I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself

Mike Helland said:
Redshifts are unitless.

Most posters here seem to be ignorant of that.
Click to expand...
Resorts to disparaging the knowledge of other posters when he is ignorant of high school science and much more. Actual redshifts do have units. A shift is frequency is a frequency. No one has written that z (a fractional redshift) commonly known as "redshift" has units except Mike Helland implying it! Lukraak_Sisser wrote about Mike Helland's "z = (D/H)2 + 2D/H" idiocy. Hubble's constant H has units of inverse time because v=DH. His equation is adding 2 things with different units to give a z perhaps with units. However this is the stupidity of an imaginary "H" that is not Hubble's constant and would have the units of length. It is a made-up distance, not anything related to cosmology.

10 March 2021: Mike Helland makes a high school science error (Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error).
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!
21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies :eye-poppi!).

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
23March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).
23 March 2021: A [URL="https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/"]"The Geometry of Spacetime" section with no geometry :eye-poppi by Mike Helland.[/URL]
23 March 2021: Mike Helland shows that he is deeply ignorant of QED which is relativistic :eye-poppi!
24 March 2021: Ignorant "Fermat's last time principle" nonsense from Mike Helland.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Resorts to disparaging the knowledge of other posters when he is ignorant of high school science and much more. Actual redshifts do have units. A shift is frequency is a frequency. No one has written that z (a fractional redshift) commonly known as "redshift" has units except Mike Helland implying it! Lukraak_Sisser wrote about Mike Helland's "z = (D/H)2 + 2D/H" idiocy. Hubble's constant H has units of inverse time because v=DH. His equation is adding 2 things with different units to give a z perhaps with units. However this is the stupidity of an imaginary "H" that is not Hubble's constant and would have the units of length. It is a made-up distance, not anything related to cosmology.

10 March 2021: Mike Helland makes a high school science error (Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error).
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!
21 March 2021: A deeply ignorant "v = c/(1+ D/H}2 fantasy from Mike Helland (even ignorant about his own fantasies :eye-poppi!).

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
23March 2021: Ignorance of relativity from Mike Helland (photons have undefined proper time).
23 March 2021: A [URL="https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/"]"The Geometry of Spacetime" section with no geometry :eye-poppi by Mike Helland.[/URL]
23 March 2021: Mike Helland shows that he is deeply ignorant of QED which is relativistic :eye-poppi!
24 March 2021: Ignorant "Fermat's last time principle" nonsense from Mike Helland.
Click to expand...

Hubble's constant is H0, or "Ech sub zero" or H "naught".

My constant is an upside down H, so you can tell it apart.
 
In all seriousness, http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?H \neq H_0

The decelerating photon hypothesis violates the laws of physics.

But the expanding time hypothesis doesn't.

hypothesis.png
 
 
Mike Helland starts a new "expanding time hypothesis" fantasy

Mike Helland said:
In all seriousness, http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?H \neq H_0
Click to expand...
The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
In cosmology, http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?H is the Hubble parameter. Everyone knows this is not http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?H_0. What he has is an imaginary "H for Helland" constant pulled out of thin air.

29 March 2021: Mike Helland states his "decelerating photon" fantasy violates the laws of physics.
Will that be the last we hear about it - somehow I doubt it :p!

29 March 2021: Mike Helland starts a new "expanding time hypothesis" fantasy.
Photons cannot experience time at all - they are not observers and do not have tiny clocks! The proper time for an observer travelling with a photon is undefined. The Lorentz factor when v = c has a division by zero. This is high school level math. Cosmological redshift is not measured by the photons, it is measured by us :eye-poppi.
More idiotic equations and graphs. "H for Helland" has time/length in a "Linear" equation and changes units for a "Accelerating" equation. The usual deep ignorance of thinking a made up curve fitting supernovae data means anything. It is probable that a different curve can fit the data better!
We can fit the supernovae data with a scientific theory matching the physical universe and which has passed all of its tests for 106 years (general relativity) :jaw-dropp!
 
Last edited:
If space isn't expanding, then the OP needs to explain the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. They would appear, along with the redshift and corroborating Sn 1a data, to show to high significance that the universe is indeed expanding. And accelerating as it does so.
Any scientific hypothesis will show how it can be confirmed or refuted. What is it about the OP's hypothesis that will differentiate it from observations that already say that it is wrong? You should be able to say, "if my hypothesis is correct, we will see x. This is not predicted by the consensus theory so, if we see x, it is strong support for my hypothesis. However, the lack of detection of x, (or the detection of y, which my hypothesis does not predict) will refute my hypothesis."
That is how science works. In the real world.
So, what does the OP's hypothesis say about the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect observations?

For instance;

Planck 2015 results. XXI. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
Planck Collaboration (2016)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01595
 
Mike Helland said:
In all seriousness, http://latex.codecogs.com/gif.latex?H \neq H_0

The decelerating photon hypothesis violates the laws of physics.

But the expanding time hypothesis doesn't.

[qimg]https://mikehelland.github.io/hubbles-law/img/hypothesis.png[/qimg]
Click to expand...

As I expected ...

Once again, your equations do not make any sense.
 
jonesdave116 said:
If space isn't expanding, then the OP needs to explain the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. They would appear, along with the redshift and corroborating Sn 1a data, to show to high significance that the universe is indeed expanding. And accelerating as it does so.
Any scientific hypothesis will show how it can be confirmed or refuted. What is it about the OP's hypothesis that will differentiate it from observations that already say that it is wrong? You should be able to say, "if my hypothesis is correct, we will see x. This is not predicted by the consensus theory so, if we see x, it is strong support for my hypothesis. However, the lack of detection of x, (or the detection of y, which my hypothesis does not predict) will refute my hypothesis."
That is how science works. In the real world.
So, what does the OP's hypothesis say about the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect observations?

For instance;

Planck 2015 results. XXI. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
Planck Collaboration (2016)
https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.01595
Click to expand...

Can you point to ISW on this picture?

1567217455210-Planck_anomalies_Bianchi_on_CMB_625.jpg
 
An idiotic "Can you point to ISW on this picture?" question from Mike Helland

Mike Helland said:
Can you point to ISW on this picture?
Click to expand...
30 March 2021: An idiotic "Can you point to ISW on this picture?" question from Mike Helland :eye-poppi!

No one can look at a random CMB picture and literally see the ISW effect. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect is found as in the paper where the Planck data was analyzed.
Planck 2015 results. XXI. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
The abstract is clear. If there was no ISW effect then the CMB should not correlate with large scale structures (LLS) found in the listed catalogues. There is a correlation found at a 4 sigma level.

The pit of ignorance, errors and fantasies that Mike Helland is digging himself into gets deeper.
29 March 2021: Mike Helland states his "decelerating photon" fantasy violates the laws of physics.
29 March 2021: Mike Helland starts a new "expanding time hypothesis" fantasy.

If space isn't expanding, then the OP needs to explain the observations of the integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect. And the OP needs physics to explain the evidence for the Big Bang
  • Olbers' paradox.
  • Hubble Law
    ETA: guessing at a curve to fit data is not science or even correct math :eek:! Finding the best equation to fit data is a large field of math.
    His current gibberish about time and a 1/(1 + D/a)^2 factor where a is a curve fitting parameter is nothing to do with the actual data.
    His old fantasies included "z = (D/a)^2 + 2D/a" and "v = c/(1+ D/a)^2".
  • Homogeneity - fair data showing that our location in the Universe is not special
  • Isotropy - very strong data showing that the sky looks the same in all directions to 1 part in 100,000.
  • Time dilation in supernova light curves.
  • Radio source and quasar counts vs. flux.
  • Existence of the blackbody CMB.
  • Variation of TCMB with redshift.
  • Deuterium, 3He, 4He, and 7Li abundances.
  • the angular power spectrum of the CMB anisotropy
Also the Gunn–Peterson trough (evidence for reionization)
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
The abstract is clear. If there was no ISW effect then the CMB should not correlate with large scale structures (LLS) found in the listed catalogues. There is a correlation found at a 4 sigma level.
Click to expand...

The background static of the universe has a secondary anisotropy that correlates to large scale foreground structures.

Ok.

What does my hypothesis say about that?

Nothing.

Either space is expanding, and the CMB is a faded picture from near the beginning of the time, or it's not.

It could be. Or it could not be. There's a non-zero chance the CMB is not actually an ancient fireball the secrets of the birth of the universe encoded within it.

In that case most of the work related to it would tell us more about the universe as it is today, rather than at its birth.
 
Mike Helland said:
It could be. Or it could not be. There's a non-zero chance the CMB is not actually an ancient fireball the secrets of the birth of the universe encoded within it.

In that case most of the work related to it would tell us more about the universe as it is today, rather than at its birth.
Click to expand...

That's the one thing it cannot do.l As I have pointed out to you before, the CMB is BEHIND some very distant radio sources, not in front. Therefore the CMB must be far away, and it must be very old.
 
Ziggurat said:
That's the one thing it cannot do.l As I have pointed out to you before, the CMB is BEHIND some very distant radio sources, not in front. Therefore the CMB must be far away, and it must be very old.
Click to expand...

I understand your logic.

I am thinking of the CMB as the radiation itself.

When you say the CMB is behind something, you're talking about the material source of the radiation.
 
Mike Helland persists in his ignorance of the physical properties of the CMB

Mike Helland said:
The background static of the universe has a secondary anisotropy that correlates to large scale foreground structures.

Ok.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual, Mike Helland.
The CMB has fluctuations that correlate with the positions of LSS (super-voids and super-clusters) and show that its light has passed thorough them while the universe has been expanding. A photon entering a gravitational well leaves it with the same frequency because there is the same red and blue shift. The CMB is gravitationally redshifted by travelling through LSS because the expansion of the universe changes the gravitational well as the CMB photons travel through it.

You really want to stay in a pit of ignorance. You have been told the physical properties of the CMB that show there is a zero chance that it is not cosmological. Perfect black body spectrum. Same to 1 part in 100,000 across the sky. Fluctuations matching a universe with a hot dense state. A temperature matching that of the universe when it was formed. A temperature that increases with distance as predicted by an expanding universe. The integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect :eye-poppi!
30 March 2021: "I am thinking of the CMB as the radiation itself." idiocy from Mike Helland[.
You know that the CMB has a perfect black body spectrum. You know that nothing in the current universe has a perfect black body spectrum.
You should know that galaxies have nothing like a black body spectrum. A moment of thought will tell you this. A black body spectrum comes from a body in thermal equilibrium at a single temperature. Galaxies have separated gas and stars at different temperatures :eek:. The real idiocy is that Google exists and you could easily find examples of galaxy spectra! 10 seconds and I found Galaxy Spectra with 5 examples from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey.

2 February 2021: Why the "The CMB indicates a hot past" section is still very wrong
4 March 2021: Mike Helland still has no explanations for the CMB properties except ignorant fantasies

He now has a fantasy that the universe is surrounded by a shell of "material" that ignores the laws of physics :eek:! It magically has the same temperature across the sky. More magic gives it a perfect black body spectrum showing that every part of it has been in thermal contact. Even more magic gives it a 2.7 K temperature here matching the Big Bang prediction. Physically idiotic magic makes it heat up with distance.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom