Merged Why the James Webb Telescope rewrites/doesn't the laws of Physics/Redshifts

[Mike Helland]

If you don’t even understand the comments of the reviewers, how on earth could your paper ever contain something revolutionary?

Who said anything about revolutionary?

I'm pretty sure it's about a Big Crunch scenario but I wanted to be sure.

 

[Mike Helland]

I’ll leave it to more distinguished participants to explain it in details, but I note that precisely these two points have been repeatedly addressed here over and over again, and you basically ignored the explanations.

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

 

[steenkh]

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

All of that has been explained earlier.

I don’t have the time to look it up now, but I might find the links later. However, I am also slightly against doing your research for you in your own thread, and finding answers that you wilfully ignored the first time round.

 

[hecd2]

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

What is that you don't understand about the simple and often-repeated statement that the linear relationship between velocity and redshift (or negative blueshift in your case) is a first order approximation to a polynomial whose higher terms depend on the specific cosmological model chosen.

You've had your paper rejected for identical reasons to those explained to you several times here. Instead of thinking that there might be something in what people are telling you, and humbly accepting it, you are doing what crackpots do - giving their extremely limited knowledge more weight than those who know what they are talking about.

For all the people here who have been patiently explaining things to you, the rejection note comes as no surprise at all. We might as well have been explaining it to our cats.

 

[Ziggurat]

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

Hubble's Law is an approximation.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Let's reconsider just one example of evidence that has already been mentioned repeatedly within this thread.

Observations of type 1a supernovae tell us that, at the time corresponding to z=1.5, the value of the Hubble parameter was approximately 2.7 times as large as H₀ (which is, by definition, the current value of the Hubble parameter).

That observed fact that the Hubble parameter has been decreasing counts as strong evidence for the concordance ΛCDM model.

...the accelerating universe does not imply that the Hubble parameter is actually increasing with time; since H(t) ≡ ȧ(t) / a(t), in most accelerating models a increases relatively faster than ȧ, so H decreases with time.

According to Helland physics, however, the value of the Hubble parameter never changes. That misprediction counts as strong evidence against the Helland model.

Which is why Mike Helland has consistently refused to pay any attention to that evidence.

And that is just one of many examples of actual evidence that Mike Helland has refused to consider within this thread.

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

You "derived" your redshift-distance equation by a combination of (1) equivocating (defining b to be one thing, but later pretending b is "equivalent" to something quite different), (2) performing an obviously incorrect (because of the equivocation) change of variable in a first order approximation that, even in its correct form, was known to be a useful approximation only at redshifts much less than 1, (3) graphing both the correct first order approximation and your bogus first order approximation on a time scale that went up to z=9, and (4) pretending the Helland equation you had derived via mistakes (1) and (2) should be taken seriously.

ETA: The preceding paragraph is a summary of what you have been told, repeatedly, within this thread. The referee's report on your paper says pretty much the same thing as that paragraph.

 

[erwinl]

Who said anything about revolutionary?

I'm pretty sure it's about a Big Crunch scenario but I wanted to be sure.

Interesting that you concentrate on the word ‘revolutionary’ in my answer, ignoring all the rest concerning your lack of knowledge.
Why is that? Is a question that comes to my mind.

 

[Darat]

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

How will you be editing your paper to address the criticisms of the review?

 

[Mike Helland]

How will you be editing your paper to address the criticisms of the review?

Rather poorly, I imagine.

 

[Mike Helland]

Interesting that you concentrate on the word ‘revolutionary’ in my answer, ignoring all the rest concerning your lack of knowledge.
Why is that? Is a question that comes to my mind.

When you make your criticisms personal, and invent new claims to attack, that's ad hominem and a strawman rolled together.

If you would like to me address your criticism: I am stupid. You win.

 

[Mike Helland]

Let's reconsider just one example of evidence that has already been mentioned repeatedly within this thread.

Observations of type 1a supernovae tell us that, at the time corresponding to z=1.5, the value of the Hubble parameter was approximately 2.7 times as large as H₀ (which is, by definition, the current value of the Hubble parameter).

That observed fact that the Hubble parameter has been decreasing counts as strong evidence for the concordance ΛCDM model.

Thanks for the reference.

You "derived" your redshift-distance equation by a combination of (1) equivocating (defining b to be one thing, but later pretending b is "equivalent" to something quite different)...

That's not the derivation. The derivation has nothing to do with "b".

It's in post #896. Came up with it a few days after I submitted the paper.

Here it is:

Both the traditional and alternative redshift-distance equations can be derived from Hubble's law and the traditional redshift equations.

For the traditional redshift-distance equation, start with the definition of redshift in terms of wavelength:

1+z = w_o / w_e

Now multiply both sides by f_e / f_e:

1+z = w_o / w_e * f_e / f_e

The product of w_e and f_e will be c, and the product of w_o and f_e will be a velocity greater than c.

1+z = w_o * f_e / c

To reason what w_o * f_e might be, consider as a toy model, a Newtonian analog of a photon, its source, and an observer. The source will be stationary, and the observer will be moving away from the source at velocity v = H_0 * D, as per Hubble's law.

The photon is emitted at a velocity of c, however, due to the expansion of space, the photon moves with the Hubble flow, giving it a velocity relative to its source c + H_0 * d. Any observer it encounters will also be moving at H_0 * d, so the photon's speed will be c relative to the observer.

This increased velocity of the photon in the toy model represents an elongation of the wavelength combined with its original frequency, and this velocity can be substituted in for w_o * f_e, making:

1+z = (c + H_0 * d) / c

1+z = c/c + H_0 * d / c

z = H_0 * d / c

d = cz / H_0

To derive the alternative redshift-distance equation start with the definition of redshift in terms of frequency:

1+z = f_e / f_o

And this time multiply both sides by w_e / w_e.

1+z = c / (f_o * w_e)

Once again, f_e * w_e = c, but now there is the term f_o * w_e, which is a velocity less than c.

Consider another toy model similar to the previous one, with both the source and the observer stationary. This time, the photon has a velocity of v = c - H_0 * d. Due to the deceleration of the photon, the light travel time of the photon increases equal to the light travel time of a photon in the toy expanding universe. (See Appendix A.)

If the photon's drop in velocity corresponds to a reduction of its frequency, while maintaining its original wavelength, then we can say f_o * w_e = c - H_0 * d, therefore:

1+z = c / (c - H_0 * d)

1/(1+z) = (c - H_0 * d) / c

1/(1+z) = c/c - H_0 * d / c

1/(1+z) - 1 = - H_0 * d / c

-z/(1+z) = - H_0 * d / c

d = c/H_0 * z/(1+z)

 

[Mike Helland]

Hubble's Law is an approximation.

It falls out of FLRW as a coincidence then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Recessional_velocity

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

You "derived" your redshift-distance equation by a combination of (1) equivocating (defining b to be one thing, but later pretending b is "equivalent" to something quite different), (2) performing an obviously incorrect (because of the equivocation) change of variable in a first order approximation that, even in its correct form, was known to be a useful approximation only at redshifts much less than 1, (3) graphing both the correct first order approximation and your bogus first order approximation on a time scale that went up to z=9, and (4) pretending the Helland equation you had derived via mistakes (1) and (2) should be taken seriously.

ETA: The preceding paragraph is a summary of what you have been told, repeatedly, within this thread. The referee's report on your paper says pretty much the same thing as that paragraph.

That's not the derivation. The derivation has nothing to do with "b".

It's in post #896. Came up with it a few days after I submitted the paper.

I was summarizing the derivation in your paper.

The fact that you must come up with new derivations so often tells us something important about the typical quality of your derivations.

Also, the redshift-distance equations aren't "approximations" since I derived them from Hubble's law.

Hubble's Law is an approximation.

It falls out of FLRW as a coincidence then?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble's_law#Recessional_velocity

No. As is perfectly clear from the section of that Wikipedia article you cited, Hubble's Law falls out of FLRW in the form v_r = HD, where H is the time-varying Hubble parameter that you persistently misread as the Hubble constant. As that section goes on to make perfectly explicit, the approximate form of Hubble's Law from which you allegedly "derived" whatever you think you derived is an approximation obtained by dropping all but the first-order term of a Taylor series expansion.

With my highlighting:

From this perspective, Hubble's law is a fundamental relation between (i) the recessional velocity contributed by the expansion of space and (ii) the distance to an object....This law can be related to redshift z approximately by making a Taylor series expansion....

If the distance is not too large, all other complications of the model become small corrections, and the time interval is simply the distance divided by the speed of light:

z ≈ (t₀ − t₀) H (t₀) ≈ (D/c) H (t₀),​

or

cz ≈ D H (t₀) = v_r​

According to this approach, the relation cz = v_r is an approximation valid at low redshifts, to be replaced by a relation at large redshifts that is model-dependent.

Which is exactly what Ziggurat and others have been telling you.

 

[Mike Helland]

I was summarizing the derivation in your paper.

I know.

And that is a non-sequitur, since I was referring to a derivation of the redshift-distance equations that I will be adding to the paper.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I was summarizing the derivation in your paper.

I know.

And that is a non-sequitur, since I was referring to a derivation of the redshift-distance equations that I will be adding to the paper.

The archives of this thread reveal a context that discusses the derivation in your submitted paper.

More importantly, however, you are Gish-galloping away from this:

Let's reconsider just one example of evidence that has already been mentioned repeatedly within this thread.

Observations of type 1a supernovae tell us that, at the time corresponding to z=1.5, the value of the Hubble parameter was approximately 2.7 times as large as H₀ (which is, by definition, the current value of the Hubble parameter).

That observed fact that the Hubble parameter has been decreasing counts as strong evidence for the concordance ΛCDM model.

...the accelerating universe does not imply that the Hubble parameter is actually increasing with time; since H(t) ≡ ȧ(t) / a(t), in most accelerating models a increases relatively faster than ȧ, so H decreases with time.

According to Helland physics, however, the value of the Hubble parameter never changes. That misprediction counts as strong evidence against the Helland model.

Which is why Mike Helland has consistently refused to pay any attention to that evidence.

And that is just one of many examples of actual evidence that Mike Helland has refused to consider within this thread.

 

[Mike Helland]

No. As is perfectly clear from the section of that Wikipedia article you cited, Hubble's Law falls out of FLRW in the form v_r = HD, where H is the time-varying Hubble parameter that you persistently misread as the Hubble constant.

I understand the difference. It's relevant when the scale factor changes the ratio of densities of matter and energy, which changes how the scale factor changes.

As that section goes on to make perfectly explicit, the approximate form of Hubble's Law from which you allegedly "derived" whatever you think you derived is an approximation obtained by dropping all but the first-order term of a Taylor series expansion.

I understand that too.

However, instead of making those approximations, I was able to derive them.

According to this approach, the relation cz = v_r is an approximation valid at low redshifts, to be replaced by a relation at large redshifts that is model-dependent.

Which is exactly what Ziggurat and others have been telling you.

I understand that.

We can approximate and say z ≈ v / c.

But from my derivation, I say z / (1 + z) = v / c. Which also means -b = v / c.

Here's the thing though. d = cz / H₀ doesn't fit the observational data. d = z/(1+z) * c / H₀ does.

Let's say z=1.5.

It's either ~22 Gly, or ~9 Gly. Which one fits the evidence?

 

[Mike Helland]

The archives of this thread reveal a context that discusses the derivation in your submitted paper.

It moved on to discussing the review of my paper, and how I planned to respond.

My response includes adding the derivation of those equations to the paper.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

I understand that.

We can approximate and say z ≈ v / c.

But from my derivation, I say z / (1 + z) = v / c. Which also means -b = v / c.

Here's the thing though. d = cz / H₀ doesn't fit the observational data. d = z/(1+z) * c / H₀ does.

So you plan to ignore this entire paragraph of your referee's report:

The subsequent discussion then appears to take a low-redshift approximation to the Hubble Law, using both the traditional $z$ definition and the new $b$ definition. The approximate behaviour is then extrapolated to high redshift where the two formulae give different outcomes. But both these options are wrong since the extrapolation rapidly becomes invalid, so the fact that two wrong answers differ from each other does not appear to be telling us anything useful.​

Let's say z=1.5.

It's either ~22 Gly, or ~9 Gly. Which one fits the evidence?

Both numbers are wrong, for the reason I highlighted in the above quotation from your referee's report.

Evidence, however, is what you continue to ignore.

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Let's reconsider just one example of evidence that has already been mentioned repeatedly within this thread.

Observations of type 1a supernovae tell us that, at the time corresponding to z=1.5, the value of the Hubble parameter was approximately 2.7 times as large as H₀ (which is, by definition, the current value of the Hubble parameter).

That observed fact that the Hubble parameter has been decreasing counts as strong evidence for the concordance ΛCDM model.

...the accelerating universe does not imply that the Hubble parameter is actually increasing with time; since H(t) ≡ ȧ(t) / a(t), in most accelerating models a increases relatively faster than ȧ, so H decreases with time.

According to Helland physics, however, the value of the Hubble parameter never changes. That misprediction counts as strong evidence against the Helland model.

Which is why Mike Helland has consistently refused to pay any attention to that evidence.

And that is just one of many examples of actual evidence that Mike Helland has refused to consider within this thread.

 

[Mike Helland]

So you plan to ignore this entire paragraph of your referee's report:

The subsequent discussion then appears to take a low-redshift approximation to the Hubble Law, using both the traditional $z$ definition and the new $b$ definition. The approximate behaviour is then extrapolated to high redshift where the two formulae give different outcomes. But both these options are wrong since the extrapolation rapidly becomes invalid, so the fact that two wrong answers differ from each other does not appear to be telling us anything useful.​

That's what I'm responding too.

The criticism as I see it has two parts:

1. the equations are approximations
2. they don't predict the right values for high redshift

Those are the points I'm addressing.

Both numbers are wrong, for the reason I highlighted in the above quotation from your referee's report.

Then what is the right number?

Here's your reference:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

In Table 2 we have:

SN ID 		z
CLH11Tra 	1.520 ± 0.04

What's the distance to the host galaxy?

 

[Ziggurat]

It falls out of FLRW as a coincidence then?

See, this is where you knowing calculus would help, because it is once again clear that you don't.

First off, what they describe as Hubble's Law isn't z = (D/c)H, but v_r = HD. That's a very important distinction, BTW, because THAT equation isn't an approximation. But H in that equation also ISN'T A CONSTANT, but varies with time. The problem, though, is that we can't measure v_r directly, but we can measure z.

Which brings us to a second problem. At that point in the derivation, there is no connection between redshift and any other quantities, including v_r. This is important, because if your universe expands but then stops expanding, then when it has stopped expanding v_r = 0 and H = 0, but you still have left over redshifts. The connection between v_r and z is going to be model dependent, and that derivation actually hasn't specified a model. We aren't working with an R(t) derived from FLRW.

OK, so how then do they connect Hubble's constant to redshifts? It's not by plugging in an R(t) from FLRW, because again, they didn't specify anything about R(t). Rather, they do exactly what I said: they make an approximation to an exact AND model independent equation for z. What approximation do they make? A first order approximation, using the first derivative of R(t) with respect to t, which is how H makes its way into an equation for z. Which is exactly what I described before. z = (D/c) H doesn't come from FLRW, it comes from making a first order approximation. And that approximation is still model independent, because the derivation still never specified what R(t) is.

So no, it's not a coincidence at all. It's just basic calculus, and it's model independent. It has essentially NOTHING to do with the specifics of the expansion function, which is why you'll find that section never specifies what the expansion function is.

You are out of your depth here. This is calculus 101 stuff, and you're missing it completely.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Both numbers are wrong, for the reason I highlighted in the above quotation from your referee's report.

Then what is the right number?

Sorry, I thought you were still comparing your own approximation's predicted distance to the distance obtained from your bogus extrapolation of the correct first order approximation far beyond its domain of usefulness.

Here's your reference:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

In Table 2 we have:

SN ID 		z
CLH11Tra 	1.520 ± 0.04

What's the distance to the host galaxy?

According to the mainstream concordance ΛCDM model, z = 1.5 corresponds to approximately 9 Gly, as can be seen in your own graph.

As can be seen in your own graph, your Helland equation says z = 1.5 corresponds to a bit over 8 Gly.

So there's almost a billion light years of difference between the ΛCDM model's distance (with Ω_M = 0.3 and Ω_k = 0) and the Helland model's distance (which happens to coincide with the distance predicted by an FLRW model with the absurd parameters Ω_M = 0 and Ω_k = 1).

We should not be surprised that the model-dependent equation for distance we get by assuming the concordance ΛCDM model yields results that disagree with results predicted by the Helland model. To determine which result is more accurate, we have to look beyond the model-dependent equations by considering which of the models is more consistent with evidence.

That's really easy. The concordance ΛCDM model fits the evidence quite well, which is why it is the concordance model. The Helland model predicts a wide variety of things that don't fit the evidence at all, while failing to predict much of anything really.

Here's an example, which is very much relevant here because the main result of the paper you and I have most recently been citing is its improved estimate for H(z=1.5) / H₀.

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Let's reconsider just one example of evidence that has already been mentioned repeatedly within this thread.

Observations of type 1a supernovae tell us that, at the time corresponding to z=1.5, the value of the Hubble parameter was approximately 2.7 times as large as H₀ (which is, by definition, the current value of the Hubble parameter).

That observed fact that the Hubble parameter has been decreasing counts as strong evidence for the concordance ΛCDM model.

...the accelerating universe does not imply that the Hubble parameter is actually increasing with time; since H(t) ≡ ȧ(t) / a(t), in most accelerating models a increases relatively faster than ȧ, so H decreases with time.

According to Helland physics, however, the value of the Hubble parameter never changes. That misprediction counts as strong evidence against the Helland model.

Which is why Mike Helland has consistently refused to pay any attention to that evidence.

And that is just one of many examples of actual evidence that Mike Helland has refused to consider within this thread.

 

[Mike Helland]

According to the mainstream concordance ΛCDM model, z = 1.5 corresponds to approximately 9 Gly, as can be seen in your own graph.

As can be seen in your own graph, your Helland equation says z = 1.5 corresponds to a bit over 8 Gly.

Yup.

So which one is right? Let's check the evidence.

In the paper you've referenced:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

Tables 1 through 4 have data on 15 supernovae.

There isn't a table that has their calculated distances, though Table 6 has "Measurements of E(z)", and for z=1.5 it has E(z)=2.69 +0.86 -0.52.

So I take it we plug that into Equation 1, and we get a Luminosity distance. Do I have that right?

 

[Darat]

Rather poorly, I imagine.

I didn’t ask about the quality.

 

[Mike Helland]

I didn’t ask about the quality.

If the criticism is:

1. the equations are approximations
2. they don't predict the right values for high redshift

I've already shown that they are not approximations, but can be derived from the standard redshift definitions and Hubble's law.

Next just show it does have the right values for high redshift.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

Yup.

So which one is right? Let's check the evidence.

In the paper you've referenced:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

Asking the same question over and over again doesn't change the answer, which has already been provided.

Here's your reference:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

In Table 2 we have:

SN ID 		z
CLH11Tra 	1.520 ± 0.04

What's the distance to the host galaxy?

According to the mainstream concordance ΛCDM model, z = 1.5 corresponds to approximately 9 Gly, as can be seen in your own graph.

As can be seen in your own graph, your Helland equation says z = 1.5 corresponds to a bit over 8 Gly.

So there's almost a billion light years of difference between the ΛCDM model's distance (with Ω_M = 0.3 and Ω_k = 0) and the Helland model's distance (which happens to coincide with the distance predicted by an FLRW model with the absurd parameters Ω_M = 0 and Ω_k = 1).

We should not be surprised that the model-dependent equation for distance we get by assuming the concordance ΛCDM model yields results that disagree with results predicted by the Helland model. To determine which result is more accurate, we have to look beyond the model-dependent equations by considering which of the models is more consistent with evidence.

That's really easy. The concordance ΛCDM model fits the evidence quite well, which is why it is the concordance model. The Helland model predicts a wide variety of things that don't fit the evidence at all, while failing to predict much of anything really.

Here's an example, which is very much relevant here because the main result of the paper you and I have most recently been citing is its improved estimate for H(z=1.5) / H₀.

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Let's reconsider just one example of evidence that has already been mentioned repeatedly within this thread.

Observations of type 1a supernovae tell us that, at the time corresponding to z=1.5, the value of the Hubble parameter was approximately 2.7 times as large as H₀ (which is, by definition, the current value of the Hubble parameter).

That observed fact that the Hubble parameter has been decreasing counts as strong evidence for the concordance ΛCDM model.

...the accelerating universe does not imply that the Hubble parameter is actually increasing with time; since H(t) ≡ ȧ(t) / a(t), in most accelerating models a increases relatively faster than ȧ, so H decreases with time.

According to Helland physics, however, the value of the Hubble parameter never changes. That misprediction counts as strong evidence against the Helland model.

Which is why Mike Helland has consistently refused to pay any attention to that evidence.

And that is just one of many examples of actual evidence that Mike Helland has refused to consider within this thread.

 

[Mike Helland]

Asking the same question over and over again doesn't change the answer, which has already been provided.

The values predicted by two models have been provided.

LCDM predicts = 9 Gly
my equation = 8 Gly

The question is:

empirical evidence = ??

 

[W.D.Clinger]

The values predicted by two models have been provided.

LCDM predicts = 9 Gly
my equation = 8 Gly

The question is:

empirical evidence = ??

Asked and answered, over and over again.

Yup.

So which one is right? Let's check the evidence.

In the paper you've referenced:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

Asking the same question over and over again doesn't change the answer, which has already been provided.

Here's your reference:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aaa5a9

In Table 2 we have:

SN ID 		z
CLH11Tra 	1.520 ± 0.04

What's the distance to the host galaxy?

According to the mainstream concordance ΛCDM model, z = 1.5 corresponds to approximately 9 Gly, as can be seen in your own graph.

As can be seen in your own graph, your Helland equation says z = 1.5 corresponds to a bit over 8 Gly.

So there's almost a billion light years of difference between the ΛCDM model's distance (with Ω_M = 0.3 and Ω_k = 0) and the Helland model's distance (which happens to coincide with the distance predicted by an FLRW model with the absurd parameters Ω_M = 0 and Ω_k = 1).

We should not be surprised that the model-dependent equation for distance we get by assuming the concordance ΛCDM model yields results that disagree with results predicted by the Helland model. To determine which result is more accurate, we have to look beyond the model-dependent equations by considering which of the models is more consistent with evidence.

That's really easy. The concordance ΛCDM model fits the evidence quite well, which is why it is the concordance model. The Helland model predicts a wide variety of things that don't fit the evidence at all, while failing to predict much of anything really.

Here's an example, which is very much relevant here because the main result of the paper you and I have most recently been citing is its improved estimate for H(z=1.5) / H₀.

Yeah, they're comparing the alternative redshift-time equation to LCDM.

Comparing one model to another does not make one invalid.

It should be compared to evidence.

Let's reconsider just one example of evidence that has already been mentioned repeatedly within this thread.

Observations of type 1a supernovae tell us that, at the time corresponding to z=1.5, the value of the Hubble parameter was approximately 2.7 times as large as H₀ (which is, by definition, the current value of the Hubble parameter).

That observed fact that the Hubble parameter has been decreasing counts as strong evidence for the concordance ΛCDM model.

...the accelerating universe does not imply that the Hubble parameter is actually increasing with time; since H(t) ≡ ȧ(t) / a(t), in most accelerating models a increases relatively faster than ȧ, so H decreases with time.

According to Helland physics, however, the value of the Hubble parameter never changes. That misprediction counts as strong evidence against the Helland model.

Which is why Mike Helland has consistently refused to pay any attention to that evidence.

And that is just one of many examples of actual evidence that Mike Helland has refused to consider within this thread.

 

[Mike Helland]

Asked and answered, over and over again.

If you say so.

It looks to me like we have two predictions, which are close enough to be within the error margin and uncertainty, and different enough that future measurements should prefer one over the other.

AFAICT, there is no model-independent distance measurement for the z=1.5 supernovae detailed in your reference.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

It looks to me like we have two predictions, which are close enough to be within the error margin and uncertainty, and different enough that future measurements should prefer one over the other.

AFAICT, there is no model-independent distance measurement for the z=1.5 supernovae detailed in your reference.

The primary model-independent result of the paper we've been discussing for the past day or two is that observations of type 1a supernovae tell us H(z=1.5) / H0 ≈ 2.7, with the uncertainty in that measurement given by

2.17 ≤ H(z=1.5) / H0 ≤ 3.55​

That model-independent measurement of H(z=1.5) / H0 is consistent with the concordance ΛCDM model.

It is not consistent with Helland physics, however, which predicts H(z=1.5) / H0 = 1.

So Helland physics is incompatible with the evidence.

Which is why you continue to ignore that evidence.

The new sample of SNe Ia at z > 1.5 usefully distinguishes between alternative cosmological models and unmodeled evolution of the SN Ia distance indicators, placing empirical limits on the latter.

 

[Mike Helland]

The primary model-independent result of the paper we've been discussing for the past day or two is that observations of type 1a supernovae tell us H(z=1.5) / H0 ≈ 2.7, with the uncertainty in that measurement given by

2.17 ≤ H(z=1.5) / H0 ≤ 3.55​

That model-independent measurement of H(z=1.5) / H0 is consistent with the concordance ΛCDM model.

It is not consistent with Helland physics, however, which predicts H(z=1.5) / H0 = 1.

So Helland physics is incompatible with the evidence.

Which is why you continue to ignore that evidence.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to dig in to it.

It says the luminosity distance as a function of z is:



Is that specific to a flat universe?

If E(z) = 1, then:

d_L = c / H₀ * (1 + z) * F

Where F is the integral (from 0 to z) of just dz, right?

I notice that E(z) ≈ 2.69 which is ≈1+z, when z=1.5. It's within the error of margin.

 

[erwinl]

When you make your criticisms personal, and invent new claims to attack, that's ad hominem and a strawman rolled together.

If you would like to me address your criticism: I am stupid. You win.

Nothing personal.
Just a comment on the obvious lack of knowledge, concerning calculus.
As shown in your question regarding that reviewers remark.
And all your questions in your posts since.

The obvious route would be to address that lack of knowledge to see for yourself where you did go wrong.

 

[Steve]

If you the evidence says so.

Fixed for accuracy.

 

[Ziggurat]

I've already shown that they are not approximations, but can be derived from the standard redshift definitions and Hubble's law.

You haven't shown that at all. I had a whole post detailing why you are wrong about that. You suck at math, and it's showing.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

ETA: The main result of the the paper discussed below, authored by Adam Riess (2011 Nobel Prize in Physics) and others, is an improved model-independent measurement of the dimensionless Hubble parameter E(z) ≡ H(z)/H₀.

I'm not ignoring it. I'm trying to dig in to it.

It says the luminosity distance as a function of z is:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_7621864169de5bc2f6.gif[/qimg]

Is that specific to a flat universe?

In the paper, that equation (1) lies within the middle of a complete sentence. You should read the first four words of that sentence.

If E(z) = 1, then:

d_L = c / H₀ * (1 + z) * F

Where F is the integral (from 0 to z) of just dz, right?

That's true if E(z) = 1 independent of z, as in Helland physics, which would reduce equation (1) to the Helland equation for distance.

But the whole point of the paper is to obtain a more precise model-independent estimate for E(z), which is most certainly not equal to 1 at z=1.5.

I notice that E(z) ≈ 2.69 which is ≈1+z, when z=1.5. It's within the error of margin.

E(1.5) ≈ 2.69, but Helland physics requires E(1.5) = 1, which is far outside the margin of error .

Because you have so obviously missed/ignored/evaded the point, I repeat these facts, with highlighting:

The primary model-independent result of the paper we've been discussing for the past day or two is that observations of type 1a supernovae tell us H(z=1.5) / H0 ≈ 2.7, with the uncertainty in that measurement given by

2.17 ≤ H(z=1.5) / H0 ≤ 3.55​

That model-independent measurement of H(z=1.5) / H0 is consistent with the concordance ΛCDM model.

It is not consistent with Helland physics, however, which predicts H(z=1.5) / H0 = 1.

So Helland physics is incompatible with the evidence.

Which is why you continue to ignore that evidence.

 

[Mike Helland]

You haven't shown that at all. I had a whole post detailing why you are wrong about that. You suck at math, and it's showing.

Not the derivation in post 1091:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14031683&postcount=1091

 

[Mike Helland]

In the paper, that equation (1) lies within the middle of a complete sentence. You should read the first four words of that sentence.

I did. It's for a flat universe.

As such it wouldn't apply to an empty universe with negative curvature.

That's true if E(z) = 1 independent of z, as in Helland physics, which would reduce equation (1) to the Helland equation for distance.

First, that equation is for a flat universe, second its for luminosity distance, third there's a stray (1+z) in the numerator, meaning it wouldn't be equal to my equation.

 

[hecd2]

Not the derivation in post 1091:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14031683&postcount=1091

That "derivation" violates special relativity and so we can throw it straight into the garbage can without further ado.

 

[Mike Helland]

That "derivation" violates special relativity and so we can throw it straight into the garbage can without further ado.

How so? It just multiplies f_obs by w_emit, and also w_obs by f_emit to get different velocities. The derivation never says the photon has to travel at those velocities.

 

[W.D.Clinger]

First, that equation is for a flat universe, second its for luminosity distance, third there's a stray (1+z) in the numerator, meaning it wouldn't be equal to my equation.

My mistake. Your screenshot of the equation didn't display properly in my browser, and I made the mistake of guessing at what it was saying instead of looking at the equation in the paper.

That "derivation" violates special relativity and so we can throw it straight into the garbage can without further ado.

How so? It just multiplies f_obs by w_emit, and also w_obs by f_emit to get different velocities. The derivation never says the photon has to travel at those velocities.

Quoted from your "derivation":

• "The photon is emitted at a velocity of c, however, due to the expansion of space, the photon moves with the Hubble flow, giving it a velocity relative to its source c + H_0 * d."
• "This increased velocity of the photon...can be substituted..."
• "This time, the photon has a velocity of v = c - H_0 * d."
• "deceleration of the photon"
• "If the photon's drop in velocity"

Because you have so obviously missed/ignored/evaded the following evidence, I repeat these facts, with highlighting:

The primary model-independent result of the paper we've been discussing for the past day or two is that observations of type 1a supernovae tell us H(z=1.5) / H0 ≈ 2.7, with the uncertainty in that measurement given by

2.17 ≤ H(z=1.5) / H0 ≤ 3.55​

That model-independent measurement of H(z=1.5) / H0 is consistent with the concordance ΛCDM model.

It is not consistent with Helland physics, however, which predicts H(z=1.5) / H0 = 1.

So Helland physics is incompatible with the evidence.

Which is why you continue to ignore that evidence.

 

[Mike Helland]

Quoted from your "derivation":

• "The photon is emitted at a velocity of c, however, due to the expansion of space, the photon moves with the Hubble flow, giving it a velocity relative to its source c + H_0 * d."
• "This increased velocity of the photon...can be substituted..."
• "This time, the photon has a velocity of v = c - H_0 * d."
• "deceleration of the photon"
• "If the photon's drop in velocity"

Replace "photon" with "projectile".

If f_e * w_e = c, then a reduction in frequency or increase in wavelength will lead to a velocity less than c, or greater than c respectively.

That's just math.

The step of the derivation you're referring to just multiplies both sides by 1.

Because you have so obviously missed/ignored/evaded the following evidence, I repeat these facts, with highlighting:

I'm not doing those things. I'm interested in digging in deeper.

This all relates to the questions I asked in post #616:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13991008&postcount=616

So I'm certainly not ignoring it.

Figure 1 has some data points compared to E(z) / E(z)_fid. It straight up misses 2 of the 6 datapoints there. It does say:

"By eye, the set of E(z) measurements may appear somewhat discrepant with the fiducial ΛCDM model, but the overall ${\chi }^{2}$, which includes the moderate correlations, is 6.7 for the 6 degrees of freedom."

I think I can use the cosmo calculator code I've been using to plot E(z)_fid by itself. Then, assuming my equation actually predicts E(z)=1, I can plot my equations results there. But like I said, I don't think equation 1 from the paper applies to the empty FLRW model with negative curvature.