jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
yep, I just found it, here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...nst-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/page-1
yep, I just found it, here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...nst-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/page-1
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,235
Prove it.
tusenfem
Illuminator
- Joined
- May 27, 2008
- Messages
- 3,306
Nope, it just got moved from Q&A to S&T, because is obviously does not fit in Q&A.
Yep .. this now makes it a lot easier to talk about.
Lerner's analysis appears to have flaws, especially as it appears that he has not considered the impact on angular resolution which results from the dissimilar filters used in the HUDF and Galex datasets. Lerner has provided no evidence that the resulting difference in resolution, would then produce the same bottom line result he claims.
The CQ thread is Expansion of the Universe.
I have just written a post in it (comments and questions welcome).
It seems Eric L may have abandoned the physicsforums thread, so I'll just report the current status of the refutation I presented to him .. here .. as follows:
i) Eric etal's method allows more Galex data to be included in the analysis because his Galex data cutoffs are ~50% lower (2.4 and 2.6 arcsecs) than what he claims to be Galex scope resolution limits (ie: 4.2 and 5.3 arcsec FWHM for FUV and NUV respectively). His method doesn't appear to explicitly address and correct for this.
ii) Then, for the Hubble data: the proposed cutoffs don't appear to vary with the wavelength of the filtered HUDT observations, as they approach the theoretical (Rayleigh) optical limits of the scope (courtesy of oversampling).
iii) The 1/38 ratio figure used, seems to have no relevance in the light of the issues outlined above.
iv) The Hubble data itself, thus refutes the methodology, due to his method's failure in finding resolution differences in the individual HUDT filter data.
v) If Eric agrees with the above, then it would be very nice for him to consider some form of formalised corrective measures.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...nst-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/page-5
Cheers
i) Eric etal's method allows more Galex data to be included in the analysis because his Galex data cutoffs are ~50% lower (2.4 and 2.6 arcsecs) than what he claims to be Galex scope resolution limits (ie: 4.2 and 5.3 arcsec FWHM for FUV and NUV respectively). His method doesn't appear to explicitly address and correct for this.
ii) Then, for the Hubble data: the proposed cutoffs don't appear to vary with the wavelength of the filtered HUDT observations, as they approach the theoretical (Rayleigh) optical limits of the scope (courtesy of oversampling).
iii) The 1/38 ratio figure used, seems to have no relevance in the light of the issues outlined above.
iv) The Hubble data itself, thus refutes the methodology, due to his method's failure in finding resolution differences in the individual HUDT filter data.
v) If Eric agrees with the above, then it would be very nice for him to consider some form of formalised corrective measures.
Reference https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...nst-expanding-universe-in-mnras.943111/page-5
Cheers
He did reply, after you'd posted this no doubt.
Curiously - or not - he seems to have not addressed some key parts of at least three earlier (sets of) posts, despite him claiming to actually do so.
I have just posted my own reply, which includes something curious I found just this morning.
General comment: Eric Lerner started both this ISF thread and the one in PF. In both, he initially participated fairly actively; however, in time he completely dropped out of the discussion in this thread. I do hope that that pattern is not repeated over in PF.
jonesdave116
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2015
- Messages
- 6,222
Hi JT,
On PF you made the comment;
Regarding the possible differences in the MNRAS and Arxiv versions, I am just about to PM you with a way of resolving it
Last edited:
Yep .. fair enough.
He also clarified his apparently singular view of the spatial resolution parameter via his usage of only the telescope/camera combo figure, (thus forsaking any consideration of the optical performance/wavelength performance issues).
I suppose my post may have discovered one way of digging out some of the thinking behind his method, given that he hasn't elaborated on any of it (as you're aware).
So, at least he resolved issue (i) on my list .. which also then adds more weight to the rest of them!
Yep ..JeanTate said:
Thank you for lending your expertise on this .. I think its very important to sort this one out on all fronts, so its very much appreciated.JeanTate said:
I would also like to acknowledge and pay credit to 'sjastro' at CFs as well, who thus far, has been my coach on many of the technical (and now testing) aspects relating to this campaign.
I'm always very aware of the 'log-jam' issue that happens when anyone challenges a largish number of active enquiring minds. We should really try to distill and concentrate our posts as much as we can, I guess. I think to his credit, he's used real data, (co-inciding with your previous challenge to EU proponents) and got it published in a reputable journal, all of which is at least, encouraging!JeanTate said:
Cheers
PS: My intention of posting on this topic here at ISF, was primarily to distill and summarise the outcomes of the Physicsforums and CQ threads. The 'meatier issues' seem to have piqued a few other interested posters at CQ, so I'd recommend continuing to use the CQ thread for discussing those(?)
PPS: jonesdave (& other ISFers): your feedback is also appreciated .. I guess I've found it a bit tricky to work across 3 sites (CF, CQ and PFs). No disrespect intended ..
Last edited:
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
A possible issue is that the paper may be comparing incompatible models.
On one hand we have his static Euclidean universe with no mention of dark matter that gives "For a non-expanding universe, SB is independent of z, and thus for a given luminosity the radius of disk galaxies should be constant with z".
On the other hand we have an expanding universe with dark matter: "For the expanding universe hypothesis, Mo, Mao and White (Mo et al, 1998) first showed that the radius of disk galaxies forming at redshift z should be a fixed fraction of the size of the dark matter halo. This in turn is proportional to ...".
The formation of galactic discs by Mo et al, 1998
If we add dark matter to his model then it is possible that there will be the same proportionality with the size of the dark matter halo and so he has also invalidated his model.
On one hand we have his static Euclidean universe with no mention of dark matter that gives "For a non-expanding universe, SB is independent of z, and thus for a given luminosity the radius of disk galaxies should be constant with z".
On the other hand we have an expanding universe with dark matter: "For the expanding universe hypothesis, Mo, Mao and White (Mo et al, 1998) first showed that the radius of disk galaxies forming at redshift z should be a fixed fraction of the size of the dark matter halo. This in turn is proportional to ...".
The formation of galactic discs by Mo et al, 1998
If we add dark matter to his model then it is possible that there will be the same proportionality with the size of the dark matter halo and so he has also invalidated his model.
WhatRoughBeast
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 1,499
Actually, this sets you right up to be the first to actually respond positively to Eric L's original post.
Do you believe that the concordance theory HAS been disproved?
If so, exactly what evidence brought about this disproof?
Purely as a secondary comment, your first sentence is something of a strawman, and an invalid one to boot. If (in general) a theory had been disproved, it would not be taught "in schools and universities". Instead, the subject would be handled as a great puzzlement. The exception would be if the theory involved were correct most of the time, with a particular subset of phenomena not conforming. Then, the theory would be taught, with the proviso that there is room for improvement in the theory. It would be accepted that the problem area might be addressed by an extension of the theory, or perhaps that the problem area might not (for reasons not understood) be amenable to the theory, and would require a separate theory.
But really, please address yourself to the original question. What evidence?
Hi RC;
Thank you for your inputs on this also .. read 'em all and generally agree with your comments!
At the moment, I don't think Eric's etal's model has demonstrated consistency in the method used, so the jury is still out on any of his cosmological conclusions.
PS: Its unfortunate for Eric (and the discussion there) but I just noticed his name has been crossed out at physicsforums(?)
Eric posted some details of the methods used for GALEX galaxies the 2014 paper in the PF thread. I read it with great interest! But it will be a while before I can fully understand it, in the context of the content of that paper; when I've done so I'll write up what I found.
But it will be a while before I can fully understand it, in the context of the content of that paper; when I've done so I'll write up what I found.What does that mean? That he's been suspended or banned? I did a quick search but couldn't find anything to tell me what it means. Nor, if it does mean suspension or banning, what triggered it.SelfSim said:
Cool ... Look forward to that ... (I'm in the same boat on understanding it also).Eric posted some details of the methods used for GALEX galaxies the 2014 paper in the PF thread. I read it with great interest!
Don't know either but there was some trepidation about hosting the thread there from the outset (according to the mod notes on the OP). Perhaps when you disclosed that a revision of the original paper had been released, some of the original mod agreements became invalid or something(?) Certainly I couldn't see that Eric had done anything untoward .. it was/is a good thread from my viewpoint.JeanTate said:
Interesting that they didn't lock the thread though .. (?)
Now locked: 'Closed for moderation'
We don't know why.
Myself, I like to think that it's because they're putting some serious thought into my proposal, and are busy creating an entirely new section of PF just for me (or, rather, for the kind of thing I proposed). When they're done, they'll unlock the thread, unban Eric, put a link in that thread, and give me super-Mod powers over the new section (which they'll announce with great fanfare).
I think you'd need to invoke some ancient Nobel-winners and philosopher scriptures to give credence to your ideas there though(?)We don't know why.
Myself, I like to think that it's because they're putting some serious thought into my proposal, and are busy creating an entirely new section of PF just for me (or, rather, for the kind of thing I proposed). When they're done, they'll unlock the thread, unban Eric, put a link in that thread, and give me super-Mod powers over the new section (which they'll announce with great fanfare).
Ya know, I've been thinking this over, and I now think that PF is a hard-core member of the EU/PC theory hater elite. Along with Brian Kwhatsisname. And CheckRealityLiteIsOn. And. PF banning NobelPrize-worthy Eric and locking that thread just shows how scarred the astronomy professers are, rushlessly sappressing The TRUTH that their Dark magic deities (DM and DE) are evil mindworms deliberitaly created to hide the fact that they have no cloths. And to try to confuse real, honest scientists. Like Talbott, Birekland, Newton, and Einstein.I think you'd need to invoke some ancient Nobel-winners and philosopher scriptures to give credence to your ideas there though(?)
Oh, and have a nice day.
censored on PF
I was suspended for 10 days by the moderators and then they closed the thread. They said I was breaking the rules by not quoting people directly. I have appealed , pointing out that I was putting forward new arguments and not trying to quote. No reason was given to me for closing the thread. I also appealed their decision on that. In addition, there is a technical discussion going on at the FB page Astrostatistics. Lots of stuff raised, and I have lots of other tasks, so I may be slow to reply on this thread, assuming I am not thrown off here as well.
I was suspended for 10 days by the moderators and then they closed the thread. They said I was breaking the rules by not quoting people directly. I have appealed , pointing out that I was putting forward new arguments and not trying to quote. No reason was given to me for closing the thread. I also appealed their decision on that. In addition, there is a technical discussion going on at the FB page Astrostatistics. Lots of stuff raised, and I have lots of other tasks, so I may be slow to reply on this thread, assuming I am not thrown off here as well.