Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 192

Thread: Is the universe static

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    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.
    Of course the observations are not new. What is new is the explanation of how the characteristics of the light curve vary with redshift.

  2. #62
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    The evidence is from the supernovae light curves and is shown by regressions and figures 2 & 3.
    You need evidence from other sources.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    You also need pressure and density to get atoms to collide to from enough material.
    Of course my model for the universe is a very high temperature (2X10^9 K) plasma with a density of about 2 H atoms per cubic metre. It has density and pressure.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    533
    David, there are some advantages of a static universe, e.g. the perfect cosmological principle.

    However as you know the mainstream view is the Big Bang cosmology which has explanations for:

    1) Background radiation of temperature approx. 2.7K
    2) Abundances of the elements
    3) Redshift with distance

    So would you explain please, without links, (a quick simple sentence or two for each is fine to start with), how your high temperature plasma (Curvature Cosmology) accounts for each of 1-3) Also, has the plasma been detected? If not, why not?

    P.S. There is a way such a plasma might be produced, by the reduction in the strength of gravity for dense objects leading to lots of mini-bangs, hence foamlike large scale structure. Details if you're interested can be sent. Your email in the paper isn't valid, perhaps you could put a correct email here, or repost to arXiv, as you might be missing out on lots of discussion of your paper.
    Last edited by john hunter; 2018-Jan-04 at 11:29 AM.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,126
    Davd, I am still waiting for some answers to my direct questions. Bumped from previous 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:	43 
Size:	218.4 KB 
ID:	22873

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,961
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Davd, I am still waiting for some answers to my direct questions. Bumped from previous 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:	43 
Size:	218.4 KB 
ID:	22873

    Davd, I strongly advise you to answerhornblower's questions!
    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

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    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.
    Attachment 22868
    The essence of David’s argument can be found in his paper in figure 2 and in figure 3:

    Supernova type Ia light curves are well defined: It is the progress of the explosion from first light to peak brightness, usually about 10 to 15 days, then a rapid fade from the peak, normally fading one magnitude in 15 days then dimming more gradually over a period of several months. The shape of the curve is known, so that even though we general only observe the event no more than once a day, a the collection of a half dozen or so events over a few weeks allows the complete light curve to be constructed from points collected near the peak and during a few weeks of fading.

    Supernova events near us are used to construct ‘rest frame’ light curves. These templates are then compared with the dotes collected during a new event, and the magnitude of the new event is estimated from the best light curve fit.

    For cosmic light curves at redshifted distances, researchers normally correct for time dilation by shorten the time between the collected data points by a relativistic time dilation factor (1+z)^-1. So a light curve at a redshift of two is rescaled on the x-axis by a factor of ½. There is also a magnitude correction for time dilation, but since the magnitude of supernova events are considered distant standard, it is the distance to the event that is adjusted, not the magnitude. (Any error in the way the distance is calculated translates into an error in the size of the universe.)

    In David’s paper, Figure 2 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. David is arguing that it is unreal to accept the red line as the normalizing standard in cosmology when natural events fail to follow it – they are not even close.

    There is no reason to look at the statistical significance of David ‘s plot: The events we have observed have failed to follow the ‘red line’ so dramatically 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.

    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 in the calculation of the intensity, the absolute magnitude appears to be decreasing dramatically if not absurdly as we look back into the time frame of these cosmic events.

    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.
    “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

  8. #68
    There is other evidence that the universe expands, such as cepheids, surface brightness and infrared brightness.

    Also what is the evidence that there is a plasma of temperature 2X 109.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    The Space Coast
    Posts
    4,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    The essence of David’s argument can be found in his paper in figure 2 and in figure 3
    It is good of you to try and answer Hornblower's question about what definition of "width" David's talking about. Except you are not David and he hasn't answered the question himself, as is proper and as is required by the rules of the forum as I understand them (sorry, mods).

    CJSF
    "Find a way to show what would happen
    If you were incorrect
    A fact is just a fantasy
    Unless it can be checked
    Make a test
    Test it out"
    -They Might Be Giants, "Put It To The Test"


    lonelybirder.org

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    8,961
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    It is good of you to try and answer Hornblower's question about what definition of "width" David's talking about. Except you are not David and he hasn't answered the question himself, as is proper and as is required by the rules of the forum as I understand them (sorry, mods).

    CJSF

    Indeed, you are right about that, and Jerry should not answer questions for Davd.

    Also you should not play moderator but use the /!\ button
    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

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,396
    All

    There are a lot of questionable posts in this thread. There are entirely too many people who are not the OP, who are making statements, either arguing for or against the mainstream. Thisi is ATM, not a general discussion thread. And there are people who are playing moderator and should know that they shouldn't. This will all stop.

    If you are not the OP, you should be asking the OP relevant questions, and nothing else. And the OP needs to answer those. If you have other concerns, do not post them yourself - report the post.

    Any further violations and we will starting dishing out infractions.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,635
    Quote Originally Posted by CJSF View Post
    It is good of you to try and answer Hornblower's question about what definition of "width" David's talking about. Except you are not David and he hasn't answered the question himself, as is proper and as is required by the rules of the forum as I understand them (sorry, mods).

    CJSF
    Supernovae in a cosmological setting is a very difficult topic to dress-down to an entry level physical knowledge.

    Light curve templating, time dilation corrections and the general reduction of supernova analytical data are beyond the descriptive scope of any reasonable thread - readers need to take some information as given unless they are willing to spend hours reading the papers where these techniques were developed.

    I was not answering a question as much as explaining the general reduction process. As I said, researcher in the field have no difficulty understanding the data David is presenting in the paper - but they all have a foundation in supernova research. We do have a few experts on the board, and I hope they will weigh in. 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 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.)
    Last edited by Jerry; 2018-Jan-04 at 10:36 PM. Reason: Added parenthetical
    “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

  13. #73
    I done the measuring of stars using iris photometry and taken a course on iraf photometry and how to analyze the images. Plus I have a textbook that at least was used for teaching astronomy to undergrads and have tried to explain you cannot just use one source of data, you really need multiple sets of data to verify your findings. That is all I really have say, if I get any infraction points on this so be it personally I find Davds and jerrys attitude really rude during this entire conversation.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,396
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Supernovae in a cosmological setting is a very difficult topic to dress-down to an entry level physical knowledge.

    Light curve templating, time dilation corrections and the general reduction of supernova analytical data are beyond the descriptive scope of any reasonable thread - readers need to take some information as given unless they are willing to spend hours reading the papers where these techniques were developed.

    I was not answering a question as much as explaining the general reduction process. As I said, researcher in the field have no difficulty understanding the data David is presenting in the paper - but they all have a foundation in supernova research. We do have a few experts on the board, and I hope they will weigh in. 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 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.)
    tusenfem and I both just said to knock off the general and/or inappropriate discussion and you respond with this. Maybe a couple of infraction points will make it clearer.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    47,396
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    I done the measuring of stars using iris photometry and taken a course on iraf photometry and how to analyze the images. Plus I have a textbook that at least was used for teaching astronomy to undergrads and have tried to explain you cannot just use one source of data, you really need multiple sets of data to verify your findings. That is all I really have say, if I get any infraction points on this so be it personally I find Davds and jerrys attitude really rude during this entire conversation.
    And, as we always say, if you type "this is probably going to get an infraction", you are almost certainly correct.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  16. #76
    I apologize for my out burst.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Falls Church, VA (near Washington, DC)
    Posts
    8,126
    Another bump, with some additional remarks. Some people appear to think this topic cannot be "dumbed down" for entry level answer seekers. I disagree. Of course the real world work at cosmological distances requires advanced schooling and training because of the difficulty in teasing signals out of the noise and getting good raw light curves. However, we can do a thought exercise in which all SNe objects have identical light curves and the instruments of our dreams give us raw curves just as clean as for nearby objects such as Tycho's and Kepler's supernovae or S Andromedae. We can compare these curves visually without having to do the statistical error and uncertainty handling, and we should be able to do this in a way that a college freshman astronomy student, or perhaps someone even younger, can comprehend in a scientifically meaningful way. Can you do this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Davd, I am still waiting for some answers to my direct questions. Bumped from previous 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:	43 
Size:	218.4 KB 
ID:	22873

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    3,806
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    Of course my model for the universe is a very high temperature (2X10^9 K) plasma with a density of about 2 H atoms per cubic metre. It has density and pressure.
    The air around me also has density and pressure but no fusion ! Astronomers know about fusion and have concluded that it does not happen in inter-galactic plasma because it needs both high temperature and high pressure. So formal questions to answer.
    IF01: Cite your sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2X10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre.
    IF02: Cite the standard nuclear physics equations that you plugged those values into and the rate of fusion into D, Li, etc. that resulted?
    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.
    Last edited by Reality Check; 2018-Jan-07 at 10:46 PM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    512
    Late to this party, sorry.

    Question for the OP: you write, in the arXiv document, “This fitting was done using the reference light curve provided by Goldhaber et al. [10]”. As I read that paper, there are three reference light curves; if so, which did you use?

    Second question: you write “Then the two scale parameters [...] were determined for each filter.” As I read the Goldhaber+ (2001) paper, there are three “scale factors”, not counting the \sigma s ... why did you use only two?

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by john hunter View Post
    David, there are some advantages of a static universe, e.g. the perfect cosmological principle.

    However as you know the mainstream view is the Big Bang cosmology which has explanations for:

    1) Background radiation of temperature approx. 2.7K
    2) Abundances of the elements
    3) Redshift with distance

    So would you explain please, without links, (a quick simple sentence or two for each is fine to start with), how your high temperature plasma (Curvature Cosmology) accounts for each of 1-3) Also, has the plasma been detected? If not, why not?

    P.S. There is a way such a plasma might be produced, by the reduction in the strength of gravity for dense objects leading to lots of mini-bangs, hence foamlike large scale structure. Details if you're interested can be sent. Your email in the paper isn't valid, perhaps you could put a correct email here, or repost to arXiv, as you might be missing out on lots of discussion of your paper.
    (1) In my static model the microwave background radiation is do to radiation vir curvature redshift (i.e. an interaction with curves space time ) of the high energy electrons. The predicted temperature is approximately 3.2K.
    (2) The overall element abundance is that for a plasma at 2.6X10^9 K and at a density of 2.6X10^(-27) kg.m^-3.. I do not have a theoretical prediction. Can anyone help.
    (3)The distance modulus is given by equation (12).
    My email is dcrawfrd@bigpond.net.au

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    You need evidence from other sources.
    Why? This paper is only concerned with the distribution of type Ia supernovae determined from their redshifts and light curves.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
    The air around me also has density and pressure but no fusion ! Astronomers know about fusion and have concluded that it does not happen in inter-galactic plasma because it needs both high temperature and high pressure. So formal questions to answer.
    IF01: Cite your sources for an inter-galactic plasma with 2X10^9 K and about 2 H atoms per cubic metre.
    IF02: Cite the standard nuclear physics equations that you plugged those values into and the rate of fusion into D, Li, etc. that resulted?
    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.
    All these questions are outside the range of my current paper and are described in arXiv 0901.4169
    The observational evidence for this hot plasma is the background x_ray radiation.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    There is other evidence that the universe expands, such as cepheids, surface brightness and infrared brightness.

    Also what is the evidence that there is a plasma of temperature 2X 109.
    The X-ray background radiation from about 20 kev to 300 kev.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by Hornblower View Post
    Another bump, with some additional remarks. Some people appear to think this topic cannot be "dumbed down" for entry level answer seekers. I disagree. Of course the real world work at cosmological distances requires advanced schooling and training because of the difficulty in teasing signals out of the noise and getting good raw light curves. However, we can do a thought exercise in which all SNe objects have identical light curves and the instruments of our dreams give us raw curves just as clean as for nearby objects such as Tycho's and Kepler's supernovae or S Andromedae. We can compare these curves visually without having to do the statistical error and uncertainty handling, and we should be able to do this in a way that a college freshman astronomy student, or perhaps someone even younger, can comprehend in a scientifically meaningful way. Can you do this?
    You must understand that this paper is only about how the widths of the light curves vary with redshift. Obviously you wish to use the most precise method you can. However the critical requirements are that the method must proved a width that is independent of redshift. The actual value of the reference width or indeed the precise shape of the light curve is of secondary importance. As I have said the widths shown in table (2) were determined by fitting the raw data to a template.

  25. #85
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    Why? This paper is only concerned with the distribution of type Ia supernovae determined from their redshifts and light curves.
    Then you cannot rule out the expansion of the universe because there is other evidence to back it up.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  26. #86
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd View Post
    The X-ray background radiation from about 20 kev to 300 kev.
    Most of those sources are things like black holes, neutron stars and quasars.
    From the wilderness to the cosmos.
    http://davidsuniverse.wordpress.com/

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    Then you cannot rule out the expansion of the universe because there is other evidence to back it up.
    I have already discussed nearly all the other evidence in arXiv 0901.4169 and earlier papers. The evidence for expansion is mainly derived from the microwave background radiation which is a construct of the expansion hypothesis. The main reason why the supernovae observation are so important is that they are by far the best direct evidence for time dilation. Apart from gamma ray bursts i do not know of any other observations that provide direct evidence of time dilation.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2017
    Posts
    61
    Quote Originally Posted by astrotimer View Post
    Most of those sources are things like black holes, neutron stars and quasars.
    Not in the energy range quoted. Point sources produce most of the low energy and very high energy X-rays.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    10
    So I’ve read most of the paper and I have some serious problems with it. As far as I can ascertain what you are trying to do is do SN-1a accounting for the fact that at higher redshift you sample lower rest-frame wavelengths, this comes up both when studying with widths and also the magnitudes.


    “It is clear that having computed W(alpha) the reconstruction of say, V (z), from W(alpha) must be identical to the original V (z).”

    I don’t think that’s clear at all. First off (for SALT) the templates are developed using local supernovae so it’s not the same data. It is also trained on spectroscopic data not just photometry, so again it is not just the same data going in twice. Secondly the intrinsic width is calculated from many supernovae, not a single one, it’s not an inversion of the same process. It doesn’t follow that you would get the same answer back. SALT is also a model, not just some inversion of the data. I think this is the crux of your argument and you haven’t given sufficient justification. Your claim that the template is just based on the data it will be applied to is false.

    If what you say was true then analyses using this method would have found nothing, and yet they claim to detect cosmological information.

    Secondly the bigger point is the from this point on you just ignore the idea that the observed width is sensitive to the observed wavelength. You claim that that SALT will eliminate cosmological information (you haven’t shown this) but then you just forget what they were trying to do. You claim that SALT can’t work, so then you go forward making absolutely no correction at all. That is illogical. You don’t even attempt to test in individual supernovae if there is a systematic difference between bands.


    “For each filter the asymptotic value of the absolute magnitude at zero red shift (shown in Table 2 as M0) minus M0 was used to provide a common reference which was subtracted from each of the observed absolute magnitudes.”

    I think this is the point at which you can no longer claim to be testing standard cosmology any more. These SN are redshifted, this is known. Therefore at higher redshifts a filter probes bluer wavelengths in the rest frame spectrum. Even in your static model if all SN-1a were the same, they would still appear fainter at higher redshift. For this reason you cannot compute real absolute magnitudes without applying K corrections which try to take this effect out. Otherwise your just comparing apples to oranges and pretending you don’t know better.


    As it stands today I don't buy it. The fundamental logic of the paper is unsound, you try to claim the applied corrections are bad and therefore you just apply none at all. The other major problem is that your argument against the SALT method is weak, and relies on a false claim and questionable logic. If you want people to take this seriously you would need to get in to the actual mechanics of how the SALT model is trained on the data, a claim is not enough you would need to demonstrate the method does delete cosmological information. But even then it would not be justification to do whatever you want with the data.
    Last edited by UT4Life; 2018-Jan-15 at 05:38 PM. Reason: Replaced some broken symbols

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    3,056
    Hi Davd;
    Whilst I notice whilst you tend to lean towards excluding broader cosmological questions in this thread, (on the basis of them being beyond your paper's immediate scope), they nonetheless still appear as being used in your Type 1a analysis and paper. For instance you say:
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd
    Section 3.4 Type Ia supernovae magnitudes:
    The analysis for magnitudes is more complicated than that for widths in that a distance modulus derived from a cosmological model must be used in order to obtain the absolute magnitudes. For the static cosmological model the distance modulus (equation 10) for curvature cosmology is used here because it shows excellent results from quasar observations.
    Your curvature cosmology is also used in your 'Observational evidence favors a static universe' paper as the basis for dismissing Olber's paradox in a (curvature cosmology) finite universe:
    Quote Originally Posted by Davd
    7.2 Olber’s Paradox:
    For CC, Olber’s Paradox is not a problem. Curvature redshift is sufficient to move distant starlight out of the visible band. Visible light from distant galaxies is shifted into the infrared where it is no longer seen. Of course, with a finite universe, there is the problem of conservation of energy and why we are not saturated with very low frequency radiation produced by curvature redshift. These low-energy photons are eventually absorbed by the cosmic plasma. Everything is recycled. The plasma radiates energy into the microwave background radiation and into X-rays. The galaxies develop from the cosmic plasma and pass through their normal evolution. Eventually all their material is returned to the cosmic plasma. Note that very little, if any, is locked up into black holes. Curvature pressure causes most of the material from highly compact objects to be returned to the surrounding region as high-velocity jets.
    Unfortunately Olber's paradox cannot be easily dismissed in a static finite universe where the age is left unstated, as you seemed to have done (and yet your Type 1a analysis relies on your Cuvature Cosmology, as shown above).

    Thus, can you please state the age you are assuming?

Posting Permissions

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