A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[Michael]

Not only is maths beyond you but evidently simple English.

Virtually every post you make is a personal attack and devoid of value.

It has been explained to you that Olber's paradox is the worst case scenario of scattering where no light gets through and what does reach the observer is based on statistical outcomes.

It's pure nonsense as my first response to your "math" demonstrates. You didn't include *any* of the complications related to scattering!

I'm still waiting on your proof that equation(1)≠equation(4).

Don't hold your breath. I'm done wasting my time on your absurd hijacks.

This is not only childish but probably embarrassing to Hans.

At least someone in this thread has something scientifically useful and *on topic* to offer as a counter argument to the paper in the OP. That's more than can be said for anyone else in this thread or anyone at CQ.

 

[Michael]

Your 'complicated factors' are taken into account in the abstracted model described by sjastro, and in the Wiki description of Olber's paradox.

Boloney. It doesn't even deal with scattering without absorption. It doesn't deal with distance or brightness or any of the important aspects of the argument.

Depends on the size and age of one's universe. Please describe how a static universe can have a finite age.

Not my job, and it's not even on topic.

Crawford knows this cannot be so also .. so he just dodged the issue without explaining the problem.

It's a "non problem".

They are taken into account .. so you don't have to worry about that.

False. In fact it's *absurdly* false.

No hijack at all. Olber's paradox is a relevant and efficient way to highlight the problems of Crawford's cosmology.

No. Hans highlighted real potential problems in Crawford's paper. You handed me flawed dogma that doesn't even deal with the obvious distance problems in your absurd argument. There aren't four more stars to be found at 2 AU!

Its flawed ... as is also beginning to be revealed by UT4Life's and Han's specific analyses.

Hans is the only individual anywhere to offer a real critique of David's paper. Don't kid yourself.

We'll be hook up shortly with Hans and UT4Life arguments shortly .. and all will be revealed for you .. We are simply coming at it from another angle.

You have a horrible track record of reading minds in my experience.

So far your only defence is an errored criticism of standard math operations .. which is obviously a losing argument.

The whole Obler's paradox argument is a losing argument as demonstrated by the fact that there aren't four more stars to be found at 2 AU, or nine more stars to be found at 3 AU. That is the most childish argument I can even think of.

You see it as a hijack because, I think,you just don't understand how and why abstracted models can reveal testable results (and then go on pass those tests spectacularly).

Pass? They *fail* the brightness test at 2AU and go to hell in a hand basket from there! Epic fail!

I recommend some formal tuition in Physics.

Sorry, but I've seen your track record in the lab with "dark matter" and I prefer empirical physics over make-believe with math.

 

[SelfSim]

The whole Obler's paradox argument is a losing argument as demonstrated by the fact that there aren't four more stars to be found at 2 AU, or nine more stars to be found at 3 AU. That is the most childish argument I can even think of.

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?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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?

Wait, exactly what is he saying - that the universe is not roughly homogenous at large scales? that it is finite? that stars are sparser with distance?

 

[Michael]

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?

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.

I "suppose" this argument made some amount of sense (not entirely) when "space" was thought to be a "vacuum" but it's a dusty, dirty, plasma filled environment. Distance alone precludes the whole sky from being the same brightness everywhere. Toss in a little inelastic scattering, a tiny bit of redshift, and the whole argument falls apart.

It's a cheesy argument.

 

[Michael]

Wait, exactly what is he saying - that the universe is not roughly homogenous at large scales? that it is finite? that stars are sparser with distance?

The fact there's such a massive distance between stars and between galaxies precludes the sky from ever being the same brightness everywhere, even if you didn't include any effect at all from inelastic scattering.

Hubble would never have been able to use Cepheid variable stars to figure out that Andromeda was much further away than any star in our own galaxy if we used Obler's paradox logic. Brightness is function of distance, it's not exactly the same regardless of distance!

 

[sjastro]

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.

I "suppose" this argument made some amount of sense (not entirely) when "space" was thought to be a "vacuum" but it's a dusty, dirty, plasma filled environment. Distance alone precludes the whole sky from being the same brightness everywhere. Toss in a little inelastic scattering, a tiny bit of redshift, and the whole argument falls apart.

It's a cheesy argument.

My goodness given the earliest versions of Obler's paradox go back to the 17th century and your explanation is so ridiculously simple then why hasn't anyone else in 300+ years come up with the same idea?

 

[SelfSim]

It's easily explained as a function of distance, dust and ordinary inelastic scattering. You're making a mountain out of a molehill.

I "suppose" this argument made some amount of sense (not entirely) when "space" was thought to be a "vacuum" but it's a dusty, dirty, plasma filled environment. Distance alone precludes the whole sky from being the same brightness everywhere. Toss in a little inelastic scattering, a tiny bit of redshift, and the whole argument falls apart.

It's a cheesy argument.

No .. its not. If your claims above assume, in any way, any 'truth' derived from any validity of Crawford's arguments, then I'm afraid you've missed the 'take homes' from the criticisms thus far directed at his paper.

Crawford's paper has serious flaws in it which directly undermine his claims. Those claims are (from the abstract):

It is shown that the standard analysis that calibrates the light curve against a rest-frame average (such as SALT2) removes all the cosmological information from the calibrated light curves.

Not so .. because he assumes that the reconstruction of his V(z) from his W(alpha) must be identical to the original V(z). However, the SALT2 template data he's used is not the same data.
On the basis of this particular argument, his above claim is false until he can validate it with further explanation.

Consequently type Ia supernovae calibrated with these methods cannot be used to investigate cosmology. The major evidence that supports the hypothesis of a static universe is that the measurements of the widths of the raw light curves of type Ia supernovae do not show any time dilation. The intrinsic wavelength dependence shown by the SALT2 calibration templates is also consistent with no time dilation. Using a static cosmological model the peak absolute magnitudes of raw type Ia supernovae observations are also independent of red- shift. These results support the hypothesis of a static universe.

Because this claim commences as being a consequence of the false claim above, this particular claim is unjustified.
What's more, many others have found cosmological significance using the method, so Crawford is on his own and is supported only by the original false (as it currently stands) claim.

Also, he hasn't tested his claims (empirically!) in specific supernovae for differences between the relevant bands.

There are also other logical flaws in his paper which require further explanation.

Crawford's 'A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae' paper, as it stands currently, thus has several 'red crosses' and question marks associated with it, therefore a cosmologically expanding redshifted universe, still escapes Crawford's 'wrath' and Olber's paradox is therefore a valid argument against an eternal, static universe.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The fact there's such a massive distance between stars and between galaxies precludes the sky from ever being the same brightness everywhere, even if you didn't include any effect at all from inelastic scattering.

Hubble would never have been able to use Cepheid variable stars to figure out that Andromeda was much further away than any star in our own galaxy if we used Obler's paradox logic. Brightness is function of distance, it's not exactly the same regardless of distance!

Oh good grief - and Olber's paradox is about as simple as it gets...

'Nuff said; I'm out.

 

[Michael]

Oh good grief - and Olber's paradox is about as simple as it gets...

'Nuff said; I'm out.

Wow. I see now why we're still stuck in the 'dark' ages of astronomy. It's very clear that LCDM proponents are simply gullible 'sheeple' who refuse to think for themselves. They'll believe any wacky idea proposed to them apparently without even seriously thinking about the argument being made.

The Obler's paradox claim is not only "simple", it's grossly and irrationally *oversimplified*. The whole concept falls apart right inside our own solar system based on everything we know about light.

Inverse-square law - Wikipedia

A distant light source doesn't retain the same brightness over distance, rather it *fades* with distance based on the inverse square law. If we start at 1 AU, the "brightness" of the sun that we observe on Earth is directly related to the distance as well as the source itself. If we created a second shell at 2AU, and we put another sun at that distance, we would require a sun that was four times as bright as our own sun in order for it to appear as bright to us on Earth as the sun appears to us. If we create a third shell at 3AU, it would require a sun that was *9 times* as bright as our sun for it to appear as bright as our sun at that distance. The distance issue alone combined with the inverse square law prevents the rest of the sky from being as bright as the sun or any closer sun even if there were no inelastic scattering involved at all! For crying out loud! What a lame argument.

The distances involved in space are absolutely mind boggling. The distances between stars in space are *enormous*. There's no way in the universe that the sky would be equally bright everywhere even if no scattering took place in space whatsoever. The distances alone would preclude such a thing from ever happening. The closest suns would always be brighter than the suns at a greater distance.

FYI, every single tired light proposal since Zwicky also *explains* photon redshift in it's own way. LCMD doesn't have the exclusive lock on white light photons being redshifted out of visual range! Get real. Every single tired light proposal that has ever been written would include a mechanism whereby white light photons are redshifted into a lower energy range where they would no longer be visible to our eyes even in a telescope. They'd appear "dark" to us with enough redshift. You guys are just being ridiculous.

If we used your lame logic, Edwin Hubble would never have been able to tell that a Cepheid variable star was located in a distant galaxy because it would have been just as bright as any Cepheid variable in our own galaxy! The whole Obler's paradox argument is just childish and ridiculously oversimplified.

Any amount of inelastic scattering process would *easily* explain why light doesn't even necessarily follow an inverse square law with distance. Light from distant stars could be being absorbed or simply scattered out of our line of sight.

The Obler's paradox argument is a childish joke.

 

[Michael]

No .. its not. If your claims above assume, in any way, any 'truth' derived from any validity of Crawford's arguments, then I'm afraid you've missed the 'take homes' from the criticisms thus far directed at his paper.

I'm still slogging through Han's post and rereading David's paper and the SALT2 paper that David refers to, but the points that Hans raised have nothing to do with your lame Obler's paradox argument. You're still dead wrong about Obler's paradox even if Hans is correct.

Crawford's paper has serious flaws in it which directly undermine his claims. Those claims are (from the abstract):
Not so .. because he assumes that the reconstruction of his V(z) from his W(alpha) must be identical to the original V(z). However, the SALT2 template data he's used is not the same data.

You didn't know anything about that supposed "serious flaw" until Han's pointed it out for us, and again, his argument has *nothing* to do with your lame claim.

On the basis of this particular argument, his above claim is false until he can validate it with further explanation.

Meh. I've been busy at work and I'm not done yet rereading the papers involved so I'll reserve judgement until I've had a chance to read them and fully consider both sides of the argument. I'd also like to hear David respond to the criticisms that Hans has made. You're just "assuming" that David is wrong because that is what you want to believe.

Because this claim commences as being a consequence of the false claim above, this particular claim is unjustified.

I will admit that it does seem to undermine the supposed 'problem' that David is discussing in the current processing methods, but I don't know that it changes the raw data and the fact that it fits very well with a static universe proposal. Frankly I have a lot of reading to do before I can be sure of that side of the issue. SN1A data sets aren't my forte so I have a lot of reading to do.

What's more, many others have found cosmological significance using the method, so Crawford is on his own and is supported only by the original false (as it currently stands) claim.

Ya, and a lot of astronomers believed that the sun's convection predictions were accurate prior to SDO too, but that didn't work out for them over the long haul. If (as David claimed) they're all using the same flawed technique (like your Obler paradox argument), they could easily all be wrong too. Granted, I'm not convinced that David is right on that issue however.

Also, he hasn't tested his claims (empirically!) in specific supernovae for differences between the relevant bands.

You don't really know what David has or has not done and I know from experience that your mind reading skills are not impressive.

There are also other logical flaws in his paper which require further explanation.

Maybe. We'll see if David is able to answer some additional questions at CQ before they cut him off completely. I'll listen to his explanations as he provides them, assuming they don't burn him at the stake first.

Crawford's 'A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae' paper, as it stands currently, thus has several 'red crosses' and question marks associated with it, therefore a cosmologically expanding redshifted universe, still escapes Crawford's 'wrath' and Olber's paradox is therefore a valid argument against an eternal, static universe.

Boloney! Every single tired light proposal ever written explains redshift in some way shape or form as a function of redshift over distance. Visible light is going to be redshifted out of the visible spectrum in *any* tired light scenario. LCDM doesn't have the exclusive lock on redshift/distance. Get over it. Sheesh, you're just being silly at this point.

The fact you even think Obler's paradox is 'reasonable" says volumes IMO. Distance alone precludes light from all parts of space from being equally bright. Obler's paradox is just a lame argument from start to finish and it's falsified by the distances involved and the inverse square law alone!

 

[Michael]

My goodness given the earliest versions of Obler's paradox go back to the 17th century and your explanation is so ridiculously simple then why hasn't anyone else in 300+ years come up with the same idea?

I'm sure they have. In fact every tired light proposal 'predicts' that visible light get's redshifted into a lower energy range over distance. You're simply in pure denial of that point.

They also had no idea of additional galaxies or the distances between stars in the 17th century! For goodness sake. Get real.

 

[Michael]

I want to thank you again Hans for your professional efforts and for critiquing David's paper as you did.

I really don't know very much about SN1A data sets, or SALT2. I had no idea how to go about tackling David's paper, but you've given us plenty to think about and your analysis is a great place to begin to look at his paper critically. I was hoping that the CQ conversations would also give me some insights and some idea of where to begin to analyze this paper, but alas that didn't happen. I really appreciate your input in this thread, and your very professional critique of David's paper. Thank you very much.

 

[Michael]

Is the universe static - Page 4

Originally Posted by Davd
Since time is running out for this thread and many of the contributions have been outside the scope of my paper (Open Astron 2017:26:111-119, arXiv:1711.11237) I would like to recapitulate the major result.

No. You've been warned repeatedly to answer questions and you've done an exceedingly poor job of it so far. If you continue in this manner, you risk another infraction and this thread being closed.

Oh for crying out loud! What a draconian rule system and what pitiful and unscientific attitude. There's only so many hours in a day and most of the questions that have been asked of David have been completely *off topic*!

Yep, the burn the heretic mentality is still alive and well on CQ. Cosmoquest demonstrates and embodies everything that is wrong with astronomy today. That draconian attitude explains why we're still stuck in the dark ages of astronomy, reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the vast majority of the universe instead of having real scientific answers.

It looks like David's thread won't even make it a full month before they "ban all dissent". Nobody besides David seems to care one iota that most of the questions that are being asked of David are completely off topic.

Instead of engaging in a friendly honest scientific discussion at CQ, they turn every debate into a Spanish Inquisition routine. "Burn the witch"! Gah. How childish.

 

[SelfSim]

Oh for crying out loud! What a draconian rule system and what pitiful and unscientific attitude. There's only so many hours in a day and most of the questions that have been asked of David have been completely *off topic*!

Yep, the burn the heretic mentality is still alive and well on CQ. Cosmoquest demonstrates and embodies everything that is wrong with astronomy today. That draconian attitude explains why we're still stuck in the dark ages of astronomy, reduced to using placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the vast majority of the universe instead of having real scientific answers.

It looks like David's thread won't even make it a full month before they "ban all dissent". Nobody besides David seems to care one iota that most of the questions that are being asked of David are completely off topic.

Instead of engaging in a friendly honest scientific discussion at CQ, they turn every debate into a Spanish Inquisition routine. "Burn the witch"! Gah. How childish.

And whilst you rant, 'Reality Check' and 'UT4Life' have raised serious data and logic flaws underpinning Crawford's analysis (see post #123 onwards).

Whilst Peter's Creek moderation may have seemed tough, it certainly appears to have stimulated Davd into finally responding to UT4Life's questions which he asked way back in post#89, (some 4 days ago, now).

The conversation is definitely now getting towards the quality we'd expect from someone reporting such an astounding finding (whereas it wasn't happening before).

 

[SelfSim]

.. I was hoping that the CQ conversations would also give me some insights and some idea of where to begin to analyze this paper, but alas that didn't happen

Err ... it would have, had Davd answered UT4Life's original queries. Davd unfortunately, ignored them for 4 days.

 

[sjastro]

I'm sure they have. In fact every tired light proposal 'predicts' that visible light get's redshifted into a lower energy range over distance. You're simply in pure denial of that point.

And who might they be.
Not only is Olber's paradox beyond your level of comprehension, your position is made even more absurd given the subject of this thread, David Crawford a tired light enthusiast has commented on Olber's paradox at CF and in his paper on Curvature Cosmology.
I suggest you read his comments and see if they are compatible with your nonsense.

 

[Michael]

And whilst you rant, 'Reality Check' and 'UT4Life' have raised serious data and logic flaws underpinning Crawford's analysis (see post #123 onwards).

Asking questions about David's paper (or asking off topic questions) isn't the same as what Hans did for us in this thread in terms of describing actual perceived "flaws" in the actual materials. You're just editorializing.

Whilst Peter's Creek moderation may have seemed tough, it certainly appears to have stimulated Davd into finally responding to UT4Life's questions which he asked way back in post#89, (some 4 days ago, now).

Your mind-reading skills related to "motive" have *never* been accurate in my case, so why do you keep engaging in such silly nonsense? David has spent quite a bit of time answering *many* questions from many individuals and I haven't seen him avoid any specific questions. Most folks have a real life and they don't necessarily have the time or the interest in responding to every post every single day. Get real.

The conversation is definitely now getting towards the quality we'd expect from someone reporting such an astounding finding (whereas it wasn't happening before).

It seems to improving a bit in the past few days, but I still think Hans has offered a more direct and fair "criticism' of the work. Hans obviously spent time critiquing the paper itself, unlike most of the participants at CQ. UT4Life seems to be making a concerted effort to deal with the actual material, but he's/she's the rare exception at CQ. Many of the questions have just been *ridiculously* off topic, including your Obler's paradox nonsense.

 

[Michael]

Err ... it would have, had Davd answered UT4Life's original queries. Davd unfortunately, ignored them for 4 days.

God forbid that David should have a real life. Oy Vey. Do you simply "assume" that when I take a break from the boards for a few days, or I'm away from a computer for a few days that I'm "ignoring" you too?

I do give UT4Life some credit in the sense that he's asking valid questions about the actual material in the paper, not just tossing out unrelated questions like most folks at CQ. He is however the rare exception. It's also noteworthy that not a single moderator has asked a valid question to date, but their hostility level is already off scale. Witch hunts are never logical or rational.

 

[Michael]

And who might they be.

They would be pretty much everyone who's proposed a redshift mechanism that doesn't involve expansion, including David.

Not only is Olber's paradox beyond your level of comprehension,

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.

your position is made even more absurd given the subject of this thread, David Crawford a tired light enthusiast has commented on Olber's paradox at CF and in his paper on Curvature Cosmology.
I suggest you read his comments and see if they are compatible with your nonsense.

They're certainly compatible with a static universe theory and a cause of redshift that is unrelated to expansion. Everyone has a favorite explanation as to why redshift/distance is observed. They aren't all the same of course, but they all have the same net effect as it relates to your Obler's paradox nonsense. Visible light is consistently shifted to lower wavelengths in pretty much every static universe/tired light model. David's redshift model is not unique and it's no different in that respect.

The absurd part of your Obler's paradox argument is the fact that the vast distances between stars alone would preclude the whole sky from achieving the same level of brightness. Even worse, *any* amount of very *ordinary* scattering processes blows your whole claim right out of the water. That's why you couldn't and didn't deal with any of the real world complications related to scattering.

The next nearest stars are found in Alpha Centauri, at a distance of 4.2+ light years away from Earth rather than 1AU. Based on the inverse square laws, those three stars *combined* would be *billions* of times less bright than our own sun at such distances, and they are our *closest* neighbors! The whole Obler's paradox argument is oversimplified nonsense in any *real* world/universe scenario.

The fact that you two think that ridiculously lame argument is somehow an insurmountable problem for a static universe theory says volumes about your lack of knowledge of alternative cosmology modes. You obviously haven't read any static universe alternatives or you would already know better, and you'd already know that Obler's paradox is not a serious threat to any static universe theory. Every static static universe theory includes some explanation of redshift over distance, and any such explanation will almost certainly necessitate visible light being redshifted to lower wavelengths.

Obler's paradox is irrelevant oversimplified nonsense and it's a flawed argument to start with. The whole sky could *never* be the same level of brightness in every direction regardless of the cause of redshift. The vast distances involved and the inverse square features of light would *prevent* the whole sky from ever being the same brightness. What a stupid argument against a static universe model. I can't believe you're both still stuck in the 17th century!