I don't think space is expanding.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok.

So l let's say I did think space was expanding. (I still doubt it.)

This change to Hubble's law nails the acceleration, does it not?

sn_expanding.png


Meaning, no dark energy (if true).
 
"Some inverse square law" idiocy from Mike Helland

Mike Helland said:
So... how do we turn v=HD into an inverse square law?
Click to expand...
Some "inverse square law" idiocy from Mike Helland. He can only turn his first fantasy into another fantasy by making it up.

This is also general idiocy. It has been known since the 1930's that arbitrarily changing the energy of light and thus its frequency will match Hubble's law. That the same act will match the observations of an acceleration in the expansion of the universe (i.e. a modified Hubble's law) is trivial. This is still an invalid tired light theory.
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology
  • "There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum"
  • "The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves."
  • "The tired light model can not produce a blackbody spectrum for the Cosmic Microwave Background without some incredible coincidences."
  • The tired light model fails the Tolman surface brightness test."
I emphasize the last because Mike Helland has the Tolman surface brightness test on his web page.
 
Abysmal ignorance about dark energy from Mike Helland

Mike Helland said:
...Meaning, no dark energy (if true).
Click to expand...
10 March 2021: Abysmal ignorance about dark energy from Mike Helland.

We have physical evidence of a deviation from Hubble's law for high z. The cause of the deviation is called dark energy. The data matches the predicted acceleration of the expanding universe from a non-zero cosmological constant. He has a graph that "This change to Hubble's law nails the acceleration, does it not?". There is still a need for dark energy to explain this change.

The stupidity of making up equations that do not have the correct units does not alter published or textbook science.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
10 March 2021: Abysmal ignorance about dark energy from Mike Helland.

We have physical evidence of a deviation from Hubble's law for high z. The cause of the deviation is called dark energy. The data matches the predicted acceleration of the expanding universe from a non-zero cosmological constant. He has a graph that "This change to Hubble's law nails the acceleration, does it not?". There is still a need for dark energy to explain this change.
Click to expand...

No there's not.

It's in inherent in this version of Hubble's law.
 
Mike Helland said:
The units are inverse distance. They cancel out.
Click to expand...
Try thinking about Hubble's law, Mike Helland: v = HD where v is a speed.
Thus HD has the units of speed.
Thus (1 + HD)2 has the units of speed squared.
c has the units of speed.
Thus c/(1 + HD)2 has the units of 1/speed.
Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error. Checking the dimensions of equations is one of the first things taught to students.
 
Reality Check said:
Try thinking about Hubble's law, Mike Helland: v = HD where v is a speed.
Thus HD has the units of speed.
Thus (1 + HD)2 has the units of speed squared.
c has the units of speed.
Thus c/(1 + HD)2 has the units of 1/speed.
Therefore "c - c/(1+HD)2" is a high school science error. Checking the dimensions of equations is one of the first things taught to students.
Click to expand...

In this case, H0 has units of Gly-1
sn_expanding.png
 
Reality Check said:
The measured derivation from Hubble's law has a cause that is called dark energy, not matter what it is. That includes changing Hubble's law! Your obviously invalid equation is not that change:
Click to expand...

Distance times inverse distance is unitless.

And there's nothing in that equation you could call dark energy.
 
Mike Helland lies about the units of Hubble's constant

Mike Helland said:
In this case, H0 has units of Gly-1
Click to expand...
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: Mike Helland lies about the units of H0
The Hubble constant has units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second. Anyone who has ever read about Hubble's law knows this. v = HD where v is a speed and D is a distance makes H into an inverse time.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
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: Mike Helland lies about the units of H0
The Hubble constant has units of kilometers per second per Megaparsec, or just per second. Anyone who has ever read about Hubble's law knows this. v = HD where v is a speed and D is a distance makes H into an inverse time.
Click to expand...

Yes, a different unit for H0 is a consequence of the change I've made.
 
The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!

Mike Helland said:
Yes, a different unit for H0 is a consequence of the change I've made.
Click to expand...
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!
Hubble's constant comes from the physical measurements of the distance and speed of galaxies to give v=HD. Its units are defined by this relationship.

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: Mike Helland lies about the units of H0 which are inverse time
 
Last edited:
Mike Helland said:
I'm not lying.

I straight up changed it.

There's a crisis in cosmology yo.

Things gotta change.
Click to expand...

Crisis? No. Some people in cosmology say there's a crisis, because that's good for fundraising. There are issues, but "crisis" is hyperbole.

And things are always changing, and will continue to change. Your contributions, such as they are, don't actually help.
 
Ziggurat said:
Crisis? No. Some people in cosmology say there's a crisis, because that's good for fundraising. There are issues, but "crisis" is hyperbole.
Click to expand...

Ah...

So cosmologists are lying about the issues in the field for funding.

This has taken an interesting turn.
 
Mike Helland said:
...
Click to expand...
Irrelevancy about the "crisis" in cosmology exaggeration leaving no response to what he has replied to.
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: Mike Helland lies about the units of H0 which are inverse time
10 March 2021: The total idiocy that he can change the units of Hubble's constant!

Anyone who knows about the Hubble tension knows that most of the "crisis" is click bait from reporters or editors. A tension is physics is conflicting evidence that requires a resolution. The resolution is usually going through the methodology producing the conflict and identifying errors or omissions.
A crisis in physics is a problem so severe that it requires a radial rethink. This is not the Hubble tension! No one would be insane enough to throw away GR because of the early universe Hubble constant. Ditto for throwing away a lot of astrophysics because of the late universe Hubble constant. Refinements of GR and astrophysics is the rational approach.

ETA: A quick search on crisis in cosmology and the Hubble constant gives no cosmologists saying that it is a crisis! The closest match is David Gross, a particle physicist changing from problem to crisis at a conference in reply to a question from Adam G. Riess.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom