A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[SelfSim]

Reality Check's questions in post#123 and then explicitly in post#127 are real corkers!:

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.

!!!!

 

[SelfSim]

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).

 

[Michael]

Reality Check's questions in post#123 and then explicitly in post#127 are real corkers!:
!!!!

What?!? Pure speculation, rhetorical questions, and questions that have already been answered do not constitute a 'real corker'. RC answered his own rhetorical IF06, and David already answered IF04:

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.

Question IF05 is completely *off topic* because it's not in any way related to David's paper in the first place!

Gah! You're definitely not paying attention if you think those particular questions are "real corkers".

 

[Michael]

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.

Obler's paradox is explained in *every* tired light model of redshift.

• The Hubble Law - the linear distance vs redshift law. The data are now very good.

And they're also consistent with tired light models which is why Hubble himself wrote about them.

• Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special.

Ah, but our location in *time* is *very* special in LCDM, whereas it's not special at all in any static universe model. The universe is *not* homogeneous as the hemispheric variations in the Planck data demonstrates.

• Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.

It's only "the same", *after* they filtered out anything and everything that doesn't fit that model. If we look at the *raw* microwave images our own galaxy sticks out like sore thumb! The universe has a gamma ray background that is pretty consistent too if you filter out our own sun and our own galaxy and galaxy cluster too. So what?

• Time dilation in supernova light curves.

That point is being debated in David's paper, and even various tired light models typically predict some amount of signal broadening over distance which could easily be mistaken for 'time dilation'.

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.

Oh Please! The size of the supermassive black hole that drive distant quasars *defies* your models which is why you folks have to dream up all sorts of exotic nonsense to explain them.

Biggest Thing in Universe Found—Defies Scientific Theory

LCDM has *major* problems with Quasars.

• Existence of the blackbody CMB. This shows that the Universe has evolved from a dense, isothermal state.

Eddington nailed the average temperature of spacetime to within 1/2 of one degree on his first attempt based on *scattering of starlight*. It took big bangers three or four tries to get any closer than Eddington.

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

Variation of TCMB with redshift. This is a direct observation of the evolution of the Universe.

Well-behaved, Young Galaxy Surprises Astronomers

More high redshift data *contradicts* the notion of "evolution" than actually supports it.

• Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances. These light isotopes are all well fit by predicted reactions occurring in the First Three Minutes.

Pfft. Only if you include exotic forms of matter in the mix and your dark matter models have been a *massive* failure in the lab.

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".

Same answer as above. LCDM fudges that "fit' with 95 percent magical forms of matter and energy. Without either one of them, the LCDM model *bombs* those same observations.

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).

Pure nonsense. The fact of the matter is that LCDM relies upon 95 percent *placeholder terms for human ignorance*. It offers no real "explanations". It also requires that the standard particle physics model, the most *tested and successful model in physics* has to be wrong. That's what LCDM is up against.

Almost *any* cosmology model that doesn't require magical forms of matter and energy would be "better than" LCDM. Any model that agrees with the standard particle physics model is also superior to LCDM.

 

[sjastro]

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

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.

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.

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?

 

[Michael]

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 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.

I have addressed these issues and I am not going to repeat myself.

Boloney. You haven't addressed any of them.

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.

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 are the one with the comprehension issues

Pure projection.

and the usual chip on the shoulder,

Nope, I'm not personally attacking you in every post the way you do to me. You're clearly projecting again.

and frankly you are starting to bore me and probably the majority with your repetition.

Ditto.

The rest of your post is also repetitious, ignorant, insulting and not worth a response.

More projection.

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?

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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 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's question may be subtlely different, but your over-generalisation in your Post#125 response to my question, justifies his above question:

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.

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.

 

[SelfSim]

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]

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.

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.

 

[Michael]

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?)

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?

 

[Michael]

I haven't forgotten you Hans. I've been busy at work this week but I intend to spend some time on David's paper and your post this weekend.

 

[SelfSim]

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.

...

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]

...
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(?).

I beg your pardon? At most, the first post is a call for *self* censorship. It simply advocates "honest exchanges" about the *topics* of the threads rather than pointless discussions about *people*. As my high school Principal used to say: "Freedom is our reward for self discipline."

There are no "honest" conversations going on at CQ, nor are such open and direct exchanges even possible on that particular website. The ATM forum at CQ is a Spanish Inquisition routine. David will be forced into silence in another week at best case. Assuming he survives the threats and beatings (infractions) for another week, he better shut up about his paper forever at CQ after they close his thread, otherwise he will be virtually lynched. That's not an honest exchange of ideas.

 

[sjastro]

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.

“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.

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.

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.

The concept of the Tolman test where surface brightness is independent of distance is easy to understand yet a variation of this concept involving integrated brightness and distance as explained in the Wiki article on Olber’s paradox was beyond your comprehension.

Your failure to grasp this ridiculously simple concept resulting in this comical tirade against Olber’s paradox and anyone who agrees with it is classic DK stuff.

 

[SelfSim]

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).

 

[sjastro]

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).

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???
And he doesn't apply k-corrections to the filtered photometric data????

I'm afraid the case against him is very strong.

 

[SelfSim]

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 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.
And then he (apparently) doesn't apply k-corrections.

The challenge has been put to him to apply them, and then see what effect that has.

I'm afraid the case against him is very strong.

It would seem so ..

 

[Michael]

“In other words” if the maths is beyond your intellectual capacity of comprehension then lie about it by claiming it is wrong or oversimplified.

No, apparently the *physics* of light is *way* beyond your personal capacity of comprehension so you just don't "get it". FYI, the human eye is *not* at all the same as a long exposure CCD image or a long exposure photograph where the photons can be "added together" over long periods of time. The human eye doesn't allow you to "add together" photons over say a 10 day time frame to "see" objects the way a long exposure deep field Hubble image can do. There were no cameras or long exposure images when Obler proposed his nonsensical and irrational "paradox". The camera wasn't even invented for another 50+ years!

I'd try to explain it to you, but why bother? You don't even grasp the most basic aspects of light, namely the inverse square law and why it would preclude the whole sky from being the same brightness to the human eye under *any* real universe circumstance, even if absolutely no scattering at all took place in space.

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 such a probability has absolutely *nothing* to do with the 'beginning of time' in a static universe experiencing scattering and experiencing the inverse square law. The scattering process and the inverse square law would dictate the maximums, not the age of a potentially eternal universe. You're so lost it's beyond my capacity to save you from your own ignorance apparently.

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.

Nah, it simply demonstrates that you know absolutely nothing about the *physics* related to the inverse square law or the the physics of scattering in a static and potentially eternal universe. The age of the universe is *utterly irrelevant* in such a scenario.

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.

This only demonstrates that you have no idea what your talking about because there's a distinct difference between a long exposure image and what the human eye can see and what the human brain can process.

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.

Oy vey. You're so confused its not even funny and now you're irrationally mixing and matching various ideas that you clearly don't even begin to understand in terms of the *physics* involved. There were no "cameras" or long exposure CCD images when Obler talked about his "paradox" nonsense.

I'm not even going to bother going down the Tolman test rabbit hole with you if you can't even comprehend the importance of the inverse square law and the impact of long exposure images on various unrelated (to Obler's paradox) tests. It would be like trying to discuss the finer points of quantum mechanics with my cat.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

 

[Michael]

Irrelevant.

It's *absolutely not* irrelevant! Take a look at the history of the Hubble Deep Field image. They picked/selected a relatively "dark" area of a *short duration* Hubble image, and pointed Hubble at that very same dark region for something on the order of 9 or 10 days in order to collect enough photons for any galaxies to be observable in those dark regions of a shorter duration image of the same spot!

Oy Vey. No wonder we're stuck in the dark ages of astronomy. The fact you folks think the inverse square law and distance is irrelevant is simply unbelievable.

The human eye isn't 100 percent efficient at seeing all photons to start with, and you may not "see" one from a distant galaxy for *hours if not days*!

Wow! Just wow.

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

That's hardly surprising considering my rejection of almost everything that passes for "cosmology theory" these days.

If the human eye was 100 percent efficient, and there was absolutely *no* scattering taking place in space, the sky would still have all sorts of brighter and darker regions if only due to the *distances* and the inverse square law. It's only by pointing Hubble at the very same region of space for *days* that those distant galaxies are able to be "seen" at all, and it's only because they're adding photons over time in a way that the human eye and human brain could *never* do. Obler didn't have access to anything even remotely like that type of technology, but based on your claims and his claims he should have been able to see those distant galaxies in a deep field Hubble image with his naked eye just as brightly as he saw our own sun. That's pure nonsense.

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

Well, assuming things slow down at work, I'll pick out his errors for you too.

Suffice to say that there's no possible way that the whole sky ever could be the same brightness everywhere to the human eye. It would require that every light source be exactly the same intensity at exactly the same distance for that to occur. Obler's clams were nonsensical from the day they were first proposed.

I'm in the minority as it relates to my lack of belief in inflation, space expansion, dark energy, and exotic forms of matter, so why would it bother me that I'm in the minority position as it relates to the scientific legitimacy over cheesy cosmology claims that were made in the early 1800's, a full 50 years before a camera was even invented?

How in the world can you tell me that the inverse square law is "irrelevant" to what we observe with our naked eyes? By your logic a flashlight from across a large lake would be exactly the same brightness as if you stuck it up next to your eyeball. That's just silly.