I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mike Helland said:
d is the distance modulus from the data straight from the supernovae cosmology project.
Click to expand...
Can’t be. Distance modulus is not a distance. I ask again: is d the co-moving distance, the light travel distance or the distance to the source at the time of emission?
 
Mike Helland said:
Co-moving distance.
Click to expand...
You need to tell us mathematically how you get from distance modulus to co-moving distance and how you get from that to look-back time. You need to tell us how you arrive at the yellow points representing SN1a data points. You also need to tell us how you calculate the green line in those plots, because the SN1A and the green line are not plotting the same time (or distance).

All this, of course, is putting lipstick on a pig, because your basic idea is false.
 
An obviously invalid graph followed by an ignorant statement

Mike Helland said:
This shows the "preposterous" acceleration of the universe.
Click to expand...
9 March 2021: An obviously invalid graph followed by an ignorant statement from Mike Helland.

The accelerating expansion of the universe is published science. Anyone who learned cosmology knows that it is a logical, reasonable outcome of the theory (GR + a non-zero cosmological constant) and the physical evidence.

An internet crank with a graph of supernovae data and a curve that does not fit the data has a graph that is obviously wrong. When done properly as in the scientific papers that measure the acceleration, the theoretical curves fit the data.

The best you have is an irrelevant graph that shows nothing.
 
hecd2 said:
You need to tell us mathematically how you get from distance modulus to co-moving distance and how you get from that to look-back time. You need to tell us how you arrive at the yellow points representing SN1a data points. You also need to tell us how you calculate the green line in those plots, because the SN1A and the green line are not plotting the same time (or distance).

All this, of course, is putting lipstick on a pig, because your basic idea is false.
Click to expand...

Ok, you can get the data set here:

https://supernova.lbl.gov/Union/figures/SCPUnion2.1_mu_vs_z.txt

If you store the contents of that file in a variable called "data", you can do this:

Code: 
    var out = []
    var lines = data.split("\n")
    var d
    var cols
    lines.forEach(line => {
        cols = line.split("\t")
        
        // distance modulus to parsec
        d = Math.pow(10, cols[2]/5+1) 

        // parsec to light years
        d = d * 3.261564

        // ly to Mly
        d = d / 1000000
        out.push({
            name: cols[0], 
            z: 1 * cols[1], 
            d: d}
        ) 
    })

    var out = out.sort((a,b)=>{return a.d-b.d})
    var fs = require("fs")
    fs.writeFile("supernovae.json", JSON.stringify(out), ()=>{})

Knowing the distance modulus you can solve for distance, so I did that, and converted that to million light years.

Taking the resulting area, I load that into the test programs as targets, which you can find here:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/test.htm

You can look at all the source code. It's gotten a bit wild though.

Then I run the expanding universe model, steps 1 million years at a time, advancing the position of the photon and the targets based on the Hubble flow.

(The basic expanding model i's the second model on the test page).

When the photon reaches a distance of a supernova, it records the time.

And that's how I added "t" to the dataset.
 
Mike Helland said:
Maybe there are some big math brains here that can I spot the error in the following logic.
v=HD and v=c-HD produce the same time delays.
Click to expand...
The error is that these are fantasies. Tried light theories have been shown to be wrong for many decades. All available evidence shows that the speed of light is constant.
Repeating the "v=c-HD" fantasy that has been debunked several times here does not impress anyone. A new "v=c/(1+HD)" fantasy just emphasizes that all you have are fantasies.
 
Last edited:
I asked for mathematical expressions not code. I don't understand your code. It's obvious that the times you calculate for the line and the points are not on the same mathematical basis. You are mixing up co-moving distance andlight travel distance somehow. As I said a couple of pages back, you are mixing up D's.
 
hecd2 said:
I asked for mathematical expressions not code. I don't understand your code. It's obvious that the times you calculate for the line and the points are not on the same mathematical basis. You are mixing up co-moving distance andlight travel distance somehow. As I said a couple of pages back, you are mixing up D's.
Click to expand...

Ok.

This:

d = Math.pow(10, cols[2]/5+1)

Comes from this:

m-M = 5 log d -5

https://lco.global/spacebook/distance/what-is-distance-modulus/

solving for d.

22122b49df245b487771d9d56e6a437a79e69b0a
 
Last edited:
hecd2 said:
That gives you luminosity distance. So d is not any of the things I suggested. What then?
Click to expand...
You do know that luminosity distance is different from co-moving distance which is different from light travel time? And increasingly different for increasing z?
 
hecd2 said:
That is the correct expression to link luminosity and co-moving distnace. But you calculated luminosity distance based on distance modulus data in the table. What did you do then?
Click to expand...

After that, I plotted what I had.

But what I had would be incorrect.

Glad I asked. I appreciate your help.

So now to convert luminosity distance to co-moving distance.

DL/(1+z) seems to be what calculators are producing, such as:

http://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php

Doing that gives me new distance plots (who would have thought).

supernovae.png
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
After that, I plotted what I had.

But what I had would be incorrect.

Glad I asked. I appreciate your help.

So now to convert luminosity distance to co-moving distance.

DL/(1+z) seems to be what calculators are producing, such as:

http://www.kempner.net/cosmic.php

Doing that gives me new distance plots (who would have thought).

[qimg]https://raw.githubusercontent.com/mikehelland/hubbles-law/master/img/supernovae.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

If you any one wants to play with this data and various expanding and decelerating models, it's available here:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/supernovae.htm

So this kinda nails the acceleration curve.

And considering the hypothesis is wrong, the next step would be to find an analogous expanding model.

I took v=c-HD, and changed it to v=c/(1+HD)^2 to get the acceleration.

So... how do we turn v=HD into an inverse square law?
 
Mike Helland said:
If you any one wants to play with this data and various expanding and decelerating models, it's available here:

https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/other/supernovae.htm

So this kinda nails the acceleration curve.

And considering the hypothesis is wrong, the next step would be to find an analogous expanding model.

I took v=c-HD, and changed it to v=c/(1+HD)^2 to get the acceleration.

So... how do we turn v=HD into an inverse square law?
Click to expand...

It should be very easy for you to do such a thing.

All that you have to do is make up some more worthless and more wrong stuff.

And since all that you have been doing from the start is to make up worthless, wrong stuff, then it should be very easy for you to continue male up more worthless, wrong stuff now.
 
More idiocy from Mike Helland about light

Mike Helland said:
You don't think that applies to light in a vacuum?w
Click to expand...
More idiocy from Mike Helland about light. This is someone who is spinning fantasies about light but is determined to remain abysmally ignorant about light :jaw-dropp!
The point of
4 March 2021: Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength is for waves in a medium.
is that light is not a wave in a medium. This is not even first year university physics. High school science students know this. This is explained in my post.
Reality Check said:
He has quoted the phase velocity for waves traveling in a medium yet again :eye-poppi. We have known for ~130 years that light does not travel in a medium. Light has a wavelength related to is energy. I explained this textbook physics weeks ago.
Click to expand...
 
Reality Check said:
More idiocy from Mike Helland about light. This is someone who is spinning fantasies about light but is determined to remain abysmally ignorant about light :jaw-dropp!
The point of
4 March 2021: Mike Helland still cannot understand Wavespeed = frequency * wavelength is for waves in a medium.
is that light is not a wave in a medium. This is not even first year university physics. High school science students know this. This is explained in my post.
Click to expand...

Do you think it's a coincidence that the product of a photon's wavelength and frequency are c?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom