
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. 
2nd June 2023, 12:40 PM  #121 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,497

Two days ago, his graph was ****. Today, however... 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: 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}. 
2nd June 2023, 02:12 PM  #122 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

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 H_{0} closer to 68 km/s/Mpc, which is the prediction from LCDM Ω_{Λ}0.7, but that's of no real consequence. To get sub70'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 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,497


3rd June 2023, 01:00 AM  #124 
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 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,454


__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon  Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" 

3rd June 2023, 10:33 AM  #126 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

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 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,497

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 H_{0} = 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 6575 km/s/Mpc. 
3rd June 2023, 02:39 PM  #128 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

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, H_{0} 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. 

3rd June 2023, 04:00 PM  #129 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,497

Mike Helland is remarkably confused.
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 H_{0}, he doesn't even understand its units. 
3rd June 2023, 04:06 PM  #130 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240


__________________
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 
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.

__________________
Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit 

4th June 2023, 05:32 AM  #132 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

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/H_{0} = 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 
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.

__________________
Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit 

4th June 2023, 06:23 AM  #134 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

In de Sitter space the comoving distance is giving by: And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: Since: Then: And the proper distance at the time of emission is given by: Multiplying H_{0} 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 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

That said, in the time dilated past hypothesis, there is only one physical distance:
But there is also the light travel time distance, and that's also the same in de Sitter space: 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 fluxluminositydistance relationship: "d" here would have to be light travel time distance for my predictions to work. So, it should be: ? 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. 

4th June 2023, 07:25 AM  #136 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,696


__________________
Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit 

4th June 2023, 07:26 AM  #137 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,696


__________________
Gulielmus Princeps Haroldum Principem in catino canino impulit 

4th June 2023, 08:05 AM  #138 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240


__________________
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 
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 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Philippines, formerly out of the Solomons
Posts: 1,623


__________________
If bands were cars, Band Maid would be a pink Nissan GTR with a Hello Kitty graphic wrap. 

4th June 2023, 08:51 AM  #141 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

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 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney Nova Scotia
Posts: 13,454


__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon  Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!" 

4th June 2023, 01:01 PM  #143 
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. Neither does he. Here are some really basic facts: Because the Hubble parameter H and Hubble constant H_{0} have dimensions of inverse time (e.g. s^{−1}), the only way to interpret H and H_{0} 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 H_{0} relate speed to distance. They do not relate redshift to distance. To find some relationship between redshift and H or H_{0}, 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 H_{0} 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 = H_{0} = 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 6575 km/s/Mpc. 
4th June 2023, 01:17 PM  #144 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240


__________________
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 
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Philippines, formerly out of the Solomons
Posts: 1,623


__________________
If bands were cars, Band Maid would be a pink Nissan GTR with a Hello Kitty graphic wrap. 

4th June 2023, 02:30 PM  #146 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

That they are.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...1#post13450111 There's a difference between: and Think of it like: 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. 

4th June 2023, 03:48 PM  #147 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,497

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 freshmanlevel Newtonian physics? As he has proved time and again within these threads, he struggles with firstyear 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 firstorder 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 H_{0} is to accept the reality that redshifted light sources are moving away from us. Which is to say that the only reason H_{0} 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 = H_{0} = 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 6575 km/s/Mpc. 
5th June 2023, 04:02 AM  #148 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 55,286


__________________
"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 allabsorbing. 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 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

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. 

5th June 2023, 07:36 AM  #150 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 55,286

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 allabsorbing. 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 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240


__________________
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 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 55,286


__________________
"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 allabsorbing. 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 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240

It's a matter of context.
There are three redshiftdistance 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 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 55,286


__________________
"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 allabsorbing. 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 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240


__________________
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, 08:14 AM  #156 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,497

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 H_{0} relate speed to distance, not redshift to distance. To use H or H_{0} to calculate a redshift, you first have to multiply H or H_{0} 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. That is indeed a great post. Let's quote it here:
Originally Posted by hecd2
The following equation restates the words I highlighted above: H = ȧ/aa 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 = H_{0} = 0. And so, according to a post Mike Helland described as "great", Helland physics predicts H = H_{0} = 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 6575 km/s/Mpc. 
5th June 2023, 08:16 AM  #157 
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4,240


__________________
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, 08:44 AM  #158 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 55,286


__________________
"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 allabsorbing. 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, 08:50 AM  #159 
Philosopher
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 5,497

Actually, it's a pretty accurate summary of the following correspondence. In context, Mike Helland was trying to deny the fact that "Helland physics predicts an expansion rate of H_{0} = 0." His dishonest tactic was to pretend the Hubble constant doesn't relate expansion rate to distance, but instead relates redshift to distance. Readers can judge for themselves whether Mike Helland's response was intended to acknowledge the fact that Hubble's constant relates velocity to distanceor deny/obfuscate the fact that Hubble's constant relates velocity to distance 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
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 H_{0} are "expressing an expansion speed per unit distance." Here's the reason he's been trying to deny that fact: Helland physics predicts H = H_{0} = 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 6575 km/s/Mpc. 
5th June 2023, 09:09 AM  #160 
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 55,286


__________________
"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 allabsorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious."  Bastiat, The Law 

Thread Tools  

