4 ms·
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
by 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.
- pfdietz 5y agoThe point of SALT2 was better models for calculating the brightness of SN, so their distance could be calculated. This is necessary for detecting subtle changes in the expansion rate of the universe. Killing tired light doesn't require any of this. What the paper I cited did was plot the redshift vs. the rise and fall times of the light curves. This doesn't depend at all on the overall brightness of the SN. There is no need to estimate this brightness. In tired light, the result curve will be flat; in the standard cosmology it will not be. And the observations were inconsistent with tired light at 10 standard deviations, killing the theory. The SALT2 stuff you're pointing to is indeed a total red herring. I get the feeling you're just pretending to understand all this stuff you're pointing to, for some reason.
- sahil50 5y agoCrawford addresses what you're saying in this paper. https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237 https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237
- sahil50 5y agoConsidering all the redshift data we have, galactic recession does not fit. Rough calculations https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0gar1pEt2xsA9cfF9EOy511G8w https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1HI61-pDIzzSItw48K0ga... Data from https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/ https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/