4 ms·

What if I could rebut all the rebuttals? - The analysis of supernovae light curves is calibrated in a way that presumes galactic recession. More detail here ht

What if I could rebut all the rebuttals? - The analysis of supernovae light curves is calibrated in a way that presumes galactic recession. More detail here https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237. - The 2.7 K cosmic background radiation is consistent with non-expansionary, non-big-bang models. Cosmic temperature was predicted 50 years before Penzias and Wilson. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Ti https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background#Ti... - The mechanism for photon energy loss (can we call this "photon hubbling"?) is not scattering by free electrons. I speculate it is the cost of traveling, of a photon forging its way through spacetime. E_t / E_0 = e^(-Ht). In the act of moving, the photon is warping spacetime. It doesn't travel for free.

jakear 5y ago
Please don’t repeat the same comment over and over, it comes off as spam even though that’s not what you intended. This doesn’t even address this particular parent’s question. Better would be to make the comment once, where it is most appropriate, then give specific responses to other threads, perhaps linking to the one comment if it’s relevant.
pfdietz 5y ago
The supernova light curve data is red shift vs. timescale of the light curve. This doesn't make any assumption about galactic recession. And it's incompatible with tired light models. No, the CMBR is not consistent with non-expansionary models. Tired light may get the shape of the CMBR spectrum right, but it fails to get the intensity right unless there's an extreme coincidence that we just happen to be living at exactly the right moment. This was all explained in the page you think you were rebutting, so please go re-read it, this time for comprehension.
- sahil50 5y ago
  I await your commentary on the SALT2 calibration mechanism. This is the point where bias is introduced. The supernovae light curve data was biased before any analysis made.
  - pfdietz 5y ago
    This doesn't appear anywhere in the link from the link I provided for the SN light curves. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382 https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
    - sahil50 5y ago
      Thanks for linking. So this paper is from 2001. Whereas SALT2 is from 2007. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2007/16/aa6930-06.pdf https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2007/16/aa6930-06.pdf This 2001 paper uses a correction template that I think is a v1 of what SALT2 is. SALT2 probably is an "improvement" on this template, so I think by identifying a problem in SALT2, I have adequate (but not 100%) reason to think this template introduces the same bias.
      - pfdietz 5y ago
        The current work on SN cosmology is making subtle measurements to try to determine difficult to measure properties of the expansion of the universe, using SN at high red shift. Tired light is easily killed without all that, using data available decades ago, at z < 1. And this doesn't require estimation of the absolute luminosity of the SN.
        sahil50 5y ago
        Why are you bringing up something else? Awaiting your commentary on the big 3 rebuttals of tired light, and the rebuttals of those rebuttals.
        gliptic 5y ago
        It's you bringing up something else. SALT2 is a red-herring.
        sahil50 5y ago
        Now that's false. The point is that the data calibration mechanism introduces bias before any analysis has been made. The data is calibrated to assume galactic recession. That's the problem.

jakear 5y ago

Please don’t repeat the same comment over and over, it comes off as spam even though that’s not what you intended. This doesn’t even address this particular parent’s question. Better would be to make the comment once, where it is most appropriate, then give specific responses to other threads, perhaps linking to the one comment if it’s relevant.

pfdietz 5y ago

The supernova light curve data is red shift vs. timescale of the light curve. This doesn't make any assumption about galactic recession. And it's incompatible with tired light models. No, the CMBR is not consistent with non-expansionary models. Tired light may get the shape of the CMBR spectrum right, but it fails to get the intensity right unless there's an extreme coincidence that we just happen to be living at exactly the right moment. This was all explained in the page you think you were rebutting, so please go re-read it, this time for comprehension.

sahil50 5y ago
I await your commentary on the SALT2 calibration mechanism. This is the point where bias is introduced. The supernovae light curve data was biased before any analysis made.
- pfdietz 5y ago
  This doesn't appear anywhere in the link from the link I provided for the SN light curves. https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382 https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0104382
  - sahil50 5y ago
    Thanks for linking. So this paper is from 2001. Whereas SALT2 is from 2007. https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2007/16/aa6930-06.pdf https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2007/16/aa6930-06.pdf This 2001 paper uses a correction template that I think is a v1 of what SALT2 is. SALT2 probably is an "improvement" on this template, so I think by identifying a problem in SALT2, I have adequate (but not 100%) reason to think this template introduces the same bias.
    - pfdietz 5y ago
      The current work on SN cosmology is making subtle measurements to try to determine difficult to measure properties of the expansion of the universe, using SN at high red shift. Tired light is easily killed without all that, using data available decades ago, at z < 1. And this doesn't require estimation of the absolute luminosity of the SN.
      - sahil50 5y ago
        Why are you bringing up something else? Awaiting your commentary on the big 3 rebuttals of tired light, and the rebuttals of those rebuttals.
        gliptic 5y ago
        It's you bringing up something else. SALT2 is a red-herring.
        sahil50 5y ago
        Now that's false. The point is that the data calibration mechanism introduces bias before any analysis has been made. The data is calibrated to assume galactic recession. That's the problem.