Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 100

Thread: Is the universe static

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,774
    Some additional comments for the benefit of other readers: Davd appears to be of the opinion that mainstream researchers are misreading the light curves of distant supernovae as time-dilated as a result of neglecting to correct properly for some sort of wavelength-related characteristic of the light curves. I cannot understand the writing in the paper as is, and I am taking it one small step at a time in a quest to make sure he and I are on the same page when it comes to terminology and mathematics.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    The underlying reason Davd is arguing this is that the universe is not expanding and is static therefore no big bang.

    My argument is that you need something to verify that the there is no movement. That no matter where you measure the supernovae from still is moving the amount my vary from where you measure it but you can find out how fast the galaxy is accelerating from all observers. There are other methods of measuring the acceleration cepheids and now neutron star collisions. We do know what cause supernovae 1a and we can easily use them as candles.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova

    The linklk for 1a supernova is here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
    I'm not a hardnosed mainstreamer; I just like the observations, theories, predictions, and results to match.

    "Mainstream isn’t a faith system. It is a verified body of work that must be taken into account if you wish to add to that body of work, or if you want to change the conclusions of that body of work." - korjik

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    The underlying reason Davd is arguing this is that the universe is not expanding and is static therefore no big bang.

    My argument is that you need something to verify that the there is no movement. That no matter where you measure the supernovae from still is moving the amount my vary from where you measure it but you can find out how fast the galaxy is accelerating from all observers. There are other methods of measuring the acceleration cepheids and now neutron star collisions. We do know what cause supernovae 1a and we can easily use them as candles.
    You appear to be rather confused about cosmology. If the universe is expanding distant objects must show time dilation. Although cosmological expansion is not the same as the Doppler effect the results are similar. Consider a supernova , at one time who observe a rising light curve, Say,30 days later you observe a falling light curve. During those 30 days the object has moved further away due to the Hubble "expansion". Clearly the observed time for the same points on the light curve will be further apart for distant objects. This is time dilation. An expanding universe MUST show time dilation. I have shown in the paper (figure 2) that type Ia supernovae do not have time dilation.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    If it is a genuine absolute velocity all observers. knowing their own velocity, should agree on its direction and speed
    Relative to what?

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Can you show us, please, how you obained your template and how you made your comparisons.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Can you show us, please, how you obained your template and how you made your comparisons.
    It is all fully described in the paper (Section 2) with full references to the template and precise method.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    To answer some of these questions I need to explain what is a type Ia supernovae. The current model is that it is a white dwarf that had been accreeting matter from a companion star. When the its mass reaches about 1.4 solar mass (the Chandreskar limit) it collapses. This is followed by a very violent expansion. The observed light is produced by this expanding gas and its rapid rise is due to the increasing size of the gas cloud. After about 20 days the cloud starts to become transparent and the intensity starts to decline for about 30 days. The mechanism is poorly understood and there is no theoretical model for the light curve. However it has been observed that all the nearby type Ia supernovae appear to identical light curves. The important characteristics are the peak magnitude (which can exceed that of the parent galaxy) and the width. These are simply the scaling parameters and are measured by comparing the observed values with a template. In other words peak intensities and widths are relative to the template. In my paper the important characteristics are their variation with redshift. Note that as with almost everyone I assume that all type Ia supernovae are the same independent of redshift. The only effects of cosmology is change the peak magnitude and the width.
    A major problem with observing the light curve is that the intensity of the light is very dependent on the observed wavelength. Think of it a being a multicoloured object that varies in color and intensity with time. Since due to redshift the observed wavelength is longer than the emitted wavelength there are major problems in calibrating the observations of a particular supernovae. This what the SALT2 method is all about.

    If you want a full description of why "tired light" has been rejected see Ned Wrights's website but the critical objection is that since it is an energy loss mechanism it must be because the photons are interacting with some particle such as electrons. But in doing this they must be scattered which means that very distant objects will be blurred and they are not. In this paper I am not concerned about this problem but in previous papers I have suggested that the energy loss could be due to an interaction with curved spacetime in which there is no scattering.
    You are assuming that 'tired ligh' is correct. That assumptipn makes this ATM invalid. I suggest that before proceding any further, you demonstrate 'tired ligh'.

    A house built on sand will not stand.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    You are assuming that 'tired ligh' is correct. That assumptipn makes this ATM invalid. I suggest that before proceding any further, you demonstrate 'tired ligh'.

    A house built on sand will not stand.
    Whether ot not "tired light: is possible is not relevant to my paper. However it could be a later complication later on. The simple question is that the paper argues that there is no time dilation for type Ia supernovae and that current analysis of their light curves is invalid. If my arguments are correct then the universe must be static in the sense of not having time dilation at large redshifts. No one, so far, has shown that my arguments are wrong!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    You appear to be rather confused about cosmology. If the universe is expanding distant objects must show time dilation. Although cosmological expansion is not the same as the Doppler effect the results are similar. Consider a supernova , at one time who observe a rising light curve, Say,30 days later you observe a falling light curve. During those 30 days the object has moved further away due to the Hubble "expansion". Clearly the observed time for the same points on the light curve will be further apart for distant objects. This is time dilation. An expanding universe MUST show time dilation. I have shown in the paper (figure 2) that type Ia supernovae do not have time dilation.
    If by falling red curve you mean RED SHIFTED that is what astronomers call it because the light appears to be more and more red due to the Doppler shifting.
    Sir I think you are the one that does not cosmology.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  11. #41
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    Sorry for getting a little hot headed but before you state someone has a problem the standard model maybe you should learn itself. You probably are a very smart person in your field but you need more evidence to prove theory and you have not presented it. Do you have any other observations to back up your theory?
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  12. #42
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    Did you find any variance depending on the distance of the galaxy and the supernovae were in by doing the measurements your way? In other words were they all same the distance away.
    Last edited by astrotimer; 2018-Jan-03 at 02:35 AM.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    Did you find any variance depending on the distance of the galaxy the supernovae were in by doing the measurements your way? In other words were they all the distance away.
    Word missing?

  14. #44
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    yes and and same, i'll fix.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  15. #45
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    Here in the graph below shows many different ways of determining the relation between distance and how fast the galaxy is moving away from us.
    http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/cartwright...hst-hubble.jpg

    your model just has your measurements and nothing else to verify your data.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    Although the abundance of the elements is outside the scope of this paper I have discussed it in arXiv 1009.0853 (NB it is 100 pages) where the inter-galactic plasma has a temperature of about 2X10^9 K where nuclear reactions can occur.
    I don'i disagree with Blondin is just that in a static universe the properties of the light curve are independent of redshift and visa versa.
    Are you referencing a 100 page paper that you wrote?

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Are you referencing a 100 page paper that you wrote?
    Yes

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    7,774
    Bump: Includes direct questions for Davd.
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Lots of words, but not a satisfactory clarification in my opinion. Let me repeat my first question. Am I correct in assuming the "width" of the light curve is the elapsed time between two key intensity levels as the supernova evolves? If not, please give us a detailed definition, in appropriate mathematical detail.
    Addendum: You are just going to have to bear with me. I am giving you every benefit of the doubt, presuming that you are using terminology and mathematical error-handling methods that are well understood by professional researchers who are studying supernovae in the outer reaches of the observable universe. I am not familiar with all of the terminology, and I had only rudimentary experience in the statistical stuff 50 years ago as an undergraduate physics major. I think I am fairly typical of those who frequent this forum. I just need to approach your paper with baby steps, one step at a time. For starters I would like to see some light curves of typical nearby supernovae, where cosmological redshift is not an issue, along with a concise explanation of what you mean by the width of the light curves. Then we can move on to the possible booby traps we might encounter with more remote, redshifted examples.
    Let's back up my previous post with a sketch of the light curve of a hypothetical supernova. This is a raw photometric graph of the intensity as a function of the times of the observations. I have put x marks on the curve at the points where the intensity was half the peak value. Please tell me how you are defining "width", and what the width of this one is in terms of the time on the horizontal axis.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	Supernova light curve 1.jpg 
Views:	3 
Size:	218.4 KB 
ID:	22869

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    Yes
    Has it been widely referenced by mainstrem scientists?

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by John Mendenhall View Post
    Has it been widely referenced by mainstrem scientists?
    In this case, a link would help.

    edit: to the paper, of course.
    Last edited by John Mendenhall; 2018-Jan-03 at 03:57 AM.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,632
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    I have tried reading that paper, and I have a hard time trying to figure out just what you are saying technically. It makes me think of two possibilities:

    1. Written for colleagues who understand writing language that includes jargon known and understood by advanced researchers in this field but not necessarily by general audiences.

    2. Creative doubletalk designed to dazzle novices.

    Let's hope it is #1. In my opinion we need to go paragraph by paragraph, with some sketches to illustrate just what you are talking about at each step. I cannot dope it out from the graphs and equations around the middle of the paper. You need to show us how the raw light curves are typically obtained for these faint objects, and walk us through the potential booby traps in language that can be understood by ordinary readers of this forum. If it is not explainable without resorting to mathematical techniques beyond what can reasonably be expected of most of us, it is pointless to argue your case in a forum like this.
    The essence of David’s argument can be found in figure 2 and in figure 3:

    Figure two plots the light curve widths of supernova (type 1a) as they explode over time. David has used a templating process just like researchers in the field, but without correction for time dilation. What he has plotted is the light curve widths in multiple wavelengths verses time. Notice that they are almost, but not quite, normally distributed about the x-axis, which is what you would expect to see if there was a small selection effects towards brighter events with increasing distance. But this is NOT the normal distribution one expects to see if redshifted space is also corrected for relativistic effects – this is the red line in David’s plot. If supernova events are consistent over time, the light curve widths should be normally distributed about the red line in David’s plot.

    I have plotted a distribution curve for supernova based upon the magnitude lost in 15 days, which is inversely correlated with light curve width, and concluded the same thing: light curves are normally distributed if you do not correct the width for time dilation, but they appear to be absurdly smaller with increasing distance after correcting for time dilation.

    There is no reason to look at the statistical significance of David ‘s plot: The ‘red line’ expected by the current cosmology so utterly fails to follow the observational data that it is obvious there is a gross error in the way supernova are analyzed. Cosmologists such as Ned Wright are completely aware of this phenomenon, and to the best of my knowledge they are still trying to understand it. I am surprised the trend has been so constant.

    Figure three is a plot of the calculated absolute magnitude of supernova events when their light curve widths are correlated with local events. Here again it is clear that without the time dilation included in the magnitude calculation, the distant supernova events have very near the same average intensity as local events, but when time dilation is included the absolute magnitude appears to be decreasing dramatically if not absurdly.

    Again, these are not new observations, just an extension of the ‘weirdness’ of supernova data that has persisted for two decades. A similar trend is apparent in gamma ray burst data, but it is currently to widely scattered to draw hard conclusions.
    Last edited by Jerry; 2018-Jan-03 at 05:41 AM.
    “It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.” ― Arthur Conan Doyle, Sherlock Holmes

  22. #52
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    Again any evidence to support your claims?
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    645
    Well

    1009.0853 is this paper titled
    DECOMPOSITIONS OF MEASURES ON PSEUDO EFFECT
    ALGEBRAS

    14pp

    Can't be that one that Davd is referring to.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    7,905
    I have a feeling this argument is a not even wrong one.
    ...I'm still free, you can't take the sky from me.
    You cannot run away from the truth, the world is not big enough. DI Jack Frost
    Don't Panic THGTTG
    Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. Einstein
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,783
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    It is all fully described in the paper (Section 2) with full references to the template and precise method.

    As was mentioned before, the rules of ATM demand that you explain in clear text the questions that are put to you, here on CQ and not in an outside pdf link.
    Please answer the questions fully, this is a last warning.
    All comments made in red are moderator comments. Please, read the rules of the forum here and read the additional rules for ATM, and for conspiracy theories. If you think a post is inappropriate, don't comment on it in thread but report it using the /!\ button in the lower left corner of each message. But most of all, have fun!

    Catch me on twitter: @tusenfem
    Catch Rosetta Plasma Consortium on twitter: @Rosetta_RPC

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    431
    David, it would be better for the readers if you could describe your ideas without links.

    Your paper says that there is an intrinsic wavelength dependence of approx. (lambda)^0.2 , whereas in Lambda CDM the dependence is lambda^1.2. Is there any theory or reason why it should be the lower power?

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    Each supernovae has its own unique distance that is measured by the redshift in the spectral lines.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    The evidence is from the supernovae light curves and is shown by regressions and figures 2 & 3.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    The correct reference is arXiv: 1009.0953

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    33
    The light curve is a function of intensity verses time (in days) and is not a function of redshift. All points from one supernovae have the same redshift, that of the supernovae.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •