse Ɩ=1/An is the mean radial distance between stars or galaxies in the shell and represents the mean free path for a photon emitted from one star or galaxy before it collides and is absorbed by another in the shell.

If the stars or galaxies are randomly distributed in the shell then the probability of a photon colliding is governed by statistics.
The probability of a collision P(r) is defined by an exponential distribution.

If we extend this idea over all concentric shells from zero radius to r, the probability that a photon will reach the centre (the location of the observer) is:

For an infinitely large static Universe which is represented by an infinite number of concentric shells:

Therefore P(r) =1

This means that for any given star or galaxy located along a line passing through an infinite number of shells, its light will definitely reach the observer.
Extending this line to any given point in the sky, the light will always reach the observer which will make the sky completely illuminated at night which is the paradox.

The only way to resolve this paradox is for the Universe to be finite in which case r is a finite number and P(r)<1 since;

In this case the exponential term doesn’t vanish.

David’s paper cannot be correct because his conclusion; his “Curvature Cosmology” static Universe model is conflicted by Olber’s paradox.

 

[SelfSim]

Crawford's overall impetus appears to be motivated by the posited existence of 'cosmic plasma' (which he later figures out to have the questionable properties of temperature ~ 2x10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre). Note that this approach fundamentally differs from the mainstream approach of commencing from observations and then incrementally 'building up' to the LCDM model.

Posits, when made in mainstream models, are themselves subject to testing. Crawford's 'cosmic plasma' is thus 'fair game' for testing purposes. LCDM's 'dark' components are also subject to testing which is exactly what we've seen happening.

The difference is that objective well constrained tests developed from logical arguments such as Obler's paradox, can actually rule out the existence of the above 'cosmic plasma'.

 

[Michael]

Since David’s paper leads to the conclusion of a static Universe or more precisely his “Curvature Cosmology” model it’s actually easier to analyse the conclusion than the paper.
The biggest problem encountered in an infinitely large Static Universe model is Olber’s paradox.

It's another "off topic" problem that isn't even a problem:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

Essentially Obler's paradox is solved in a static universe by a combination of scattering and absorption of photons in the dust and plasma of spacetime, with most of energy ultimately ending up as the background temperature of space as Eddington calculated to within 1/2 of one degree of the correct answer.

It took big bangers three or four tries to get closer to the correct background temperature of space than Eddington. In fact the first "big bang" attempt to calculate the background temperature was off by more than a whole magnitude.

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

The questions never end, but there's no threat of death in this thread for not answering them.

 

[SelfSim]

It's another "off topic" problem that isn't even a problem:
...
Essentially Obler's paradox is solved in a static universe by a combination of scattering and absorption of photons in the dust and plasma of spacetime, ...

Yes .. It is a problem ... as correctly pointed out by sjastro, (maybe you missed it?):

While the paradox is “resolved” as the visible light is “no longer seen”, it is replaced by another problem with the night sky being ablaze in infrared radiation.
Whether it is “absorbed” or “shifted” it is still contradicted by observation.

 

[Michael]

Crawford's overall impetus appears to be motivated by the posited existence of 'cosmic plasma' (which he later figures out to have the questionable properties of temperature ~ 2x10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre).

"Questionable properties"? Well, yes and no. I'm not sure that he's including all the cosmic rays that are flying around out there. It could be questionably low or high for all I know in terms of electron and/or ion temperatures, which can actually vary by two whole orders of magnitude in the lab.

It's a lot *less* questionable than positing the existence of multiple additional types of mass and energy in space.

Note that this approach fundamentally differs from the mainstream approach of commencing from observations and then incrementally 'building up' to the LCDM model.

What? LCDM starts off with the "statement of faith" that no amount of inelastic scattering in plasma in space has any effect on photons losing momentum in space like they do here in labs on Earth. You're *assuming* magic photons weave and dodge their way around every EM and temperature gradient in spacetime to arrive at Earth unscathed. It's like a magic bullet.

LCDM proponents then claim to rule out all *known* types of inelastic scattering *and* all proposed types of tired light (including Zwicky's original proposal. Do they have published papers to support that "belief". No. Only one type of scattering has even been mentioned in published literature and the rest of the arguments come from one unpublished website by Ned Wright.

Posits, when made in mainstream models, are themselves subject to testing.

Testing how? If not by "tests" such as this, how would we even know if it's a Doppler shift involving time dilation, or a tired light/inelastic scattering process? There is not empirical cause/effect link between "expanding space" and photon redshift. It's a pure act of faith in the unseen, in the lab from the very start.

Crawford's 'cosmic plasma' is thus 'fair game' for testing purposes.

Meh. Not really. I'm not sure what difference it makes. At worst case he can't demonstrate his proposed *temperature* (plasma is a given), compared to not being able to demonstrate the sheer existence of "space expansion", dark energy or inflation. If we look at "relative problems", it's minor in comparison to the problems in LCDM.

LCDM's 'dark' components are also subject to testing which is exactly what we've seen happening.

Ya we saw that dark matter model get "tested" to the tune of tens of billions of dollars. It consistently failed every test.

The difference is that objective well constrained tests developed from logical arguments such as Obler's paradox, can actually rule out the existence of the above 'cosmic plasma'.

Obler's paradox is solved by Eddington's starlight scattering calculations and simple scattering and absorption. You can't rule out cosmic plasma anymore than you can rule out cosmic rays, or that million degree plasma around our own galaxy.

 

[sjastro]

It's another "off topic" problem that isn't even a problem:

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

Essentially Obler's paradox is solved in a static universe by a combination of scattering and absorption of photons in the dust and plasma of spacetime, with most of energy ultimately ending up as the background temperature of space as Eddington calculated to within 1/2 of one degree of the correct answer.

It took big bangers three or four tries to get closer to the correct background temperature of space than Eddington. In fact the first "big bang" attempt to calculate the background temperature was off by more than a whole magnitude.

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

The questions never end, but there's no threat of death in this thread for not answering them.

Olber's paradox explicitly relates to scattering whether a photon is scattered by a star, a galaxy or even plasma.
Scattering and the associated absorption is a statistical process where a percentage of photons are not scattered.

To put it in an analogy non scattering is like winning the national lottery. The chances can be very small but in a static infinitely old Universe where the lottery is played an infinite number of times winning is an absolute certainty.
This is the principle of Olber's paradox.

The rest of your post regarding Eddington is irrelevant which incidentally cannot explain the temperature dipole of the CMB, but hey this is off topic and you should practice what you preach.

 

[SelfSim]

... Scattering is a statistical process where a percentage of photons are not scattered.
...
The chances can be very small but in a static infinitely old Universe where the lottery is played an infinite number of times winning is an absolute certainty.
This is the principle of Olber's paradox.

Which then leads nicely into the next logical issue/question of:

"IF03: Now explain how in a static universe that is presumably infinitely old, there is any H in the inter-galactic plasma? Or give the age of the universe in your ATM idea".

 

[Michael]

Olber's paradox explicitly relates to scattering whether a photon is scattered by a star, a galaxy or even plasma.
Scattering and the associated absorption is a statistical process where a percentage of photons are not scattered.

To put it simply, there are no 'magic photons' in the real universe. In our 'normal' universe, photons are affect by the medium, and none of them magically weave and dodge their way around every EM and temperature gradient in spacetime. The further the distance, the more unlikely that becomes until there finally are none of them at all. Astronomers have *routinely* underestimated the amount of scattering taking place in space.

To put it in an analogy non scattering is like winning the national lottery. The chances can be very small but in a static infinitely old Universe where the lottery is played an infinite number of times winning is an absolute certainty.

Sure, one or two photons *could* get lucky every million years or so, but what are the odds of me ever seeing that happen?

This is the principle of Olber's paradox.

It's the principle of magic bullets (photons) and the real universe doesn't have any magic photons.

The rest of your post regarding Eddington is irrelevant

Of course it's relevant. Did you even read that WIKI link I cited? Even that alternative explanation mentioned it.

which incidentally cannot explain.......

Usually when mainstream astronomers say that, it's wrong, and its wrong.

..the temperature dipole of the CMB, but hey this is off topic and you should practice what you preach.

You're right it's off, off topic at this point.

Let's get real. There are no magic photons. In the unlikely event that something like that happens at five billion light years, it's far less likely involving photons that are 100 billion light years, or a 100 billion light years. There is no magic in space, and no magic photons in space.

 

[Michael]

Which then leads nicely into the next logical issue/question of:

"IF03: Now explain how in a static universe that is presumably infinitely old, there is any H in the inter-galactic plasma? Or give the age of the universe in your ATM idea".

Apparently you didn't bother to read my responses because I answered that question in our published paper and in my earlier explanation of solar wind composition. The mass between stars is mostly composed of the lightest elements with the highest charge/mass ratios.

Keep in mind that the z-machine here on Earth routinely pinches out free neutrons which decay into protons and electrons in about 10-12 minutes.

There are ways for the universe to create new protons on a regular basis.

 

[Michael]

Lest this thread be hijacked into oblivion, let's revisit Jerry's two *extremely* important questions which remain unanswered by LCDM proponents:

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?

I've answered a number of questions now about how various observations are explained in a static universe framework. Let's hear the LCDM proponents answer these two on topic questions.

 

[sjastro]

To put it simply, there are no 'magic photons' in the real universe. I our 'normal' universe, photons are affect by the medium, and none of them magically weave and dodge their way around every EM and temperature gradient in spacetime. The further the distance, the more unlikely that becomes until there finally are none of them at all. Astronomers have *routinely* underestimated the amount of scattering taking place in space.



Sure, one or two photons *could* get lucky every million years or so, but what are the odds of me ever seeing that happen?



It's the principle of magic bullets (photons) and the real universe doesn't have any magic photons.



Of course it's relevant. Did you even read that WIKI link I cited? Even that alternative explanation mentioned it.



Usually when mainstream astronomers say that, it's wrong, and its wrong.



You're right it's off, off topic at this point.

Let's get real. There are no magic photons. In the unlikely event that something like that happens at five billion light years, it's far less likely involving photons that are 100 billion light years, or a 100 billion light years. There is no magic in space, and no magic photons in space.

Its obvious Obler's paradox is beyond your capacity for comprehension.
An understanding would not require magic photons.

 

[Michael]

Its obvious Obler's paradox is beyond your capacity for comprehension.
An understanding would not require magic photons.

It's explained explained in a static universe by dust, distance, absorption, scattering and the CMB. Did you not read the WIKI section on alternative explanations? It even mentioned Eddington and the CMB.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

You're already right back to attacking me personally. Yawn. You're totally predictable.

 

[Michael]

The Origin of the 3 K Radiation

That's another good paper explaining the relationship to the CMB.

 

[sjastro]

It's explained explained in a static universe by dust, distance, absorption, scattering and the CMB. Did you not read or not comprehend the WIKI section on alternative explanations? It even mentioned Eddington and the CMB.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

You're already right back to attacking me personally. Yawn. You're totally predictable.

All you have done is to confirm by example you lack the comprehension.
The link you refer to is for a STEADY STATE UNIVERSE NOT A STATIC UNIVERSE.
They are not the same.
Expansion occurs in a Steady State Universe, it doesn't occur in a Static Universe.
Thanks for also providing further information on why the Eddiington model is wrong as the 3.2 K value refers to an optical radiation (effective) temperature, not a 2.7K blackbody temperature.

 

[sjastro]

The Origin of the 3 K Radiation

That's another good paper explaining the relationship to the CMB.

Here is another example of your lack of comprehension.
Why don't you try explaining how this link is consistent with Eddington's model instead of doing blind Internet searches.

 

[SelfSim]

It's explained explained in a static universe by dust, distance, absorption, scattering and the CMB. Did you not read or not comprehend the WIKI section on alternative explanations? It even mentioned Eddington and the CMB.

Olbers' paradox - Wikipedia

... The link you refer to is for a STEADY STATE UNIVERSE NOT A STATIC UNIVERSE.
They are not the same.
Expansion occurs in a Steady State Universe, it doesn't occur in a Static Universe.
Thanks for also providing further information on why the Eddiington model is wrong as the 3.2 K value refers to an optical radiation (effective) temperature, not a 2.7K blackbody temperature.

Agreed .. I think we've encountered this same basic oversight in some past discussion on either the same topic or a related one ..(?)..

(Fascinating that it seems to keep coming back ..)

 

[Michael]

All you have done is to confirm by example you lack the comprehension.
The link you refer to is for a STEADY STATE UNIVERSE NOT A STATIC UNIVERSE.
They are not the same.
Expansion occurs in a Steady State Universe, it doesn't occur in a Static Universe.

Must you always resort to strawmen and personal attacks? I never said they were the same thing, I said there were other ways to work around Obler's paradox, and there's even overlap in that explanation as it relates to Eddington and the CMB.

I think I'm going to take the moderators advice from now on when you hijack my threads and and take the conversation off topic to attack me as a person. I'll just stop responding to such nonsense entirely.

Thanks for also providing further information on why the Eddiington model is wrong as the 3.2 K value refers to an optical radiation (effective) temperature, not a 2.7K blackbody temperature.

It's simply the average temperature of the dust of spacetime as a result of the scattering of starlight on the dust of spacetime. Eddington nailed the number to within a half of one degree on his first shot.

The effect of distance, scattering, absorption, dusty plasma and ordinary processes in plasma preclude there from being anything remotely like a 'magic photon' *stream* that miraculously results in a bright universe on anything other than a microwave set of wavelengths that radiate at a background temperature that Eddington himself discussed.

Much as you'd like to ignore the fact that there is no demonstrated cause/effect link between "space expansion" and photon redshift, there is no such empirical relationship. It's an "act of faith' on your part from the moment you propose the idea because "space" doesn't do any magical expansion tricks in the lab. Supposedly that's because it's so shy around the presence of concentrated forms of matter/energy, except in the miraculous conception phase where the whole mass blob of the entire universe was supposedly concentrated well inside it's own event horizon, but 'space expansion' wasn't shy around all that concentrated mass according to your creation mythology.

The whole LCDM model is one hugely self-conflicted belief system from start to finish, and it starts by requiring "faith" in the unseen, in the lab.

I'll stick with empirical physics and empirical physical explanations for photon redshift, and I'll stick with Eddington's explanation of the average temperature of spacetime based on scattering and absorption.

Even if you did have a few lucky/magical photons weave and dodge their way around every em field and temperature gradient and particle in the universe, it would only occur once in a blue moon, and it probably wouldn't even be noticed by anyone.

The first deep field image of Hubble took something like 10 days to show anything "bright" appear in the otherwise "dark" regions of a short duration image.