Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

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

 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.
 Yesterday, 12:40 PM #121 W.D.Clinger Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,042 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 Ωm parameter that's somewhere between 0.25 and 0.315, with ΩΛ = 1 − Ωm. Mike Helland says the FLRW model that best fits the supernova data has as its parameters Ωm = 0.45 and ΩΛ = 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 Ωm = 0.45 and ΩΛ = 0.55 provide the best fit among all FLRW models for which Ωm + ΩΛ = 1. For me to be perfectly honest, I'd have to point out that Ωm + ΩΛ = 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 Ωm + ΩΛ = 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 Ωm parameter that's near 0.29, with ΩΛ = 1 − Ωm.
 Yesterday, 02:12 PM #122 Mike Helland Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 3,630 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 Ωm parameter that's near 0.29, with ΩΛ = 1 − Ωm. 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 ΩΛ=0.9, ΩM=0.45. That bit about ΩΛ=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 ΩΛ0.7, 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.
 Yesterday, 05:32 PM #123 W.D.Clinger Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,042 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 Ωm parameter that's near 0.29, with ΩΛ = 1 − Ωm. 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.
 Today, 01:00 AM #124 steenkh Philosopher     Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 6,844 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!
 Today, 05:47 AM #125 Steve Penultimate Amazing     Join Date: May 2005 Location: Sydney Nova Scotia Posts: 12,576 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!"
 Today, 10:33 AM #126 Mike Helland Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 3,630 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.
 Today, 12:58 PM #127 W.D.Clinger Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,042 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.
 Today, 02:39 PM #128 Mike Helland Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 3,630 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; Today at 02:42 PM.
 Today, 04:00 PM #129 W.D.Clinger Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,042 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.
 Today, 04:06 PM #130 Mike Helland Illuminator   Join Date: Nov 2020 Posts: 3,630 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.

International Skeptics Forum