Continuation Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2)

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

...snip...

Well, I started with a formula, and that made an algorithm, which made an integral, simplifies to a logarithm, and that predicts the data better than LCDM.

We can get that geometrically by replacing expanding space with expanding time.

"Pure nonsense!"

As you can tell, I'm not particularly daunted by insults.

Well you didn't - or rather you did not start off with anything like a "correct" formulae. After that you have repeatedly made huge mistakes in your maths which people have kindly corrected and explained to you, and that you then ran with making more huge mistakes which were again corrected and explained to you, and so it went. Until now when you haven't got anything that we can mathematically determine has anything to do with the expansion of space nor time

It seems rather impolite to the folks that have tried to help you that you now do a "fringe reset" but sadly fringe resets are common.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Darat

Well you didn't - or rather you did not start off with anything like a "correct" formulae. After that you have repeatedly made huge mistakes in your maths which people have kindly corrected and explained to you, and that you then ran with making more huge mistakes which were again corrected and explained to you, and so it went. Until now when you haven't got anything that we can mathematically determine has anything to do with the expansion of space nor time

It seems rather impolite to the folks that have tried to help you that you now do a "fringe reset" but sadly fringe resets are common.

Reset? I'm just summarizing.

The hypothesis has been explained. Criticisms have been made. And I've responded to those criticisms. There's really only one piece left to discuss.

The hypothesis is that rather than space expanding, time expands. And I've shown how to reason about that geometrically.

If you and others find my reasoning unacceptable, so be it. But that's what it is.

At some point one has to realize that a hypothesis sets out a hypothetical. What if it's like this? What are its consequences?

The consequences of the hypothesis lead to a better fit of the data.

One could just choose to ignore that, because they refuse to accept that time can be given a similar treatment to space. That's their choice.

No reset intended. But at some point, the hypothesis, by virtue of being a hypothesis, speaks for itself.

If everything it says can be laid out neatly with existing hypotheses, it wouldn't be a hypothesis.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Darat

Well you didn't - or rather you did not start off with anything like a "correct" formulae. After that you have repeatedly made huge mistakes in your maths which people have kindly corrected and explained to you, and that you then ran with making more huge mistakes which were again corrected and explained to you, and so it went. Until now when you haven't got anything that we can mathematically determine has anything to do with the expansion of space nor time

It seems rather impolite to the folks that have tried to help you that you now do a "fringe reset" but sadly fringe resets are common.

Keeping the discussion going.

" Look at meee! Real scientists are actually talking to me!"

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Reset? I'm just summarizing.

The hypothesis has been explained. Criticisms have been made. And I've responded to those criticisms. There's really only one piece left to discuss.

The hypothesis is that rather than space expanding, time expands. And I've shown how to reason about that geometrically.

If you and others find my reasoning unacceptable, so be it. But that's what it is.

At some point one has to realize that a hypothesis sets out a hypothetical. What if it's like this? What are its consequences?

The consequences of the hypothesis lead to a better fit of the data.

One could just choose to ignore that, because they refuse to accept that time can be given a similar treatment to space. That's their choice.

No reset intended. But at some point, the hypothesis, by virtue of being a hypothesis, speaks for itself.

If everything it says can be laid out neatly with existing hypotheses, it wouldn't be a hypothesis.

As I said, I find it interesting, from a psychological point of view, that you consider this to be true. Or a valid summation.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I've got a couple ideas. Strange, wild, nonsensical ideas.

Yes, they are nonsense. You finally got something right.

Quote:

But it's an interesting question to me. Every culture devises a Genesis of sorts. The one I was taught as a child involves the Big Bang.

Perhaps our version is the exception. Perhaps, we are actually right?

Perhaps the big bang is a scientific theory, and Genesis is not.

Quote:

Doesn't seem likely, when you look at it objectively.

You haven't looked at anything objectively.

Quote:

Well, I started with a formula

What you started with makes no difference, because you don't understand any of what you're working with. You're turning dials and cranking levers when you don't know any of their functions, and assuming the results mean something. They don't.

Quote:

We can get that geometrically by replacing expanding space with expanding time.

No, we cannot. Your "expanding time" doesn't mean anything. I know you think it does, but it really, really doesn't.

Quote:

As you can tell, I'm not particularly daunted by insults.

You aren't daunted by facts, your complete lack of knowledge, or a consistent record of always being wrong either. Your response to perceived insults isn't the problem here.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Steve

Keeping the discussion going.

" Look at meee! Real scientists are actually talking to me!"

Some people talk about ideas.

Some people talk about people.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

You haven't looked at anything objectively.

I'll take that into consideration.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

As I said, I find it interesting, from a psychological point of view, that you consider this to be true. Or a valid summation.

What's invalid about it?

I said what I had to say. Nobody agrees with it. That's the situation.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I'll take that into consideration.

No. You won't.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

No. You won't.

Do you have anything specific in mind?

I've said since the beginning the universe could be expanding, and it could have started with a big bang.

It also might be wrong.

What would make my point of view more objective?

To accept the big bang as truth?

That would make me more popular in these types of circles. I don't equate that with objectivity though.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

Do you remember the previous sixteen hundred posts explaining in great detail where your misunderstandings are?

Well, since no measurement or observation has even been made that is inconsistent with LCDM, then the graph that shows LCDM H₀=73 km/s/Mpc being a better fit than the inferred value of 67 km/s/Mpc must be a unique error that I've made.

Would you agree?

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

What's invalid about it?

I said what I had to say. Nobody agrees with it. That's the situation.

I find it interesting that your responses to criticism are often, ‘Yes, I understand’, followed by a restatement of your misunderstanding. To the extent that you still consider your original ‘hypothesis’ to have any validity.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Mashuna

I find it interesting that your responses to criticism are often, ‘Yes, I understand’, followed by a restatement of your misunderstanding. To the extent that you still consider your original ‘hypothesis’ to have any validity.

What you find interesting might be more interesting to me were it to be stated with some more specificity.

The hypothesis is invalid, yes, I understand that.

Changing the size of the universe over time is a valid approach.

Changing time itself is not.

I get it.

I'm actually a bit delighted by it.

Changing the dimensions of space geometrically to get time dilation is the gold standard for whether or not it could be reality. Changing the dimension of time any such way is nonsense.

Knowing that explains quite a lot.

[theprestige]

"If I'm right, my idea solves everything!"

"You're wrong."

"I get that, but what if I'm right?"

"You're not."

"Really? I'm not seeing it. Can you show me where I'm wrong?"

"Here, here, and here. And here. And here. And here. And here."

"Thanks! I see it now. But what if I'm right?"

"You're not."

"Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure I'm right."

"Yes, I'm sure."

"But how can you be sure?"

"Because you're wrong here, and here, and here. And here. And here. And also here. And especially here."

"Yeah, that makes sense. I understand why you're so sure I'm wrong. But what if I'm right?"

Etc.

[Mashuna]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

What you find interesting might be more interesting to me were it to be stated with some more specificity.

All the evidence to date shows that this is not the case.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Some people talk about ideas.

Some people talk about people.

And some people talk nonsense, even after that nonsense has been explained in great detail.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Do you have anything specific in mind?

I have everything in mind. The most you've ever done is learn new buzz words. I see no evidence that you understand anything any better than when you first started posting here. And you've never spent the time to actually study physics and math like so many people, myself included, have recommended you do.

So when you claim you'll take something into consideration, I don't believe you, because you never have before.

Quote:

I've said since the beginning the universe could be expanding, and it could have started with a big bang.

You say that like you're making some great concession, but if you've been saying that from the start, where's the evidence that you've actually learned anything? There is none, because you haven't.

Quote:

What would make my point of view more objective?

If you actually knew what you were talking about. You quite obviously don't.

And this has nothing to do with whether or not you believe the big bang. Regardless of belief or acceptance, you don't understand the theory, because you don't understand physics or math in any depth. And you've never taken the time to learn them. I guarantee you, Einstein knew Newtonian mechanics in depth when he tipped it over with special relativity.

[W.D.Clinger]

The stupidity of Mike Helland's claims has been thoroughly documented.

Maybe it's time to consider the fact that many of Mike Helland's claims would be considered outrageously dishonest if they had been made by someone who had the slightest idea of what he was doing.

Here's an example...

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Well, since no measurement or observation has even been made that is inconsistent with LCDM, then the graph that shows LCDM H₀=73 km/s/Mpc being a better fit than the inferred value of 67 km/s/Mpc must be a unique error that I've made.

Several aspects of the following post, in which that graph was presented, strongly suggest intellectual dishonesty:

• His alleged equation for chi-squared is not the equation for the chi-squared test. The chi-squared test isn't even applicable here, because none of the relevant data involve any binning of random samples into mutually exclusive classes.
  
  Note, for example, that his equation involves a sum over i, when i does not even appear within the expression that ought to specify the values to be summed.
• Although there are a variety of estimates for the present value of the Hubble constant H₀, all in the vicinity of 70 km/s/Mpc, he arbitrarily decided the best estimates were those greater than 70 and ignored estimates pointing toward less than 70.
• Look at his equation for his own hypothesis, the red curve. Do you see an H₀ in that equation? To compute his red curve, he had to select some numerical value to use for the H₀ in that equation. Are you surprised to learn that, in his equation, he plugged in a value for H₀ that best matches the data he arbitrarily assumed to be correct?
• And are you surprised to learn that, to make LCDM look as bad as possible under his arbitrary assumption, he chose LCDM parameters for the green line that best match a value for H₀ other than the value he used in his own equation?

In a research paper, the facts in red would be regarded as scientific fraud.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

It's what you get when you take the sum of squared errors, :

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/sse.png

The lower the number, the better the fit. The hypothesis fits the data better than LCDM.

LCDM's own best fit misses its projected value of 67.5 km/s/Mpc by a good margin.

The only possible excuse for what he wrote there is that he is too ignorant to be committing a knowing fraud.

But I think he knows full well that he deliberately chose to use a value for H₀ in his equation that best fits the empirical estimates he uses to evaluate his equation.

He also knows that Helland physics predicts an expansion rate of zero, i.e. H₀ = 0. The LCDM model is compatible with empirical estimates of H₀. Helland physics is not.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Note, for example, that his equation involves a sum over i, when i does not even appear within the expression that ought to specify the values to be summed.

I got it here:

https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/...ce_Measurement

Quote:

We use the statistical quantity 𝜒2 as a measure of the quality of agreement of a model prediction with the data. Usually, the lower 𝜒2, the better the agreement. Assuming 𝑀=−19.3, calculate 𝜒2

for the 4 above models where

𝜒2=Σ𝑖(𝑚𝑑𝑖−𝑚𝑚&#1198942/𝜎2𝑖(17.4)

with 𝑚𝑑𝑖 the measured apparent magnitude of the 𝑖th supernova
(with 'd' for 'data'), 𝑚𝑚𝑖 is the apparent magnitude of the 𝑖th supernva as predicted by the model, and 𝜎𝑖 is the error on the 𝑖th magnitude measurement.

Your equation seems to ignore the error bars.

Which is good, actually. I've found that when you include the error bars, LCDM fair much much worse.

But I'm using this:

https://github.com/PantheonPlusSH0ES...NCES_AND_COVAR

And it does come with the note:

"MU_SH0ES_ERR_DIAG - Uncertainty on MU_SH0ES as determined from the diagonal of the covariance matrix. **WARNING, DO NOT FIT COSMOLOGICAL PARAMETERS WITH THESE UNCERTAINTIES. YOU MUST USE THE FULL COVARIANCE. THIS IS ONLY FOR PLOTTING/VISUAL PURPOSES**"

If you use this in the equation, LCDM's best fit looks more like 55 km/s/Mpc!

Quote:

[*]Although there are a variety of estimates for the present value of the Hubble constant H₀, all in the vicinity of 70 km/s/Mpc, he arbitrarily decided the best estimates were those greater than 70 and ignored estimates pointing toward less than 70.

The only estimate I included on the graph is the 67.5 km/s/Mpc inferred from LCDM.

Quote:

[*]Look at his equation for his own hypothesis, the red curve. Do you see an H₀ in that equation? To compute his red curve, he had to select some numerical value to use for the H₀ in that equation. Are you surprised to learn that, in his equation, he plugged in a value for H₀ that best matches the data he arbitrarily assumed to be correct?[*]And are you surprised to learn that, to make LCDM look as bad as possible under his arbitrary assumption, he chose LCDM parameters for the green line that best match a value for H₀ other than the value he used in his own equation?[/list]

The red and green lines both show the SSE for a range of 60 < H₀ < 80.

No value is ever singled out.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

• His alleged equation for chi-squared is not the equation for the chi-squared test. The chi-squared test isn't even applicable here, because none of the relevant data involve any binning of random samples into mutually exclusive classes.
  
  Note, for example, that his equation involves a sum over i, when i does not even appear within the expression that ought to specify the values to be summed.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I got it here:

https://phys.libretexts.org/Courses/...ce_Measurement

Which means Mike Helland misquoted equation (17.4) of that web page's Problem 17.5. Equation (17.4) shows the index i appearing as four subscripts on the right hand side, not once as in Mike Helland's misquotation of that equation. Problem 17.5 also explains that the index i refers to the i-th supernova in a particular database.

Problem 17.5 also says to use Equation (17.4) to calculate a chi-squared value for the four specific FLRW models listed in Problem 17.3. None of those four models match the density parameters Mike Helland used to construct his graph. Why did Mike Helland change the density parameters? Probably because he didn't like how well the first of those four FLRW models matched the data.

Note also that Mike Helland continues to ignore the fact that Helland physics predicts an expansion rate of H₀ = 0. It is quite dishonest of him to ignore that misprediction of his own theory while criticizing mainstream models for predicting values within the empirically determined range of 65-75 km/s/Mpc.

ETA:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Quote:

Although there are a variety of estimates for the present value of the Hubble constant H0, all in the vicinity of 70 km/s/Mpc, he arbitrarily decided the best estimates were those greater than 70 and ignored estimates pointing toward less than 70.

The only estimate I included on the graph is the 67.5 km/s/Mpc inferred from LCDM.

As instructed by Problem 17.5, Mike Helland's graph ignores all empirical data except for one particular dataset of supernova data. It is well known that supernova data give estimates for H₀ that are higher than estimates based on early universe data such as observations of the CMB. (That is one of the main contributors to the so-called Hubble tension.) When presenting his graph, Mike Helland took care not to mention that bias in the data. It is of course possible that he is simply too incompetent to be aware of such things.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Which means Mike Helland misquoted equation (17.4) of that web page's Problem 17.5. Equation (17.4) shows the index i appearing as four subscripts on the right hand side, not once as in Mike Helland's misquotation of that equation. Problem 17.5 also explains that the index i refers to the i-th supernova in a particular database.

I'm not sure how else you'd interpret it.

Quote:

Problem 17.5 also says to use Equation (17.4) to calculate a chi-squared value for the four specific FLRW models listed in Problem 17.3. None of those four models match the density parameters Mike Helland used to construct his graph. Why did Mike Helland change the density parameters? Probably because he didn't like how well the first of those four FLRW models matched the data.

That page rounds 0.68 to 0.7. 0.68 is actually a better fit. Not sure what cloud you're angry at now.

Quote:

As instructed by Problem 17.5, Mike Helland's graph ignores all empirical data except for one particular dataset of supernova data. It is well known that supernova data give estimates for H₀ that are higher than estimates based on early universe data such as observations of the CMB. (That is one of the main contributors to the so-called Hubble tension.) When presenting his graph, Mike Helland took care not to mention that bias in the data. It is of course possible that he is simply too incompetent to be aware of such things.

The supernovae data is biased toward the supernovae data.

Again, you're angry at a cloud that doesn't exist.

The hypothesis is a redshift distance relationship. What data would have me compare ot to?? Market indexes?

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I'm not sure how else you'd interpret it.

Of course he isn't sure. He didn't understand the equation well enough to quote it correctly, so why would he understand the possible mathematical meanings of the incorrect equation he actually wrote?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Quote:

Problem 17.5 also says to use Equation (17.4) to calculate a chi-squared value for the four specific FLRW models listed in Problem 17.3. None of those four models match the density parameters Mike Helland used to construct his graph. Why did Mike Helland change the density parameters? Probably because he didn't like how well the first of those four FLRW models matched the data.

That page rounds 0.68 to 0.7. 0.68 is actually a better fit.

So says Mike Helland. He thinks lower values for Ω_Λ and higher values for Ω_m improve the fit to supernova (late universe) data.

Physicists who actually know what they're talking about, and are writing papers about the Hubble tension, say Mike Helland has that backwards.

For example:

Originally Posted by Jenny Wagner

For H_0,C = 67.27 km/s/Mpc from [3] and H_0,S = 73.04 km/s/Mpc from [2] and using Ω_m,C = 0.315 from [3], 10 can be solved for the matter-density parameter expected in the FLRW fit at z_S to fully resolve the H₀ tension, namely Ω_m,S = 0.267.

In other words, the FLRW parameters that best fit the supernova data are Ω_m = 0.267 and Ω_Λ = 0.733.

Mike Helland, ignoring the values suggested by the web page he cited, went in the other direction: Ω_m = 0.32 and Ω_Λ = 0.68. That's what someone would do if he were trying to make the FLRW model look like a poor fit to supernova data.

Originally Posted by Jenny Wagner

Indeed, several FLRW fits to supernova data, e. g. [14, 15, 16, 12, 17] yielded Ω_m,S < Ω_m,C, supporting the theoretical hypothesis.

That sentence cites 5 research papers that give evidence for a trend that runs directly opposite to what Mike Helland is saying.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Quote:

As instructed by Problem 17.5, Mike Helland's graph ignores all empirical data except for one particular dataset of supernova data. It is well known that supernova data give estimates for H₀ that are higher than estimates based on early universe data such as observations of the CMB. (That is one of the main contributors to the so-called Hubble tension.) When presenting his graph, Mike Helland took care not to mention that bias in the data. It is of course possible that he is simply too incompetent to be aware of such things.

The supernovae data is biased toward the supernovae data.

Again, you're angry at a cloud that doesn't exist.

The hypothesis is a redshift distance relationship. What data would have me compare ot to?? Market indexes?

An honest researcher would acknowledge the existence of other sources of data, identifying an argument's reliance upon supernova data alone as a bias in that argument.

Originally Posted by Jenny Wagner

As supported by the arguments put forward in Section 3, the H₀ tension can be interpreted as a mere offset in the reference amplitude for the smooth cosmic matter density parameter between the CMB and in the late universe.

In other words, the so-called Hubble tension is essentially a tension between estimates based upon the early universe versus the late universe.

Mike Helland's straw-man account of the Hubble tension arbitrarily takes the late universe data to be decisive, derogating data from the early universe.

But all of the above is minutia compared to

Mike Helland continues to ignore the fact that Helland physics predicts an expansion rate of H₀ = 0. It is quite dishonest of him to ignore that spectacular misprediction of his own theory while criticizing mainstream models for predicting values within the empirically determined range of 65-75 km/s/Mpc.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I'm not sure how else you'd interpret it.

This really is indicative of the entire thread. You are not sure how (or more likely unable) to interpret and understand any of the actual science or mathematics explained to you. Publicly substituting your fantasies for science is quite pathetic. A more conscienctious or aware person would be rightfully embarrassed.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

So says Mike Helland. He thinks lower values for Ω_Λ and higher values for Ω_m improve the fit to supernova (late universe) data.

They do. You can check it yourself if you want. I made a tool to do that if you want to see it:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/sse.htm

You can click into the LCDM parameters and change them. They don't look like input boxes, but they are.

Using those parameters (0.267, 0.733), the lowest SSE value is higher than using the other parameters. And the trough moves away from the 67.5 value. If you want the best fit for LCDM, you should use 0.7 for the matter and 0.3 for dark energy. Then LCDM's best fit is in the vicinity of its prediction.

But that prediction is based on measurements of the CMB. Not the best fit to SNe data.

I'm using the values that actually make FLRW look better. I thought those were the right values for the concordance model.

If you say another set of values are the right ones, we can use that. It doesn't help your case though.

Quote:

In other words, the FLRW parameters that best fit the supernova data are Ω_m = 0.267 and Ω_Λ = 0.733.

Works for me.

Quote:

Mike Helland, ignoring the values suggested by the web page he cited, went in the other direction: Ω_m = 0.32 and Ω_Λ = 0.68. That's what someone would do if he were trying to make the FLRW model look like a poor fit to supernova data.

I was being gracious, and also just using the Planck values:

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/educati...y/matterd.html

But feel free to get angry at some clouds.

[hecd2]

No, you don't get to pretend your ignorant and arrogant curve fitting is a viable alternative to actual physics, or that you are talking as an equal to actual physicists and mathematicians. It is not, and you are not.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

No, you don't get to pretend your ignorant and arrogant curve fitting is a viable alternative to actual physics, or that you are talking as an equal to actual physicists and mathematicians. It is not, and you are not.

Do the sum of squared errors on the PantheoSH0ES data against LCDM over a range of H₀ (say 60 to 80) using Ω_Λ=0.68, Ω_M=0.32, and then do the same thing for Ω_Λ=0.733, Ω_M=0.267.

For 0.68/0.32 I get:

{ H: 72, hypothesis: 59.02030708959404, lcdm: 62.02787457196766 }

For 0.733/0.267 I get:

{ H: 72.6, hypothesis: 62.54934822827693, lcdm: 64.79786613233962 }

Clinger's parameters give a slightly higher Hubble's constant, and slightly higher SSE.

It's a worst fit to the data, and a worse miss on the predicted value.

In both cases, the hypothesis is a better fit than LCDM.

[hecd2]

It’s not a hypothesis.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by hecd2

It’s not a hypothesis.

Of course. It fits the data better, but it doesn't curve space. The planes only land when space is curved!

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

They do. You can check it yourself if you want. I made a tool to do that if you want to see it:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/sse.htm

You can click into the LCDM parameters and change them. They don't look like input boxes, but they are.

Why should anyone think Mike Helland's software is more honest than his web posts?

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Using those parameters (0.267, 0.733), the lowest SSE value is higher than using the other parameters. And the trough moves away from the 67.5 value. If you want the best fit for LCDM, you should use 0.7 for the matter and 0.3 for dark energy. Then LCDM's best fit is in the vicinity of its prediction.

Sounds as though, when writing his software, Mike Helland got Ω_m confused with Ω_Λ. That's a rather basic error, sort of like mistaking maps for territory for months on end.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I was being gracious, and also just using the Planck values:

https://lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov/educati...y/matterd.html

But feel free to get angry at some clouds.

The Planck values are the ones to use if you want to make the FLRW models look as bad as possible when evaluated against supernova data.

Which is to say Mike Helland's words quoted above amount to an admission that he cheated.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Clinger's parameters give a slightly higher Hubble's constant, and slightly higher SSE.

The parameters I quoted from Jenny Wagner's paper aren't "Clinger's parameters". Mike Helland is arguing with Jenny Wagner, not with me.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

In both cases, the hypothesis is a better fit than LCDM.

That "hypothesis" predicts an expansion rate of H₀ = 0. Last I checked, empirical estimates that say H₀ lies in the range of 65-75 km/s/Mpc were a lot more consistent with LCDM estimates in the range of 65-75 than with the H₀ = 0 predicted by Helland physics.

Mike Helland continues to ignore the fact that Helland physics predicts an expansion rate of H₀ = 0. It is quite dishonest of him to ignore that spectacular misprediction of his own theory while criticizing mainstream models for predicting values within the empirically determined range of 65-75 km/s/Mpc.

The author and sole proponent of Helland physics has no answer to the fact stated in red, so he's trying to ignore it.

But I can tell you how he has, in the more distant past, responded to that red fact. He has responded with dishonest equivocation.

In mainstream physics, H₀ quantifies how fast the universe at large is expanding at present. The author and sole proponent of Helland physics has told us H₀ means something completely different in Helland physics. In Helland physics, H₀ is an unmotivated output of curve fitting, which we might refer to as the Helland constant rather than the Hubble constant.

According to the author and sole proponent of Helland physics, the value of the Helland constant H₀ is very close to estimates of the Hubble constant H₀ that are based on legitimate physics. To some of us, it isn't all that surprising that an unmotivated constant whose value is derived by fitting curves to data that has been painstakingly obtained by genuine scientists turns out to have a value that's close to the value predicted by a genuine scientific theory. To the author and sole proponent of Helland physics, however, small differences between his curve fitting and predictions made by the mainstream theory, using parameters he has deliberately chosen to make the mainstream theory look as bad as possible, are somehow to be taken as evidence that an expansion rate of zero (as predicted by Helland physics) is a better fit to data showing a value in the range of 65-75 than the mainstream predictions in the same range of 65-75.

In the process of making that argument, the author and sole proponent of Helland physics has given us a graph whose horizontal axis is labelled H₀. Is that the Hubble constant H₀ of mainstream physics, which is the rate at which the modern universe is expanding? Or is that the Helland constant H₀ of Helland physics, which has absolutely nothing to do with expansion of the universe?

In a breathtakingly dishonest example of dishonest equivocation, Mike Helland uses the same label and the same horizontal scale to mean both of those completely different things. When viewing the red curve, we are to interpret the horizontal axis as values of the Helland constant, which has nothing to do with expansion of the universe. When viewing the green curve we are to interpret the horizontal axis as values of the Hubble constant, which has everything to do with expansion of the universe.

It would be hard to imagine a more dishonest graph. Unfortunately, we don't have to imagine it, because Mike Helland has gone and drawn it.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Why should anyone think Mike Helland's software is more honest than his web posts?

To bring up an acronym from the ancient history of computing - GIGO.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

To the author and sole proponent of Helland physics, however, small differences between his curve fitting and predictions made by the mainstream theory, using parameters he has deliberately chosen to make the mainstream theory look as bad as possible

That's a lie. A decent person would apologize for that.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

That's a lie. A decent person would apologize for that.

You've been making the argument I described for months and months.

If you can convince me that your months-long argument was entirely due to your ignorance and incompetence, untainted by dishonesty such as your deliberate equivocation involving the meaning of H₀, then I will apologize for suggesting the ignorance and incompetence of your argument was tainted by dishonesty.

Here is the complete sentence containing the words you quoted:

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

To the author and sole proponent of Helland physics, however, small differences between his curve fitting and predictions made by the mainstream theory, using parameters he has deliberately chosen to make the mainstream theory look as bad as possible, are somehow to be taken as evidence that an expansion rate of zero (as predicted by Helland physics) is a better fit to data showing a value in the range of 65-75 than the mainstream predictions in the same range of 65-75.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

You've been making the argument I described for months and months.

If you can convince me that your months-long argument was entirely due to your ignorance and incompetence, untainted by dishonesty such as your deliberate equivocation involving the meaning of H₀, then I will apologize for suggesting the ignorance and incompetence of your argument was tainted by dishonesty.

Here is the complete sentence containing the words you quoted:

Hmmm. Omitting parts of a quote to make it say something that a person can take umbrage at to does not suggest the utmost of honesty, does it now.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

If you can convince me that your months-long argument was entirely due to your ignorance and incompetence, untainted by dishonesty such as your deliberate equivocation involving the meaning of H₀, then I will apologize for suggesting the ignorance and incompetence of your argument was tainted by dishonesty.

We are talking about what happened today. I don't appreciate the accusations.

If my calculations are deceptive, show the honest ones.

[W.D.Clinger]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

We are talking about what happened today. I don't appreciate the accusations.

I am sorry. Among examples of your dishonesty that I have cited today, some involve things you wrote yesterday or even earlier in May.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If my calculations are deceptive, show the honest ones.

Jenny Wagner's paper is a very good place to start, and you can follow up by reading the 33 papers it references.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Reformed Offlian

Will the angle of refraction observed be consistent with the prism's refractive index for green light, or for yellow light?

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

You've been making the argument I described for months and months.

If you can convince me that your months-long argument was entirely due to your ignorance and incompetence

Oh, I think that's a pretty easy sell.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Using those parameters (0.267, 0.733), the lowest SSE value is higher than using the other parameters. And the trough moves away from the 67.5 value. If you want the best fit for LCDM, you should use 0.7 for the matter and 0.3 for dark energy.

The best fit to the supernovae data for LCDM is Ω_Λ=0.55.

I calculated all the sum of squared errors for FLRW models where :

* 0 <= Ω_Λ <= 1
* Ω_M = 1 - Ω_Λ
* 60 <= H₀ <= 80

Here's the raw data:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...a/lcdmsse.json

And here's a 3d plot:



If you take the lowest model for each value of Ω_Λ, you get this:



The red line is the lowest SSE for the hypothesis over its range of inputs.

Interestingly enough, the best fit to this data for LCDM is Hubble's constant = 70.7 km/s/Mpc, and the best fit for the hypothesis is "Helland's" constant = 70.4 km/s/Mpc.

They're surprisingly close.



A new measurement for the expansion of the universe just happened (well, last month):

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cosmic-growth/

Quote:

In research published today in the journal Science, Patrick Kelly of the University of Minnesota and his colleagues used the time delay from a distant supernova known as Refsdal to measure the Hubble constant. They arrived at an expansion rate of 66.6 kilometers per second per million parsecs (km/s/Mpc), or 66.6 km per second per 3.26 million light-years, with an uncertainty of 7 percent.

Both the best fit for the hypothesis and LCDM (over the broader range of parameters) are consistent with that measurement.

[W.D.Clinger]

Two days ago, on 31 May 2023, Mike Helland posted this graph, purporting to show how well his "Hypothesis" and a certain FLRW model fit a certain dataset of supernova data:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/sse.png

The lower the number, the better the fit.

In subsequent discussion, Mike Helland tried to create an impression that he chose FLRW parameters for the green curve of that graph (Ω_m = 0.32 and Ω_Λ = 0.68) to make FLRW models look as good as possible when compared to supernova data.

We don't actually have to believe that. It's more important to note that the sum of squared errors (SSE) shown for the green line of that graph is less than 25 at H₀ = 72.

Today, 2 June 2023, Mike Helland posted another graph:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The best fit to the supernovae data for LCDM is Ω_Λ=0.55.

I calculated all the sum of squared errors for FLRW models where :

* 0 <= Ω_Λ <= 1
* Ω_M = 1 - Ω_Λ
* 60 <= H₀ <= 80

Here's the raw data:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...a/lcdmsse.json

And here's a 3d plot:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/sse3d.png

If you take the lowest model for each value of Ω_Λ, you get this:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubble...mg/sselcdm.png

Today, Mike Helland is making an explicit claim that one particular FLRW model fits the supernova data better than any other FLRW model for which Ω_m + Ω_Λ = 1.

Examining today's graphs, we see that the SSE is greater than 50 for that model, and for all such FLRW models.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Interestingly enough, the best fit to this data for LCDM is Hubble's constant = 70.7 km/s/Mpc

....snip....

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/sse55.png

In summary...

Two days ago, he gave us a graph that said the SSE for one of those FLRW models was less than 25.

Today he says the very best of all such FLRW models has an SSE greater than 50.

I'm no physicist, but I find myself wondering how the FLRW models managed to get that much worse in just two days.

While we're at it...

Today's graph shows that a factor of (1+z) has been added to the equation for the red line, and the d on the left hand side of that equation has changed to d_L. I'm sure Mike Helland just forgot to mention those changes.

Professional cosmologists and physicists think the best FLRW fit to supernova data involves an Ω_m parameter that's somewhere between 0.25 and 0.315, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m. Mike Helland says the FLRW model that best fits the supernova data has as its parameters Ω_m = 0.45 and Ω_Λ = 0.55. That sounds like a really important result. We are lucky to have seen it here first.

[Mike Helland]

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

In subsequent discussion, Mike Helland tried to create an impression that he chose FLRW parameters for the green curve of that graph (Ω_m = 0.32 and Ω_Λ = 0.68) to make FLRW models look as good as possible when compared to supernova data.

I did. Specifically to avoid such accusations!

And it does, within measured constraints.

Quote:

We don't actually have to believe that. It's more important to note that the sum of squared errors (SSE) shown for the green line of that graph is less than 25 at H₀ = 72.

On the old graph, its less than 25000000 or something like that. That result is based on co-moving distance, in parsecs I think, and with error bars. The error bars really blow up the sum. Plus they throw LCDM completely off.

I updated it to compare to distance modulus directly.

Quote:

Examining today's graphs, we see that the SSE is greater than 50 for that model, and for all such FLRW models.

That 50 is actually 50.

The labels on the older graph were truncated.

Quote:

Two days ago, he gave us a graph that said the SSE for one of those FLRW models was less than 25.

Today he says the very best of all such FLRW models has an SSE greater than 50.

Yes. The previous graph wasn't comparing distance modulus directly, which it should have.

Quote:

Today's graph shows that a factor of (1+z) has been added to the equation for the red line, and the d on the left hand side of that equation has changed to d_L. I'm sure Mike Helland just forgot to mention those changes.

I'm showing where the distance modulus comes from.

Quote:

Professional cosmologists and physicists think the best FLRW fit to supernova data involves an Ω_m parameter that's somewhere between 0.25 and 0.315, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m. Mike Helland says the FLRW model that best fits the supernova data has as its parameters Ω_m = 0.45 and Ω_Λ = 0.55. That sounds like a really important result. We are lucky to have seen it here first.[/spoiler]

Be honest.

Professional cosmologists are looking for the best value of H₀ within the constraints of CMB measurements on cosmological parameters.

I'm sure you're familiar with this:



https://cerncourier.com/wp-content/u...dar3_03_09.jpg