Merged: Why the James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Silly comment. Either the universe is expanding or it isn't. The supernova data say it is. Regardless of whether it is accelerated expansion or not, it shows it to be expanding. That is what you need to deal with, instead of making irrelevant comparisons that do not address the observations. They aren't going away just because they are inconvenient or you.

Either the universe is expanding or it isn't.

The SN1a data didn't match the expanding universe. So the expansion of the universe was changed to match it.

If you consider that a win, that's great. Have a cookie.

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The SN1a data didn't match the expanding universe. So the expansion of the universe was changed to match it.

Yes it did. It showed that it was not only expanding, but doing so in an accelerated fashion. And that accelerated expansion is also supported by other evidence, as noted. I think you need to learn what the word 'expansion' means. It means getting bigger. Not shrinking. Not being static.

If you think the supernova data shows anything other than expansion, then you are living in a fantasy world. We can be sure of one thing - none of the evidence supports a static universe. In fact, it is ruled out to such significance that nobody is even bothering with such models anymore. At least, not in the peer-reviewed literature. You might find some crackpots on youtube who believe such things, but they are also the type of people that believe the Earth is flat, or that it was created < 10 000 years ago, or that EM effects can move charge neutral stars around a galaxy. Et cetera.

When the opposition is only coming from such quarters, we can be sure that there really is no opposition worth considering. And no evidence to consider.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Yes it did. It showed that it was not only expanding, but doing so in an accelerated fashion. And that accelerated expansion is also supported by other evidence, as noted. I think you need to learn what the word 'expansion' means. It means getting bigger. Not shrinking. Not being static.

If you think the supernova data shows anything other than expansion, then you are living in a fantasy world. We can be sure of one thing - none of the evidence supports a static universe. In fact, it is ruled out to such significance that nobody is even bothering with such models anymore. At least, not in the peer-reviewed literature. You might find some crackpots on youtube who believe such things, but they are also the type of people that believe the Earth is flat, or that it was created < 10 000 years ago, or that EM effects can move charge neutral stars around a galaxy. Et cetera.

When the opposition is only coming from such quarters, we can be sure that there really is no opposition worth considering. And no evidence to consider.

The SN data says that they are time dilated due to the expansion of space.

Now that we can see literally billions of high z galaxies, we should be able to find some SN in those, and they should last for months, or years, right?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The SN data says that they are time dilated due to the expansion of space.

Now that we can see literally billions of high z galaxies, we should be able to find some SN in those, and they should last for months, or years, right?

I don't know that JWST has supernovae observation as a priority. And it is not as if the supernovae data are the only evidence on which an accelerated universe is built.


https://www.inverse.com/science/the-...irst-supernova

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Either the universe is expanding or it isn't.

The SN1a data didn't match the expanding universe.

Yes it did.

It didn't match the expansion rate calculated by other means. But it absolutely matched an expanding universe. You can't explain it without an expanding universe.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I said it desyncs.

This is no different than saying, "magic".

And it won't work. You can't desync clocks that are stationary relative to each other in a static universe. You need to either move them, or you need to have the universe changing over time. There is no other possible way to desynchronize them.

And you won't do either. Your entire goal is to have them stationary and have the universe static.

Quote:

There's no reason, and no evidence, clocks 1 billion light years away are in sync with ours.

You think otherwise? Prove it.

Why would I try to prove otherwise? They aren't in sync. That's my entire point. But you're so clueless you didn't even notice, because you don't understand the implications of desynchronization. The fact that they aren't in sync requires relative motion or a changing universe (or both). But those are two things you are rejecting. You keep demanding contradictory things, and you don't even realize that they're contradictory because you don't understand any of it. Even after all this time, it still eludes you.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Yes it did.

It didn't match the expansion rate calculated by other means. But it absolutely matched an expanding universe. You can't explain it without an expanding universe.

They just added dark energy for the fun of it, because it matched so well?

Yeah, right.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

The fact that they aren't in sync requires relative motion or a changing universe (or both). But those are two things you are rejecting.

Or a new principle altogether. EM interactions should be limited to Hubble's length at the quantum level.

[steenkh]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Do you have any examples of me making the claim you say I have?

I question dark energy, and inflation, though they could be true.

Dark matter has a whole other body of evidence.

I am sorry. I must have misread something at some point. You are right: I probably cannot find anywhere where you claim that dark matter does not exist.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Or a new principle altogether. EM interactions should be limited to Hubble's length at the quantum level.

No. Not every law of physics is possible. What you are proposing is not possible. It breaks self- consistency. This isn't a matter of something we haven't discovered yet. It's that you are throwing basic logic out the window, and you don't even realize it.

You are simply wrong. How many times do I have to tell you?

[jonesdave116]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

They just added dark energy for the fun of it, because it matched so well?

Yeah, right.

Nope, it was a placeholder, and it makes predictions. Such as the ISW effect, as observed. And the BAO observations, as observed. That is how science works.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

What you are proposing is not possible. It breaks self- consistency.

How does making the range over which electrons can exchange photons finite break self-consistency?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

How does making the range over which electrons can exchange photons finite break self-consistency?

You haven't made that range finite. It remains infinite.

You really don't understand how to construct a theory. You're treating this stuff as if every piece is independent, and they aren't. They connect together, and those connections all have to work simultaneously.

[Crossbow]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. Not every law of physics is possible. What you are proposing is not possible. It breaks self- consistency. This isn't a matter of something we haven't discovered yet. It's that you are throwing basic logic out the window, and you don't even realize it.

You are simply wrong. How many times do I have to tell you?

If I may chime in here, ...

Considering that 'Mike Helland' has consistently failed to understand much of any of that you, or any of the several other posters who have made good efforts to educate him, then I am sure that you tell him infinity^infinity number of times how wrong he is, and yet he would still continue to be wrong.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You haven't made that range finite. It remains infinite.

If a photon's distance is d = z/(1+z) c/H₀, then d approaches c/H₀ as z approaches infinity.

That's a finite distance.

Quote:

You really don't understand how to construct a theory. You're treating this stuff as if every piece is independent, and they aren't. They connect together, and those connections all have to work simultaneously.

In QED, can the distance at which two electrons exchange a photon be arbitrary? Can it be infinite? Do the photons ever redshift?

It seems to me, that's not consistent with the observational evidence.

So let's postulate the distance a photon travels in QED is d = z/(1+z) c/H₀.

Is there something about QED specifically that requires the electromagnetic force to work over an infinite range?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If a photon's distance is d = z/(1+z) c/H₀, then d approaches c/H₀ as z approaches infinity.

That's a finite distance.

Again, that doesn't work. You can't redshift without scattering (observations disprove) or clock desyncing. Your clocks don't desynch. So your theory is internally inconsistent, and therefore obviously wrong.

So no, you haven't made it finite distance.

Quote:

So let's postulate the distance a photon travels in QED is d = z/(1+z) c/H₀.

Again, you can't just redshift out of nowhere. ANY possible mechanism of redshift must do one of those two things. This is a logical requirement, there isn't any way around it.

Quote:

Is there something about QED specifically that requires the electromagnetic force to work over an infinite range?

Possibly not. But you can't make it finite range without other consequences, and you haven't dealt with any of those other consequences. Your theory, as it currently stands, is simply wrong. That's not in doubt. There is no possibility that it could be right.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your clocks don't desynch. So your theory is internally inconsistent, and therefore obviously wrong.

Where does it say that's necessary within the framework of quantum electrodynamics?

How many clocks do you think are in QED?

What we're talking about here is an unexpected feature of a photon in between two cosmologically separated electrons.

It loses energy. That's an observed fact.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Where does it say that's necessary within the framework of quantum electrodynamics?

Nowhere. Because nobody except you needs it spelled out. Everyone else can put two and two together. Your idea isn’t actually new. It’s decades old, it’s called tired light, and it fails.

You are way, way out of your depth here.

Quote:

What we're talking about here is an unexpected feature of a photon in between two cosmologically separated electrons.

Doesn’t matter. The logical requirement of self-consistency prohibits the addition of just any old “feature”, including your proposed one.

Quote:

It loses energy. That's an observed fact.

Absolutely. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

But only certain explanations can account for that observation. Yours isn’t among them.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Nowhere. Because nobody except you needs it spelled out. Everyone else can put two and two together. Your idea isn’t actually new. It’s decades old, it’s called tired light, and it fails.

Two and two together?

QM and FLRW?

Everyone can do that?

How many clocks are in QED?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Everyone can do that?

Everyone who needs to.

Quote:

How many clocks are in QED?

Potentially an infinite number. Why do you think this question is even relevant?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Potentially an infinite number. Why do you think this question is even relevant?

https://www.quantamagazine.org/quant...blem-20161201/

Quote:

Theoretical physicists striving to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity into an all-encompassing theory of quantum gravity face what’s called the “problem of time.”

In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute; its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles. But in general relativity (Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical, a dimension that’s inextricably interwoven with directions x, y and z into a four-dimensional “space-time” fabric. The fabric warps under the weight of matter, causing nearby stuff to fall toward it (this is gravity), and slowing the passage of time relative to clocks far away. Or hop in a rocket and use fuel rather than gravity to accelerate through space, and time dilates; you age less than someone who stayed at home.

Unifying quantum mechanics and general relativity requires reconciling their absolute and relative notions of time

[Ziggurat]

That has **** all to do with red shifts or your explanation for them. It's also purely speculative, and likely not even an accurate representation of those speculations.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

That has **** all to do with red shifts or your explanation for them. It's also purely speculative, and likely not even an accurate representation of those speculations.

There's just one universal clock in QED.

By your logic, QED cannot explain redshifts because the idea of clocks desyncing is nonsense in that framework.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

There's just one universal clock in QED.

First off, you confuse time with clocks. Subtle but important difference. Second, you are wrong about time as well. QED is necessarily relativistic. Relativity was born from electrodynamics, so any theory of electromagnetism should be relativistic. And QED is explicitly relativistic. It’s not compatible with general relativity (but problems only crop up at the Planck scale), but it was built from the ground up to include special relativity, where time is relative.

You keep revealing that you have no clue about any of the stuff you talk about.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

QED is necessarily relativistic. Relativity was born from electrodynamics, so any theory of electromagnetism should be relativistic.

Yet it took until 1947 for a relativistic theory to come about.

Quote:

And QED is explicitly relativistic.

Sure.

But how does that explicitly work?

Photons traveling at c don't have "clocks" or at least they are frozen.

How do the virtual photons traveling above c experience time? Is it going backwards?

Are the electrons and the like all considered to be observers with their own clocks?

Because I've never seen another observer in a Feynman diagram.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Yet it took until 1947 for a relativistic theory to come about.

How is that relevant?

And I'm not going to try to teach you QED. There's no point. It would take you literally years of study to get ready to start learning QED, assuming you even could make it that far.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How is that relevant?

And I'm not going to try to teach you QED. There's no point. It would take you literally years of study to get ready to start learning QED, assuming you even could make it that far.

Ok.

Let's make it simpler, let's take a z=1 galaxy.

There are three ways to talk about its distance:

Quote:

Then, by using independently measured numbers like the Hubble parameter, they can infer (1) how far away the galaxy was when it emitted the light we see now, (2) how far it now lies from Earth, and (3) how far the light traveled in the interim.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...ion-years-ago/

Which one do we use in Coulomb's law? (1), (2), or (3)?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Ok.

Let's make it simpler, let's take a z=1 galaxy.

There are three ways to talk about its distance:



https://skyandtelescope.org/astronom...ion-years-ago/

Which one do we use in Coulomb's law? (1), (2), or (3)?

2. Gauss' law.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

2. Gauss' law.

So (2) is where the galaxy is now, comoving distance. For a z=11 galaxy that's 30 billion light years.

https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...rameter+%3D+74

Are you sure 30 billion ly is the right number to plug in?

Since Coulomb's law is like dividing by a spherical surface area, you think the radius of the sphere is 30 billion light years?

The lookback time for this galaxy is 12.7 billion years, so (3) is 12.7 billion years * c, or 12.7 Gly.

And then there's (1), which I suppose you calculate using (3) and (2) to determine the scale factor?

Quote:

However, because of the expansion of the universe, the distance of 2.66 billion light-years between GN-z11 and the Milky Way at the time when the light was emitted increased by a factor of (z+1)=12.1 to a distance of 32.2 billion light-years during the 13.4 billion years it has taken the light to reach us.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GN-z11

So:

(1) = 2.66 Gly
(2) = 32.2 Gly
(3) = 13.4 Gly

Using (1) would be using a sphere with a radius of the galaxies' distance when the light was emitted.

Using (2) would be a sphere with a radius of the galaxies' distance now.

And (3) would be a sphere with a radius in between.

        S*-         O
       S *---        O
      S  *-----       O
     S   *-------      O
    S    *----------    O
   S     *---------------O

(1) the distance between S (source) and O (observer) at the beginning.

(2) is the distance between S and O at the end.

(3) is, in my mind, the distance the light actually traveled. If it had a fit bit on, counting its steps, not concerned with where O started or S ended up.

[Ziggurat]

Light does not follow Coulomb's law, which is for static fields.

As I keep having to tell you, you really don't understand what you're talking about.

ETA to elaborate: the field strength of light falls off as 1/r. The energy density falls off as the square of field strength. That isn't Coulomb's law.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Light does not follow Coulomb's law, which is for static fields.

As I keep having to tell you, you really don't understand what you're talking about.

ETA to elaborate: the field strength of light falls off as 1/r. The energy density falls off as the square of field strength. That isn't Coulomb's law.

Coulomb's law is about the force between electric charges.

So if two electrons have a repulsive force, then that would be somewhat related to the exchange of a photon for electrons to repel in QED, if not very related.

You could just do:

F = (K q1 q2 / r2) * 1 / (1 + z)

Or you could make K a function of redshift, rather than a constant.

In the standard redshift distance relation,

d = cz / H0

cz = dH0

z = dH0 / c

In my inverted version of the redshift distance relation:

d = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1) * c/H0

dH0 / c = -(1 / (1 + z) - 1)

dH0 / c = -1 / (1 + z) + 1

-1 + dH0 / c = -1 / (1 + z)

1 - dH0 / c = 1 / (1 + z)

c / c - dH0 / c = 1 / (1 + z)

(c - dH0) / c = 1 / (1 + z)

c / (c - dH0) = 1 + z

z = c / (c - dH0) - 1

z = c / (c - dH0) - (c - dH0) / (c - dH0)

z = c - (c - dH0) / (c - dH0)

z = (c - c + dH0) / (c - dH0)

z = dH0 / (c - dH0)

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Coulomb's law is about the force between electric charges.

No. It’s about static electric fields. It doesn’t apply to non static electromagnetic fields. It does not describe the force between charges if that force isn’t from a static field, as it is for photons.

Quote:

So if two electrons have a repulsive force, then that would be somewhat related to the exchange of a photon for electrons to repel in QED, if not very related.

In the sense that you can construct a static field from photons via Fourier transform, sure. But one photon still doesn’t obey Coulomb’s law, and the QED picture isn’t really about a single photon either. As I already pointed out, spherical photon fields fall off as 1/r, not 1/r².

Quote:

You could just do:

F = (K q1 q2 / r2) * 1 / (1 + z)

Or you could make K a function of redshift, rather than a constant.

You could, but that would be unjustified. You pulled that out of your ass with zero justification.

You don’t understand any of what you’re talking about.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. It’s about static electric fields. It doesn’t apply to non static electromagnetic fields. It does not describe the force between charges if that force isn’t from a static field, as it is for photons.

Um, ok.

But wouldn't you calculate the forces on charges based on the field which is based on their positions in the field, then update their positions for some time step which makes a new field to be applied for the next time step?

Quote:

You could, but that would be unjustified. You pulled that out of your ass with zero justification.

It's motivated by the empirical observation that the energy delivered by a photon decreases as its distance traveled reaches cosmological scales.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Um, ok.

But wouldn't you calculate the forces on charges based on the field which is based on their positions in the field, then update their positions for some time step which makes a new field to be applied for the next time step?

You are describing a numerical integration technique to approximate a solution to the differential equations, but sure. But the field you use isn’t the Coulomb field unless you’re talking about a static electric field. A dynamic electromagnetic field does NOT obey Coulomb’s law. In the example of, say, a dipole radiation field, it falls off as 1/r, NOT 1/r². So why would you expect it to behave like a Coulomb field? Why would you expect what happens to a Coulomb field to tell you what happens to a field that doesn’t behave like a Coulomb field?

Quote:

It's motivated by the empirical observation that the energy delivered by a photon decreases as its distance traveled reaches cosmological scales.

That’s not good enough.

You are out of your depth, Mike. You don’t even know enough to know what it is that you don’t know.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You are out of your depth, Mike. You don’t even know enough to know what it is that you don’t know.

I know quantifying redshift and the redshift/distance relationship as :

1 + z = Eemit / Eobs

d = zc / H0

is only approximately accurate when z << 1. Both z and d go up to infinity.

On the other hand, the negative-blueshift/distance relationship:

1 + b = Eobs / Eemit

d = -bc / H0

b can only go down to -1, and d can only go up to c/H₀.

And since:

1 + b = 1 / (1 + z)

b = 1 / (1 + z) - 1

b = -z / (1 + z)
-b = z / (1 + z)

d = -bc / H0

d = z / (1 + z) * c / H0

Which is a much better approximation of the consensus model at all z's.

If you divide both sides by c, you get a formula for light travel time:

t = z / (1 + z) * 1 / H0

Which is the same equation for lookback time in an "empty" FLRW universe (page 3, equation 5):

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9306002

How do you interpret that? Pure coincidence?

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I know quantifying redshift and the redshift/distance relationship as :

1 + z = Eemit / Eobs

d = zc / H0

is only approximately accurate when z << 1. Both z and d go up to infinity.

On the other hand, the negative-blueshift/distance relationship:

1 + b = Eobs / Eemit

d = -bc / H0

b can only go down to -1, and d can only go up to c/H₀.

Nonsense.

As b converges toward -1, z increases without bound. (Colloquially, z converges toward infinity.) And vice versa: As z increases without bound, b converges toward -1.

According to what I highlighted in light blue: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d also increases without bound.

Bu according to what I highlighted in light green: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d is bounded by c/H₀.

In short: You are contradicting yourself.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If you divide both sides by c, you get a formula for light travel time:

t = z / (1 + z) * 1 / H0

Which is the same equation for lookback time in an "empty" FLRW universe (page 3, equation 5):

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9306002

How do you interpret that? Pure coincidence?

In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = Ω_M = Ω_R = Ω_Λ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.

Indeed, the preprint cited by Mike Helland explicitly notes that equation (5) holds only for an empty universe with negative curvature (ETA: and zero cosmological constant). What's more, the fact that Ω < 1 implies negative curvature is noted at the very top of the page 3 that contains equation (5) at its bottom:

Originally Posted by Kevin Krisciunas

If the vacuum energy density of the universe is zero (i.e. if Einstein’s cos-
mological constant Λ = 0), Ω < 1 implies a universe with negative curvature
which will expand forever;

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Nonsense.

As b converges toward -1, z increases without bound. (Colloquially, z converges toward infinity.) And vice versa: As z increases without bound, b converges toward -1.

According to what I highlighted in light blue: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d also increases without bound.

Bu according to what I highlighted in light green: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d is bounded by c/H₀.

In short: You are contradicting yourself.

You almost got it.

d = zc / H0

And:

d = -bc / H0

Are different equations.

In the first one, z and d increase without bound.

In the second one, b converges toward -1, and d converges toward c/H₀.

Since -b ≠ z, the equations are not interchangeable, and they have different consequences for d.

Quote:

In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = Ω_M = Ω_R = Ω_Λ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.

The observations you speak of are extrapolated from measurements of the CMB. They only apply if the assumptions we've made about the CMB are true, and there are a few reasons to doubt that they are.

Quote:

Indeed, the preprint cited by Mike Helland explicitly notes that equation (5) holds only for an empty universe with negative curvature (ETA: and zero cosmological constant). What's more, the fact that Ω < 1 implies negative curvature is noted at the very top of the page 3 that contains equation (5) at its bottom:

You keep mentioning that like it is news. I brought it to your attention.

In FLRW, if you don't add any matter or energy, you get maximal negative curvature, "pure expansion" if you will.

When you add matter, the gravity from our galaxy is going to pull every other galaxy in the universe toward us. Even if they're 10 billion light years away.

But that makes for too young of a universe and doesn't fit the supernovae data. So repulsive dark energy is added.

How much? Enough to counteract the gravitational attraction due to matter, making it approximately what the empty, pure expansion universe was to begin with.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Nonsense.

As b converges toward -1, z increases without bound. (Colloquially, z converges toward infinity.) And vice versa: As z increases without bound, b converges toward -1.

According to what I highlighted in light blue: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d also increases without bound.

Bu according to what I highlighted in light green: As z increases without bound (and b converges toward -1), d is bounded by c/H₀.

In short: You are contradicting yourself.

You almost got it.

d = zc / H0

And:

d = -bc / H0

Are different equations.

In the first one, z and d increase without bound.

In the second one, b converges toward -1, and d converges toward c/H₀.

Since -b ≠ z, the equations are not interchangeable, and they have different consequences for d.

Repeating your nonsense does not convert your nonsense into sense.

According to your own equations that state the definitions of z and b, those two quantities are related by

z = (1 / (1 + b)) - 1 = − b/(b+1)

and

b = (1 / (1 + z)) - 1 = − z/(z+1)

(Deriving those two equations from your defining equations involves a smidgen of high school algebra, so your failure to recognize those relationships is no surprise to anyone who's been following this thread.)

Plugging the first of those relationships into your first equation for d yields

d = z c / H₀ = [− b/(b+1)] c / H₀

which tells us d increases without bound as b converges to -1, contrary to your claim I highlighted in green.

(To recognize that fact involves concepts that are taught within the first week of a calculus course, so your failure to recognize that fact is no surprise to anyone who's been following this thread.)

Plugging the second of those relationships into your second equation for d yields

d = − b c / H₀ = − [− z/(z+1)] c / H₀ = [z/(z+1)] c / H₀

which tells us d is bounded by c / H₀ as z increases without bound, contrary to your claim I highlighted in blue.

You are contradicting yourself, and you don't realize you are contradicting yourself even after your self-contradiction has been explained to you.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Quote:

In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = Ω_M = Ω_R = Ω_Λ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.

The observations you speak of are extrapolated from measurements of the CMB.

Almost true, but you wrote "extrapolated" when the correct word would be "obtained" or "derived". That's why I wrote "a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation." Are you unaware that measurements of the CMB count as observations? Are you unaware that conclusions obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to such measurements also count as observations?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

They only apply if the assumptions we've made about the CMB are true, and there are a few reasons to doubt that they are.

What you are saying is that Helland physics requires us to reject observations obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to measurements of the CMB.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Quote:

Indeed, the preprint cited by Mike Helland explicitly notes that equation (5) holds only for an empty universe with negative curvature (ETA: and zero cosmological constant). What's more, the fact that Ω < 1 implies negative curvature is noted at the very top of the page 3 that contains equation (5) at its bottom:

You keep mentioning that like it is news. I brought it to your attention.

Actually, it was I who pointed out to you that your notion of an empty universe implies a large degree of negative curvature, hundreds of times larger than would be consistent with observation. At the time, you seemed to express surprise and/or disbelief.

The archives of this thread preserve that history. Need I dig up the relevant posts?

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

You are contradicting yourself, and you don't realize you are contradicting yourself even after your self-contradiction has been explained to you.

I posted two different equations and showed how they were different.

The equations contradict. That's what I intended on showing.

Quote:

What you are saying is that Helland physics requires us to reject observations obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to measurements of the CMB.

That's a bit melodramatic. I could say mainstream physics requires us to reject observations like the axis of evil or other CMB anomalies, but that too is of course hyperbole.

Probably best to keep an open mind about what happened 13 billion years ago. Maybe the CMB is what we think it is. Maybe it isn't.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Which is the same equation for lookback time in an "empty" FLRW universe (page 3, equation 5):

https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9306002

How do you interpret that? Pure coincidence?

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

In the context of this thread, I interpret that as yet another failure of Mike Helland's reading comprehension. Many posts within this thread have advised Mike Helland that his "empty" FLRW universe (with Ω = Ω_M = Ω_R = Ω_Λ = 0) implies a degree of negative curvature that is hundreds of times greater than would be consistent with observation.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The observations you speak of are extrapolated from measurements of the CMB. They only apply if the assumptions we've made about the CMB are true, and there are a few reasons to doubt that they are.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

What you are saying is that Helland physics requires us to reject observations obtained by applying well-established principles of mainstream physics to measurements of the CMB.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

That's a bit melodramatic. I could say mainstream physics requires us to reject observations like the axis of evil or other CMB anomalies, but that too is of course hyperbole.

Probably best to keep an open mind about what happened 13 billion years ago. Maybe the CMB is what we think it is. Maybe it isn't.

It sounds as though Helland physics requires you to reject these parts of mainstream science:

• general relativity (which predicted the cosmic microwave background (CMB))
• measurements of the CMB obtained by COBE, WMAP, and Planck
• the mainstream physics that tells us how those measurements of the CMB place tight bounds on the curvature of the universe

As an alternative to rejecting general relativity altogether, Helland physics might require only that you accept that the universe has hundreds of times as much negative curvature as would be consistent with measurements of the CMB as interpreted using mainstream physics.