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

W.D.Clinger · Yesterday, 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 · Yesterday, 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 · Yesterday, 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 · Today, 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 · Today, 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 · Today, 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 · Today, 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 · Today, 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 · Today, 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 · Today, 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.

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 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: 5,042

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 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.

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 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: 5,042

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.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,042

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.
W.D.Clinger Philosopher Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 5,042

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.