[Continuation] Why James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts (2) - Page 4

W.D.Clinger · 2nd June 2023, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

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.

Two days ago, his graph was ****.

Today, however...

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

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.

Today's version of Mike Helland says FLRW parameters Ω_m = 0.45 and Ω_Λ = 0.55 provide the best fit among all FLRW models for which Ω_m + Ω_Λ = 1.

For me to be perfectly honest, I'd have to point out that Ω_m + Ω_Λ = 1 corresponds to the black line labelled "flat" in the following graph:

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I'm sure you're familiar with this:

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

The intersection of that black line with the innermost blue oval (labelled "SNe") contains the best FLRW fit to supernova data among all FLRW models with Ω_m + Ω_Λ = 1.

As honest readers can easily see for themselves by consulting the axes of that graph, the intersection of the black line with the innermost blue "SNe" oval corresponds to an Ω_m parameter that's near 0.29, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m.

Mike Helland · 2nd June 2023, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

As honest readers can easily see for themselves by consulting the axes of that graph, the intersection of the black line with the innermost blue "SNe" oval corresponds to an Ω_m parameter that's near 0.29, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m.

It sure does.

In my SSE calculations, and the resulting graph, the 0.32 shows a better fit and was the number I found for the Planck model, so I used that.

If 0.29 is a better value to use, ok.

The actual best fit in that image above, for the SNe data exclusively, and without constraining to a flat model, seems to be about Ω_Λ=0.9, Ω_M=0.45.

That bit about Ω_Λ=0.3 wasn't a typo, btw. If you switch the concordance parameters, you get an H₀ closer to 68 km/s/Mpc, which is the prediction from LCDM Ω_Λ0.7, but that's of no real consequence. To get sub-70's from a flat FLRW, it appears you need to really dial back the dark energy.

W.D.Clinger · 2nd June 2023, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

As honest readers can easily see for themselves by consulting the axes of that graph, the intersection of the black line with the innermost blue "SNe" oval corresponds to an Ω_m parameter that's near 0.29, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m.

It sure does.

Which means today's graphs and prose, like the graph and prose from two days ago, and all of the prose Mike Helland contributed in between, has been full of ****.

In an uncertain world, it's nice to have a few certainties.

steenkh · 3rd June 2023, 01:00 AM

In earlier incarnations of this thread, Mike Helland viewed JWST pictures of huge galaxies as clinching the argument that JWST rewrites the laws of physics.

This article in Universe Today shows that many scientists do not look upon the results in this light, but come up with explanations using standard physics: Here's How You Could Get Impossibly Large Galaxies in the Early Universe

Steve · 3rd June 2023, 05:47 AM

Originally Posted by steenkh

In earlier incarnations of this thread, Mike Helland viewed JWST pictures of huge galaxies as clinching the argument that JWST rewrites the laws of physics.

This article in Universe Today shows that many scientists do not look upon the results in this light, but come up with explanations using standard physics: Here's How You Could Get Impossibly Large Galaxies in the Early Universe

It has been a long, long time since this thread had anything to do with the thread title. It has devolved into "Why Mike Helland rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts". And the evidence for "doesn't" is overwhelming.

Mike Helland · 3rd June 2023, 10:33 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Which means today's graphs and prose, like the graph and prose from two days ago, and all of the prose Mike Helland contributed in between, has been full of ****.

The SSE I used for the data against LCDM is better for 0.32 than 0.267.

I didn't attempt to deceive anyone. I attempted to use the most accurate number (Planck's) that were the most favorable to LCDM.

I could have left it at 0.7 and 0.3. I tried to be more accurate and favorable. You accuse me of the opposite. You should apologize.

W.D.Clinger · 3rd June 2023, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Steve

It has been a long, long time since this thread had anything to do with the thread title. It has devolved into "Why Mike Helland rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts". And the evidence for "doesn't" is overwhelming.

Actually, this thread is a continuation of its predecessor thread, which was split off from the James Webb Telescope thread to make it possible for that thread to discuss science instead of being sidetracked by the pseudoscience that has been the primary topic discussed by this thread and its predecessor.

Splitting the pseudoscience from the science was a good thing. Almost 8 months have gone by, but:

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.

Mike Helland · 3rd June 2023, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

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.

Hubble's constant relates redshift to distance.

If the redshift is caused by the expansion of space, that would make Hubble's constant an expansion rate.

That would also mean that in addition to the wavelength of photons increasing, causing its energy to decrease, but the distance between photons increases too. This is relevant to flux, and why the luminosity distance of a galaxy is (1 + z)² times its distance.

Sidenote: We also see that supernovae are time dilated by a factor of (1 + z). If phenomena are time dilated by a factor of (1 + z), shouldn't that contribute to the redshift of photon's from that galaxy? IOW, why aren't photons redshifted by the square of the supernova's time dilation?

Redshift could also be caused by increasing the EM wave's period. Then it would make sense an EM wave from a galaxy would be redshifted by the same amount as the supernova's time dilation.

But in any case, Hubble's constant relates redshift to distance. If you expand space, or expand time, a constant is likely to be involved. As it happens, H₀ is in units of inverse time, which makes it quite convenient to use in the expanding time idea. That they are in the same ball park is kind of nice, and not too unexpected, since the same expression for a basic expanding universe's scale factor is being used as the time scale factor. But they aren't obliged to be similar in magnitude or equal in dimension, nor should anything be read into the observation that they are. It does make it convenient to compare the two ideas though.

W.D.Clinger · 3rd June 2023, 04:00 PM

Mike Helland is remarkably confused.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

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.

Hubble's constant relates redshift to distance.

So 70 km/s/Mpc means that, at a distance of 1 Mpc, the redshift is 70 km/s?

No, that's just stupid. Hubble's constant relates velocity to distance.

For all of Mike Helland's blathering about H₀, he doesn't even understand its units.

Mike Helland · 3rd June 2023, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

So 70 km/s/Mpc means that, at a distance of 1 Mpc, the redshift is 70 km/s?

If that's what you honestly think, be my guest. I think our correspondence has run its course.

hecd2 · 4th June 2023, 02:21 AM

Mike is confusing dimensions with units. The dimensions of the Hubble parameter is inverse time. The units of the Hubble parameter are km s^-1 Mpc^-1 - speed per unit distance.

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 05:32 AM

Originally Posted by hecd2

Mike is confusing dimensions with units. The dimensions of the Hubble parameter is inverse time. The units of the Hubble parameter are km s^-1 Mpc^-1 - speed per unit distance.

You're confusing the map for the territory.

Convert km/s/Mpc to km/s/Mly

70.5 (km/s / Mpc) = 21.6 (km/s / Million light years)

Convert km/sec to light years / year.

21.6 km/s = 0.000072 ly/y

That's the same as 0.000072 million light years per million years.

0.000072 million light years per million years per million light years, the million light years cancel out, 0.000072 (million years)^-1, therefore 1/H₀ = 13888.9 million years.

hecd2 · 4th June 2023, 05:57 AM

You can, of course convert the units of the Hubble parameter into any units which have dimensions of inverse time. For example furlongs per fortnight per micron. But the convention is to quote it in units of km s^-1 Mpc^-1 because it is expressing an expansion speed per unit distance.

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 06:23 AM

Originally Posted by hecd2

You can, of course convert the units of the Hubble parameter into any units which have dimensions of inverse time. For example furlongs per fortnight per micron. But the convention is to quote it in units of km s^-1 Mpc^-1 because it is expressing an expansion speed per unit distance.

In de Sitter space the comoving distance is giving by:

$d_C =( \frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$

And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by:

$d_{emit} =( \frac{\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{obs}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$

Since:

$1 + z =\frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}$

Then:

$d_C =z \frac{c}{H_0}$

And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by:

$d_{emit} =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$

Multiplying H₀ by a distance results in a velocity. If you want to find z, you'll have to divide by c, either way you slice it.

That shouldn't be news to you, or the person who had trouble relating distance and relationship.

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 06:45 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

In de Sitter space the comoving distance is giving by:

$d_C =( \frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$

And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by:

$d_{emit} =( \frac{\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{obs}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$

Since:

$1 + z =\frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}$

Then:

$d_C =z \frac{c}{H_0}$

And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by:

$d_{emit} =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$

Multiplying H₀ by a distance results in a velocity. If you want to find z, you'll have to divide by c, either way you slice it.

That shouldn't be news to you, or the person who had trouble relating distance and relationship.

That said, in the time dilated past hypothesis, there is only one physical distance:

$d =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$

But there is also the light travel time distance, and that's also the same in de Sitter space:

$d_{t} =\frac{c}{H_0} \log{ (1+z)}$

I decided to use that times (1 + z) to get the luminosity distance. I've mentioned that, and I'm surprised nobody flipped out. I think now would be a good time for that.

The only justification I can think of for doing that is the flux-luminosity-distance relationship:

$f =\frac{L}{4 \pi d^2}$

"d" here would have to be light travel time distance for my predictions to work. So, it should be:

$f =\frac{L}{4 \pi (ct)^2}$

?

That would imply, for the hypothesis to be right, the distance ladder has a fundamental error.

Or the hypothesis is wrong. That's obviously the most probably explanation.

hecd2 · 4th June 2023, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

In de Sitter space the comoving distance is giving by:

$d_C =( \frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$

And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by:

$d_{emit} =( \frac{\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{obs}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$

Since:

$1 + z =\frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}$

Then:

$d_C =z \frac{c}{H_0}$

And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by:

$d_{emit} =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$

Multiplying H₀ by a distance results in a velocity. If you want to find z, you'll have to divide by c, either way you slice it.

That shouldn't be news to you, or the person who had trouble relating distance and relationship.

I have no idea what you are burbling about.

hecd2 · 4th June 2023, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

That said, in the time dilated past hypothesis, there is only one physical distance:

$d =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$

But there is also the light travel time distance, and that's also the same in de Sitter space:

$d_{t} =\frac{c}{H_0} \log{ (1+z)}$

I decided to use that times (1 + z) to get the luminosity distance. I've mentioned that, and I'm surprised nobody flipped out. I think now would be a good time for that.

The only justification I can think of for doing that is the flux-luminosity-distance relationship:

$f =\frac{L}{4 \pi d^2}$

"d" here would have to be light travel time distance for my predictions to work. So, it should be:

$f =\frac{L}{4 \pi (ct)^2}$

?

That would imply, for the hypothesis to be right, the distance ladder has a fundamental error.

Or the hypothesis is wrong. That's obviously the most probably explanation.

There is no hypothesis.

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 08:05 AM

Originally Posted by hecd2

There is no hypothesis.

And no measurement has ever been made that is inconsistent with LCDM.

Looks like you win.

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 08:22 AM

I had a strange thought yesterday.

You know how the photon is said not to experience any time?

It seems like if it leaves point A, and travels to point B, so at some time it is at all the points in between, it doesn't seem like that would be true. If you were the photon, you would notice stuff going by, which would be experiencing time, but I suppose none of the stuff would be changing, so not really?

Anyways, here's the idea.

The photon doesn't move from point A to point B over time. That's what's shown on the left. The yellow dot is the photon. It's always at the present, moving from A to B.

What if instead, the right happens.

The photon instead completely ignores the passage of time. As time passes, the photon fails to keep up, so instead of staying in the present, it drifts into the past. It waits until it sees something at a 45 degree angle, and then instantaneously goes there.

So for its entire journey (sans the last instant), not only is it not moving in space, it's not moving in time either.

When the time comes it just shows up where it's supposed to be.

This means that any snap shot of the present will only have photons being emitted, or absorbed, but never in flight. They have to be observed to exist in the present.

If you consider a light source like a star with a planet revolving around it, the star may be occluded by the planet. That doesn't seem to pose any problem. When the planet is blocking the view of the star, that's because it is at a 45 degree angle to those photons that are being blocked by the planet.

ferd burfle · 4th June 2023, 08:26 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

You're confusing the map for the territory.

Convert km/s/Mpc to km/s/Mly

70.5 (km/s / Mpc) = 21.6 (km/s / Million light years)

Convert km/sec to light years / year.

21.6 km/s = 0.000072 ly/y

That's the same as 0.000072 million light years per million years.

0.000072 million light years per million years per million light years, the million light years cancel out, 0.000072 (million years)^-1, therefore 1/H₀ = 13888.9 million years.

You seem to be unwilling or incapable of acknowledging a simple error.

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

You seem to be unwilling or incapable of acknowledging a simple error.

The units of Hubble's constant are km/s/Mpc... by convention.

You can use other units. If you use inverse time, you need to make sure the distance unit you're using is the same as the distance component of the velocity units you're using. And the unit of time in the velocity is the same as the inverse for the constant.

The value in conventional SI units just does some conversions.

Steve · 4th June 2023, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I had a strange thought yesterday.

Is this somehow different from all other days?

W.D.Clinger · 4th June 2023, 01:01 PM

In recent days, Mike Helland has amused us by drawing several graphs, all of them incorrect, all of them based upon his miscalculations.

He did show one correct graph, due to CERN, because he mistakenly thought CERN's graph would show he was right. But CERN's graph proves he was wrong.

Having miscalculated for days, weeks, and months, what does he do? He posts further miscalculations.

Originally Posted by hecd2

I have no idea what you are burbling about.

Neither does he.

Originally Posted by hecd2

You can, of course convert the units of the Hubble parameter into any units which have dimensions of inverse time. For example furlongs per fortnight per micron. But the convention is to quote it in units of km s^-1 Mpc^-1 because it is expressing an expansion speed per unit distance.

Here are some really basic facts:

Because the Hubble parameter H and Hubble constant H₀ have dimensions of inverse time (e.g. s⁻¹), the only way to interpret H and H₀ as anything that is proportional to distance (length) is to interpret them as speed (length / time, e.g. km/s) per distance (e.g. Mpc).

So H and H₀ relate speed to distance. They do not relate redshift to distance.

To find some relationship between redshift and H or H₀, you must (1) start with the relationship they state between speed and distance, (2) calculate the speed at which some source at some specified distance is receding from you, and (3) calculate the redshift corresponding to the speed at which that source is receding from you.

In short, the only way to find any relationship between redshift and H or H₀ is to accept that sources are moving away from you.

Helland physics says the cosmic light sources we see are not moving away from us. In other words, Helland physics predicts H = 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.

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

So H and H₀ relate speed to distance. They do not relate redshift to distance.

The lookback time in FLRW is:

$t_L = \frac{1}{H_0} \int_0^z \frac{dz'}{(1+z')E(z')}$

The scale factor for a flat, dark energy only FLRW model is:

$a(t) = e^{H_0 t}$

Neither deal in km or Mpc, so the conversion isn't necessary. These work best in units like s^-1.

ferd burfle · 4th June 2023, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The units of Hubble's constant are km/s/Mpc... by convention.

You can use other units. If you use inverse time, you need to make sure the distance unit you're using is the same as the distance component of the velocity units you're using. And the unit of time in the velocity is the same as the inverse for the constant.

The value in conventional SI units just does some conversions.

I was never great at math, but are you saying km/s/Mpc and km s^-1 Mpc^-1 are equivalent units?

Mike Helland · 4th June 2023, 02:30 PM

Originally Posted by ferd burfle

I was never great at math, but are you saying km/s/Mpc and km s^-1 Mpc^-1 are equivalent units?

That they are.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13450111

There's a difference between:

$\frac{a}{\frac{b}{c}}$

and

$\frac{\frac{a}{b}}{c}$

Think of it like:

$\frac{km/s}{Mpc}$

ETA: Here's a great post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=111

W.D.Clinger · 4th June 2023, 03:48 PM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The lookback time in FLRW is:

$t_L = \frac{1}{H_0} \int_0^z \frac{dz'}{(1+z')E(z')}$

The scale factor for a flat, dark energy only FLRW model is:

$a(t) = e^{H_0 t}$

Neither deal in km or Mpc, so the conversion isn't necessary. These work best in units like s^-1.

By writing what he wrote above, Mike Helland confirmed once again that he is woefully ignorant of FLRW models, relativity, and physics generally. And how could he have any real understanding of freshman-level Newtonian physics? As he has proved time and again within these threads, he struggles with first-year calculus.

People who actually know what they're talking about are aware that FLRW models for an expanding universe are exact solutions of Einstein's field equations for general relativity, that the Friedmann equations are immediate mathematical consequences of those exact solutions, that the Hubble parameter H = ȧ/a appears within the first Friedmann equation without any reference to redshifts, that Hubble's law is a first-order approximation to a physical consequence of the FLRW models and Friedmann equations via exactly the same line of reasoning I laid out earlier today, which means the only way to derive a relationship between redshift and H or H₀ is to accept the reality that redshifted light sources are moving away from us.

Which is to say that the only reason H₀ appears within the equations Mike Helland wrote above is that the universe is expanding.

That, of course, is a reality that the author and sole proponent of Helland physics denies.

But he doesn't know what he's talking about, as evidenced by the past few hours, days, weeks, and months of what he's written in this thread and its predecessor.

Helland physics predicts H = 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.

Ziggurat · 5th June 2023, 04:02 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

In de Sitter space

According to your theory we aren't in a de Sitter space, so why is what happens in a de Sitter space relevant to your theory?

Mike Helland · 5th June 2023, 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

According to your theory we aren't in a de Sitter space, so why is what happens in a de Sitter space relevant to your theory?

In no particular way, except the lookback times are equal.

When E(z)=1, the integral simplifies to a log.

d_then = a(t)d_now

Doesn't matter if you're talking about Mpc or nm. As long as then and now are the same units, no conversion is necessary.

λ_emit = a(t)λ_obs

That's how H is related to redshift. In units:

H = 1/s
D = d
HD = d/s
HD/c = z, no units

Alternatively:

HD/c = b, no units

When 1+b = 1 / (1 + z).

That's the function for physical distance in de Sitter space and TDP.

Ziggurat · 5th June 2023, 07:36 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

In no particular way, except the lookback times are equal.

So the hell what? The two theories are incompatible, they can't both be right. So the agreement doesn't support either theory. And since we can't actually measure lookback times in either theory, only infer them from other measurements, this isn't even useful for validating either theory.

Mike Helland · 5th June 2023, 07:42 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

So the hell what? The two theories are incompatible, they can't both be right. So the agreement doesn't support either theory. And since we can't actually measure lookback times in either theory, only infer them from other measurements, this isn't even useful for validating either theory.

I see.

In context, I mentioned de Sitter space because the first order approximations for redshift-distance aren't approximations in that model. They are its actual predictions.

Ziggurat · 5th June 2023, 07:46 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I see.

In context, I mentioned de Sitter space because the first order approximations for redshift-distance aren't approximations in that model. They are its actual predictions.

Again, so what? Your model isn't a de Sitter space. Our universe isn't a de Sitter space.

Mike Helland · 5th June 2023, 07:53 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Again, so what?

It's a matter of context.

There are three redshift-distance relationships in FLRW models, comoving, proper, and light travel time distance.

The TDP hypothesis has two distances relationships. They are equal to FLRW's proper distance and light travel time distance for a dark energy only universe.

That seemed relevant to the context. Please disregard

Ziggurat · 5th June 2023, 08:03 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

The TDP hypothesis has two distances relationships. They are equal to FLRW's proper distance and light travel time distance for a dark energy only universe.

So what? We don't live in a dark energy only universe. The fact that your model agrees with a model we know is wrong has no relevance to anything.

Quote:

That seemed relevant to the context.

Why would you think that?

Quote:

Please disregard

Please learn some basic physics and math.

Mike Helland · 5th June 2023, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Why would you think that?

The claim was that Hubble's constant doesn't relate redshift and distance.

That's true. You need a c in there.

Everyone here knows that. I shouldn't have taken the bait.

I see what's going on. I'm taking a break.

W.D.Clinger · 5th June 2023, 08:14 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

That's how H is related to redshift. In units:

H = 1/s
D = d
HD = d/s
HD/c = z, no units

H = ȧ/a has dimensions of inverse time, e.g. 1/s.

D presumably has a dimension of length.

HD therefore has dimensions of length divided by time, which is to say HD has the dimensions of speed.

If you look back over Mike Helland's recent posts, you will find several examples of him denying that H times distance is a speed. He's been claiming H times distance is redshift, which was a stupid claim.

As I pointed out, H and H₀ relate speed to distance, not redshift to distance. To use H or H₀ to calculate a redshift, you first have to multiply H or H₀ to calculate a speed. Once you have that speed, you can calculate a redshift.

That process, which I described yesterday, and Mike Helland denied, is exactly the process Mike Helland laid out above.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

ETA: Here's a great post:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=111

That is indeed a great post. Let's quote it here:

Originally Posted by hecd2

And while we are on the subject, while H is normally quoted in km s^-1 Mpc^-1, it is defined as the time derivative of the scale factor divided by the scale factor. The scale factor is dimensionless so H has dimensions and units of s^-1 as defined.

The following equation restates the words I highlighted above:

H = ȧ/a

a is the scale factor, and ȧ is the derivative of a with respect to time.

If the universe is neither expanding nor contracting, then the scale factor is constant. If the author and sole proponent of Helland physics understood calculus, he'd realize that a constant scale factor implies ȧ = 0. If he possessed any degree of competence in high school algebra, he would then be able to plug ȧ = 0 into the equation that defines H and conclude that Helland physics requires H = H₀ = 0.

And so, according to a post Mike Helland described as "great", Helland physics predicts H = 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.

Mike Helland · 5th June 2023, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

He's been claiming H times distance is redshift

That's a lie.

Ziggurat · 5th June 2023, 08:44 AM

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

I'm taking a break.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

That's a lie.

We know.

W.D.Clinger · 5th June 2023, 08:50 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

If you look back over Mike Helland's recent posts, you will find several examples of him denying that H times distance is a speed. He's been claiming H times distance is redshift, which was a stupid claim.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

That's a lie.

Actually, it's a pretty accurate summary of the following correspondence.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

Splitting the pseudoscience from the science was a good thing. Almost 8 months have gone by, but:

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.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

Hubble's constant relates redshift to distance.

In context, Mike Helland was trying to deny the fact that "Helland physics predicts an expansion rate of H₀ = 0." His dishonest tactic was to pretend the Hubble constant doesn't relate expansion rate to distance, but instead relates redshift to distance.

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

So 70 km/s/Mpc means that, at a distance of 1 Mpc, the redshift is 70 km/s?

No, that's just stupid. Hubble's constant relates velocity to distance.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

If that's what you honestly think, be my guest. I think our correspondence has run its course.

Readers can judge for themselves whether Mike Helland's response was intended to

acknowledge the fact that Hubble's constant relates velocity to distance

or

deny/obfuscate the fact that Hubble's constant relates velocity to distance

Originally Posted by hecd2

Mike is confusing dimensions with units. The dimensions of the Hubble parameter is inverse time. The units of the Hubble parameter are km s^-1 Mpc^-1 - speed per unit distance.

Originally Posted by Mike Helland

You're confusing the map for the territory.

Readers can judge for themselves whether Mike Helland's response was intended to

acknowledge the fact that "the units of the Hubble parameter are...speed per unit distance"

or

deny/obfuscate the fact that "the units of the Hubble parameter are...speed per unit distance"

Originally Posted by hecd2

You can, of course convert the units of the Hubble parameter into any units which have dimensions of inverse time. For example furlongs per fortnight per micron. But the convention is to quote it in units of km s-1 Mpc-1 because it is expressing an expansion speed per unit distance.

I highlighted the words Mike Helland was trying to deny.

He quoted those words but responded with irrelevancies designed to draw attention away from the highlighted word.

Throughout this thread and its predecessor, Mike Helland has been trying to deny the fact that H and H₀ are "expressing an expansion speed per unit distance."

Here's the reason he's been trying to deny that fact:

Helland physics predicts H = 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.

Ziggurat · 5th June 2023, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger

2nd June 2023, 12:40 PM	#121
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497	Originally Posted by Mike Helland 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. Two days ago, his graph was **. Today, however... Originally Posted by Mike Helland 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. Today's version of Mike Helland says FLRW parameters Ω_m = 0.45 and Ω_Λ = 0.55 provide the best fit among all FLRW models for which Ω_m + Ω_Λ = 1. For me to be perfectly honest, I'd have to point out that Ω_m + Ω_Λ = 1 corresponds to the black line labelled "flat" in the following graph: Originally Posted by Mike Helland** I'm sure you're familiar with this: https://cerncourier.com/wp-content/u...dar3_03_09.jpg The intersection of that black line with the innermost blue oval (labelled "SNe") contains the best FLRW fit to supernova data among all FLRW models with Ω_m + Ω_Λ = 1. As honest readers can easily see for themselves by consulting the axes of that graph, the intersection of the black line with the innermost blue "SNe" oval corresponds to an Ω_m parameter that's near 0.29, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497

2nd June 2023, 02:12 PM	#122
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger As honest readers can easily see for themselves by consulting the axes of that graph, the intersection of the black line with the innermost blue "SNe" oval corresponds to an Ω_m parameter that's near 0.29, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m. It sure does. In my SSE calculations, and the resulting graph, the 0.32 shows a better fit and was the number I found for the Planck model, so I used that. If 0.29 is a better value to use, ok. The actual best fit in that image above, for the SNe data exclusively, and without constraining to a flat model, seems to be about Ω_Λ=0.9, Ω_M=0.45. That bit about Ω_Λ=0.3 wasn't a typo, btw. If you switch the concordance parameters, you get an H₀ closer to 68 km/s/Mpc, which is the prediction from LCDM Ω_Λ0.7, but that's of no real consequence. To get sub-70's from a flat FLRW, it appears you need to really dial back the dark energy.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

2nd June 2023, 05:32 PM	#123
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497	Originally Posted by Mike Helland Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger As honest readers can easily see for themselves by consulting the axes of that graph, the intersection of the black line with the innermost blue "SNe" oval corresponds to an Ω_m parameter that's near 0.29, with Ω_Λ = 1 − Ω_m. It sure does. Which means today's graphs and prose, like the graph and prose from two days ago, and all of the prose Mike Helland contributed in between, has been full of ****. In an uncertain world, it's nice to have a few certainties.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497

3rd June 2023, 01:00 AM	#124
steenkh Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 7,122	In earlier incarnations of this thread, Mike Helland viewed JWST pictures of huge galaxies as clinching the argument that JWST rewrites the laws of physics. This article in Universe Today shows that many scientists do not look upon the results in this light, but come up with explanations using standard physics: Here's How You Could Get Impossibly Large Galaxies in the Early Universe
	__________________ Steen -- Jack of all trades - master of none!

3rd June 2023, 05:47 AM	#125
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 13,454	Originally Posted by steenkh In earlier incarnations of this thread, Mike Helland viewed JWST pictures of huge galaxies as clinching the argument that JWST rewrites the laws of physics. This article in Universe Today shows that many scientists do not look upon the results in this light, but come up with explanations using standard physics: Here's How You Could Get Impossibly Large Galaxies in the Early Universe It has been a long, long time since this thread had anything to do with the thread title. It has devolved into "Why Mike Helland rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts". And the evidence for "doesn't" is overwhelming.
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

3rd June 2023, 10:33 AM	#126
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Which means today's graphs and prose, like the graph and prose from two days ago, and all of the prose Mike Helland contributed in between, has been full of ****. The SSE I used for the data against LCDM is better for 0.32 than 0.267. I didn't attempt to deceive anyone. I attempted to use the most accurate number (Planck's) that were the most favorable to LCDM. I could have left it at 0.7 and 0.3. I tried to be more accurate and favorable. You accuse me of the opposite. You should apologize.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

3rd June 2023, 12:58 PM	#127
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497	Originally Posted by Steve It has been a long, long time since this thread had anything to do with the thread title. It has devolved into "Why Mike Helland rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts". And the evidence for "doesn't" is overwhelming. Actually, this thread is a continuation of its predecessor thread, which was split off from the James Webb Telescope thread to make it possible for that thread to discuss science instead of being sidetracked by the pseudoscience that has been the primary topic discussed by this thread and its predecessor. Splitting the pseudoscience from the science was a good thing. Almost 8 months have gone by, but: 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.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497

3rd June 2023, 02:39 PM	#128
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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. Hubble's constant relates redshift to distance. If the redshift is caused by the expansion of space, that would make Hubble's constant an expansion rate. That would also mean that in addition to the wavelength of photons increasing, causing its energy to decrease, but the distance between photons increases too. This is relevant to flux, and why the luminosity distance of a galaxy is (1 + z)² times its distance. Sidenote: We also see that supernovae are time dilated by a factor of (1 + z). If phenomena are time dilated by a factor of (1 + z), shouldn't that contribute to the redshift of photon's from that galaxy? IOW, why aren't photons redshifted by the square of the supernova's time dilation? Redshift could also be caused by increasing the EM wave's period. Then it would make sense an EM wave from a galaxy would be redshifted by the same amount as the supernova's time dilation. But in any case, Hubble's constant relates redshift to distance. If you expand space, or expand time, a constant is likely to be involved. As it happens, H₀ is in units of inverse time, which makes it quite convenient to use in the expanding time idea. That they are in the same ball park is kind of nice, and not too unexpected, since the same expression for a basic expanding universe's scale factor is being used as the time scale factor. But they aren't obliged to be similar in magnitude or equal in dimension, nor should anything be read into the observation that they are. It does make it convenient to compare the two ideas though.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections. Last edited by Mike Helland; 3rd June 2023 at 02:42 PM.

3rd June 2023, 04:00 PM	#129
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497	Mike Helland is remarkably confused. Originally Posted by Mike Helland Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger 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. Hubble's constant relates redshift to distance. So 70 km/s/Mpc means that, at a distance of 1 Mpc, the redshift is 70 km/s? No, that's just stupid. Hubble's constant relates velocity to distance. For all of Mike Helland's blathering about H₀, he doesn't even understand its units.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497

3rd June 2023, 04:06 PM	#130
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger So 70 km/s/Mpc means that, at a distance of 1 Mpc, the redshift is 70 km/s? If that's what you honestly think, be my guest. I think our correspondence has run its course.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

4th June 2023, 02:21 AM	#131
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	Mike is confusing dimensions with units. The dimensions of the Hubble parameter is inverse time. The units of the Hubble parameter are km s^-1 Mpc^-1 - speed per unit distance.
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	__________________ Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit

4th June 2023, 05:32 AM	#132
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by hecd2 Mike is confusing dimensions with units. The dimensions of the Hubble parameter is inverse time. The units of the Hubble parameter are km s^-1 Mpc^-1 - speed per unit distance. You're confusing the map for the territory. Convert km/s/Mpc to km/s/Mly 70.5 (km/s / Mpc) = 21.6 (km/s / Million light years) Convert km/sec to light years / year. 21.6 km/s = 0.000072 ly/y That's the same as 0.000072 million light years per million years. 0.000072 million light years per million years per million light years, the million light years cancel out, 0.000072 (million years)^-1, therefore 1/H₀ = 13888.9 million years.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

4th June 2023, 05:57 AM	#133
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	You can, of course convert the units of the Hubble parameter into any units which have dimensions of inverse time. For example furlongs per fortnight per micron. But the convention is to quote it in units of km s^-1 Mpc^-1 because it is expressing an expansion speed per unit distance.
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	__________________ Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit Last edited by hecd2; 4th June 2023 at 05:58 AM.

4th June 2023, 06:23 AM	#134
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by hecd2 You can, of course convert the units of the Hubble parameter into any units which have dimensions of inverse time. For example furlongs per fortnight per micron. But the convention is to quote it in units of km s^-1 Mpc^-1 because it is expressing an expansion speed per unit distance. In de Sitter space the comoving distance is giving by: $d_C =( \frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$ And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: $d_{emit} =( \frac{\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{obs}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$ Since: $1 + z =\frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}$ Then: $d_C =z \frac{c}{H_0}$ And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: $d_{emit} =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$ Multiplying H₀ by a distance results in a velocity. If you want to find z, you'll have to divide by c, either way you slice it. That shouldn't be news to you, or the person who had trouble relating distance and relationship.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

4th June 2023, 06:45 AM	#135
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by Mike Helland In de Sitter space the comoving distance is giving by: $d_C =( \frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$ And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: $d_{emit} =( \frac{\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{obs}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$ Since: $1 + z =\frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}$ Then: $d_C =z \frac{c}{H_0}$ And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: $d_{emit} =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$ Multiplying H₀ by a distance results in a velocity. If you want to find z, you'll have to divide by c, either way you slice it. That shouldn't be news to you, or the person who had trouble relating distance and relationship. That said, in the time dilated past hypothesis, there is only one physical distance: $d =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$ But there is also the light travel time distance, and that's also the same in de Sitter space: $d_{t} =\frac{c}{H_0} \log{ (1+z)}$ I decided to use that times (1 + z) to get the luminosity distance. I've mentioned that, and I'm surprised nobody flipped out. I think now would be a good time for that. The only justification I can think of for doing that is the flux-luminosity-distance relationship: $f =\frac{L}{4 \pi d^2}$ "d" here would have to be light travel time distance for my predictions to work. So, it should be: $f =\frac{L}{4 \pi (ct)^2}$ ? That would imply, for the hypothesis to be right, the distance ladder has a fundamental error. Or the hypothesis is wrong. That's obviously the most probably explanation.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections. Last edited by Mike Helland; 4th June 2023 at 06:47 AM.

4th June 2023, 07:25 AM	#136
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	Originally Posted by Mike Helland In de Sitter space the comoving distance is giving by: $d_C =( \frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$ And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: $d_{emit} =( \frac{\lambda_{emit}}{\lambda_{obs}} - 1) \frac{c}{H_0}$ Since: $1 + z =\frac{\lambda_{obs}}{\lambda_{emit}$ Then: $d_C =z \frac{c}{H_0}$ And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: $d_{emit} =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$ Multiplying H₀ by a distance results in a velocity. If you want to find z, you'll have to divide by c, either way you slice it. That shouldn't be news to you, or the person who had trouble relating distance and relationship. I have no idea what you are burbling about.
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	__________________ Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit

4th June 2023, 07:26 AM	#137
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	Originally Posted by Mike Helland That said, in the time dilated past hypothesis, there is only one physical distance: $d =-\frac{z}{1 + z} \frac{c}{H_0}$ But there is also the light travel time distance, and that's also the same in de Sitter space: $d_{t} =\frac{c}{H_0} \log{ (1+z)}$ I decided to use that times (1 + z) to get the luminosity distance. I've mentioned that, and I'm surprised nobody flipped out. I think now would be a good time for that. The only justification I can think of for doing that is the flux-luminosity-distance relationship: $f =\frac{L}{4 \pi d^2}$ "d" here would have to be light travel time distance for my predictions to work. So, it should be: $f =\frac{L}{4 \pi (ct)^2}$ ? That would imply, for the hypothesis to be right, the distance ladder has a fundamental error. Or the hypothesis is wrong. That's obviously the most probably explanation. There is no hypothesis.
hecd2 Graduate Poster Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 1,696	__________________ Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit

4th June 2023, 08:05 AM	#138
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by hecd2 There is no hypothesis. And no measurement has ever been made that is inconsistent with LCDM. Looks like you win.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

4th June 2023, 08:22 AM	#139
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	I had a strange thought yesterday. You know how the photon is said not to experience any time? It seems like if it leaves point A, and travels to point B, so at some time it is at all the points in between, it doesn't seem like that would be true. If you were the photon, you would notice stuff going by, which would be experiencing time, but I suppose none of the stuff would be changing, so not really? Anyways, here's the idea. The photon doesn't move from point A to point B over time. That's what's shown on the left. The yellow dot is the photon. It's always at the present, moving from A to B. What if instead, the right happens. The photon instead completely ignores the passage of time. As time passes, the photon fails to keep up, so instead of staying in the present, it drifts into the past. It waits until it sees something at a 45 degree angle, and then instantaneously goes there. So for its entire journey (sans the last instant), not only is it not moving in space, it's not moving in time either. When the time comes it just shows up where it's supposed to be. This means that any snap shot of the present will only have photons being emitted, or absorbed, but never in flight. They have to be observed to exist in the present. If you consider a light source like a star with a planet revolving around it, the star may be occluded by the planet. That doesn't seem to pose any problem. When the planet is blocking the view of the star, that's because it is at a 45 degree angle to those photons that are being blocked by the planet.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

4th June 2023, 08:26 AM	#140
ferd burfle Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Philippines, formerly out of the Solomons Posts: 1,623	Originally Posted by Mike Helland You're confusing the map for the territory. Convert km/s/Mpc to km/s/Mly 70.5 (km/s / Mpc) = 21.6 (km/s / Million light years) Convert km/sec to light years / year. 21.6 km/s = 0.000072 ly/y That's the same as 0.000072 million light years per million years. 0.000072 million light years per million years per million light years, the million light years cancel out, 0.000072 (million years)^-1, therefore 1/H₀ = 13888.9 million years. You seem to be unwilling or incapable of acknowledging a simple error.
	__________________ If bands were cars, Band Maid would be a pink Nissan GT-R with a Hello Kitty graphic wrap.

4th June 2023, 08:51 AM	#141
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by ferd burfle You seem to be unwilling or incapable of acknowledging a simple error. The units of Hubble's constant are km/s/Mpc... by convention. You can use other units. If you use inverse time, you need to make sure the distance unit you're using is the same as the distance component of the velocity units you're using. And the unit of time in the velocity is the same as the inverse for the constant. The value in conventional SI units just does some conversions.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

4th June 2023, 09:09 AM	#142
Steve Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 13,454	Originally Posted by Mike Helland I had a strange thought yesterday. Is this somehow different from all other days?
	__________________ Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"

4th June 2023, 01:01 PM	#143
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497	In recent days, Mike Helland has amused us by drawing several graphs, all of them incorrect, all of them based upon his miscalculations. He did show one correct graph, due to CERN, because he mistakenly thought CERN's graph would show he was right. But CERN's graph proves he was wrong. Having miscalculated for days, weeks, and months, what does he do? He posts further miscalculations. Originally Posted by hecd2 I have no idea what you are burbling about. Neither does he. Originally Posted by hecd2 You can, of course convert the units of the Hubble parameter into any units which have dimensions of inverse time. For example furlongs per fortnight per micron. But the convention is to quote it in units of km s^-1 Mpc^-1 because it is expressing an expansion speed per unit distance. Here are some really basic facts: Because the Hubble parameter H and Hubble constant H₀ have dimensions of inverse time (e.g. s⁻¹), the only way to interpret H and H₀ as anything that is proportional to distance (length) is to interpret them as speed (length / time, e.g. km/s) per distance (e.g. Mpc). So H and H₀ relate speed to distance. They do not relate redshift to distance. To find some relationship between redshift and H or H₀, you must (1) start with the relationship they state between speed and distance, (2) calculate the speed at which some source at some specified distance is receding from you, and (3) calculate the redshift corresponding to the speed at which that source is receding from you. In short, the only way to find any relationship between redshift and H or H₀ is to accept that sources are moving away from you. When just about everything you see in the universe is moving away from you, there are two possible explanations: You are at the center of the universe, and just about everything is running away from you. The universe is expanding, so just about everything is moving away from just about everything else. The first of those explanations is rather egocentric and has no scientific support. The second of those explanations is consistent with, and was in fact predicted by, one of the most successful and well-tested scientific theories in the history of planet Earth. Helland physics says the cosmic light sources we see are not moving away from us. In other words, Helland physics predicts H = 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.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497

4th June 2023, 01:17 PM	#144
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger So H and H₀ relate speed to distance. They do not relate redshift to distance. The lookback time in FLRW is: $t_L = \frac{1}{H_0} \int_0^z \frac{dz'}{(1+z')E(z')}$ The scale factor for a flat, dark energy only FLRW model is: $a(t) = e^{H_0 t}$ Neither deal in km or Mpc, so the conversion isn't necessary. These work best in units like s^-1.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

4th June 2023, 02:09 PM	#145
ferd burfle Graduate Poster Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Philippines, formerly out of the Solomons Posts: 1,623	Originally Posted by Mike Helland The units of Hubble's constant are km/s/Mpc... by convention. You can use other units. If you use inverse time, you need to make sure the distance unit you're using is the same as the distance component of the velocity units you're using. And the unit of time in the velocity is the same as the inverse for the constant. The value in conventional SI units just does some conversions. I was never great at math, but are you saying km/s/Mpc and km s^-1 Mpc^-1 are equivalent units?
	__________________ If bands were cars, Band Maid would be a pink Nissan GT-R with a Hello Kitty graphic wrap.

4th June 2023, 02:30 PM	#146
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by ferd burfle I was never great at math, but are you saying km/s/Mpc and km s^-1 Mpc^-1 are equivalent units? That they are. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13450111 There's a difference between: $\frac{a}{\frac{b}{c}}$ and $\frac{\frac{a}{b}}{c}$ Think of it like: $\frac{km/s}{Mpc}$ ETA: Here's a great post: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...&postcount=111
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections. Last edited by Mike Helland; 4th June 2023 at 02:37 PM.

4th June 2023, 03:48 PM	#147
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497	Originally Posted by Mike Helland The lookback time in FLRW is: $t_L = \frac{1}{H_0} \int_0^z \frac{dz'}{(1+z')E(z')}$ The scale factor for a flat, dark energy only FLRW model is: $a(t) = e^{H_0 t}$ Neither deal in km or Mpc, so the conversion isn't necessary. These work best in units like s^-1. By writing what he wrote above, Mike Helland confirmed once again that he is woefully ignorant of FLRW models, relativity, and physics generally. And how could he have any real understanding of freshman-level Newtonian physics? As he has proved time and again within these threads, he struggles with first-year calculus. People who actually know what they're talking about are aware that FLRW models for an expanding universe are exact solutions of Einstein's field equations for general relativity, that the Friedmann equations are immediate mathematical consequences of those exact solutions, that the Hubble parameter H = ȧ/a appears within the first Friedmann equation without any reference to redshifts, that Hubble's law is a first-order approximation to a physical *consequence* of the FLRW models and Friedmann equations via exactly the same line of reasoning I laid out earlier today, which means the only way to derive a relationship between redshift and H or H₀ is to accept the reality that redshifted light sources are moving away from us. Which is to say that the only reason H₀ appears within the equations Mike Helland wrote above is that the universe is expanding. That, of course, is a reality that the author and sole proponent of Helland physics denies. But he doesn't know what he's talking about, as evidenced by the past few hours, days, weeks, and months of what he's written in this thread and its predecessor. Helland physics predicts H = 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.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,497

5th June 2023, 04:02 AM	#148
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 55,286	Originally Posted by Mike Helland In de Sitter space According to your theory we aren't in a de Sitter space, so why is what happens in a de Sitter space relevant to your theory?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th June 2023, 06:37 AM	#149
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by Ziggurat According to your theory we aren't in a de Sitter space, so why is what happens in a de Sitter space relevant to your theory? In no particular way, except the lookback times are equal. When E(z)=1, the integral simplifies to a log. d_then = a(t)d_now Doesn't matter if you're talking about Mpc or nm. As long as then and now are the same units, no conversion is necessary. λ_emit = a(t)λ_obs That's how H is related to redshift. In units: H = 1/s D = d HD = d/s HD/c = z, no units Alternatively: HD/c = b, no units When 1+b = 1 / (1 + z). That's the function for physical distance in de Sitter space and TDP.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections. Last edited by Mike Helland; 5th June 2023 at 07:39 AM.

5th June 2023, 07:36 AM	#150
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 55,286	Originally Posted by Mike Helland In no particular way, except the lookback times are equal. So the hell what? The two theories are incompatible, they can't both be right. So the agreement doesn't support either theory. And since we can't actually measure lookback times in either theory, only infer them from other measurements, this isn't even useful for validating either theory.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th June 2023, 07:42 AM	#151
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by Ziggurat So the hell what? The two theories are incompatible, they can't both be right. So the agreement doesn't support either theory. And since we can't actually measure lookback times in either theory, only infer them from other measurements, this isn't even useful for validating either theory. I see. In context, I mentioned de Sitter space because the first order approximations for redshift-distance aren't approximations in that model. They are its actual predictions.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

5th June 2023, 07:46 AM	#152
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 55,286	Originally Posted by Mike Helland I see. In context, I mentioned de Sitter space because the first order approximations for redshift-distance aren't approximations in that model. They are its actual predictions. Again, so what? Your model isn't a de Sitter space. Our universe isn't a de Sitter space.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th June 2023, 07:53 AM	#153
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Again, so what? It's a matter of context. There are three redshift-distance relationships in FLRW models, comoving, proper, and light travel time distance. The TDP hypothesis has two distances relationships. They are equal to FLRW's proper distance and light travel time distance for a dark energy only universe. That seemed relevant to the context. Please disregard
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.

5th June 2023, 08:03 AM	#154
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 55,286	Originally Posted by Mike Helland The TDP hypothesis has two distances relationships. They are equal to FLRW's proper distance and light travel time distance for a dark energy only universe. So what? We don't live in a dark energy only universe. The fact that your model agrees with a model we know is wrong has no relevance to anything. Quote: That seemed relevant to the context. Why would you think that? Quote: Please disregard Please learn some basic physics and math.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

5th June 2023, 08:10 AM	#155
Mike Helland Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 4,240	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Why would you think that? The claim was that Hubble's constant doesn't relate redshift and distance. That's true. You need a c in there. Everyone here knows that. I shouldn't have taken the bait. I see what's going on. I'm taking a break.
	__________________ I'm not entirely sure what I'm talking about, but based on what little I know, the above seemed like a reasonable thing to say. Thank you in advance for any corrections.