I don't think space is expanding.

[theprestige]

Model independent measuresment gives 74.

Lambda-CDM predicts 67.

I think it's pretty obvious which one to doubt.

Yes, but we know that your thinking is founded in willful ignorance.

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah, but there's really no time a photon is "halfway in" an electron.

Schro's cat is either dead or alive, but half dead isn't an option, afaik.

It very much is an option at the microscopic level. Surprising no one, you have fundamentally misunderstood everything about quantum mechanics and the entire point of that thought experiment.

If you're standing in a body of water, a wave can come towards you. At some point the crest of the wave can be at you, and then the trough.

Does that apply to quantum particles?

Yes. But a photon consists of many crests and troughs.

A particle absorption could take a non-zero, non-infinitesimal, finite amount of time, but it's still a single event, is it not?

Now we're into quibbling about what a "single event" means, if the event is not instantaneous. What's the difference between a single event a

When does the photo multiplier go off?

When a photon has completed its interaction?

That, as with so much of quantum mechanics, is probabilistic. And even after it's gone off, there's always some uncertainty as to exactly when it went off. There's a reason for that too, which again, you would know if you knew quantum mechanics, but you don't.

How do we know when the interaction begins?

We don't, if you really want to be precise.

 

[Roboramma]

Model independent measuresment gives 74.

Lambda-CDM predicts 67.

I think it's pretty obvious which one to doubt.

I don't think it's obvious at all, but I put more credence in the 67, personally.

 

[Mike Helland]

I don't think it's obvious at all, but I put more credence in the 67, personally.

Huh.

Why is that?

If the model predicts one thing, and measurements show another, why go with the model?

Seems like if you said you believe Newton's gravity over the observed orbit of Mercury.

 

[Roboramma]

Huh.

Why is that?

If the model predicts one thing, and measurements show another, why go with the model?

Seems like if you said you believe Newton's gravity over the observed orbit of Mercury.

Both are measurements. Both measurements require a model. One of them seems to me to be a more difficult measurement to do and has more confounding factors, so while astronomers have taken those factors into account it seems reasonable to me that they may be making a mistake somewhere.

But maybe not! I'd be very excited if it did turn out that this wasn't just measurement error and really did lead to some new physics. I think that's less likely, but not enormously so.

 

[Mike Helland]

Both are measurements. Both measurements require a model. One of them seems to me to be a more difficult measurement to do and has more confounding factors, so while astronomers have taken those factors into account it seems reasonable to me that they may be making a mistake somewhere.

But maybe not! I'd be very excited if it did turn out that this wasn't just measurement error and really did lead to some new physics. I think that's less likely, but not enormously so.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.01183

The most statistically significant tension is the 4−6σ disagreement between predictions of the Hubble constant H0 by early time probes with ΛCDM model, and a number of late time, model-independent determinations of H0 from local measurements of distances and redshifts.

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Again, no one here will deny that there are still things that need to be resolved in the current field of cosmology.
No one closes their mind to the fact that a new theory might even replace the current one.
But the current theory is the one that best fits all observations.

Your theory on the other hand runs counter to observations and thus is worse than the current one, so it will never replace it.
Why not study physics and see if you can actually progress it once you understand the principles, rather than investing so much time in something that will in the end by pointless?

 

[Ziggurat]

Why not study physics and see if you can actually progress it once you understand the principles, rather than investing so much time in something that will in the end by pointless?

Because actually studying physics is hard work, he doesn’t have the math skills, and it wouldn’t make him feel special.

 

[hecd2]

Model independent measuresment gives 74.

Lambda-CDM predicts 67.

I think it's pretty obvious which one to doubt.

Yeah, the opinion of Mike who knows nothing trumps the consensus of the professionals (which is that we don't yet know where the discrepancy lies). Since you think the "direct measurement" is oh-so easy and bang-on, I point you again to this: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=13414050&postcount=2677

 

[Mike Helland]

Since you think the "direct measurement" is oh-so easy and bang-on

Whatever dude.

I said the CMB prediction was less direct and relies more on extrapolation, because that's what the articles say.

You disagree, fine.

 

[Mike Helland]

and it wouldn’t make him feel special.

Whatever.

 

[hecd2]

I said the CMB prediction was less direct and relies more on extrapolation, because that's what the articles say.

You have no capacity to understand formal physics papers. How do I know? If you don't understand basic concepts, how can you possibly understand reports of research at the cutting edge?

You know, Mike, you have missed a trick here. There are several knowledgeable people on this thread who could have taught you quite a bit for free if you would only show some humility and admit that you know nothing. But, no, you are so committed to your silly idea and you are so steeped in the most extreme form of Dunning-Kruger (you aren't just lacking in knowledge - you don't know what you don't know, and you have no conception how much you don't know), that you only learn that which you (erroneously) believe is convenient for your obsession and reject or forget the rest. What a waste.

The latest hubris: believing that you can show using QM that your slowed-down photons will not violate Snell's law.

 

[hecd2]

And just let me add that there is no shame in being ignorant. We are all ignorant in all sorts of ways. What is shameful is invincible ignorance and a belief that you somehow know better than all the people who have studied the subject for decades. We see it over and over on this forum, and in this thread; in general, we see it with the anti-vaxxers and the homeopathy promoters and the geocentrists and the scientific crackpots of every ilk.

 

[Mike Helland]

And just let me add that there is no shame in being ignorant. We are all ignorant in all sorts of ways. What is shameful is invincible ignorance and a belief that you somehow know better than all the people who have studied the subject for decades. We see it over and over on this forum, and in this thread; in general, we see it with the anti-vaxxers and the homeopathy promoters and the geocentrists and the scientific crackpots of every ilk.

Here's what I think is shameful.

The scientific community says the CMB predictions don't match the local measurements.

And you can't resist from beating me up over any claim, not because I'm wrong, but because you can.

Your zeal and personal attacks tip your hand.

 

[hecd2]

Here's what I think is shameful.

The scientific community says the CMB predictions don't match the local measurements.

The scientific commumnity says that there is a tension between the CMB based measurement and the standard candle and other local methods. And you can't resist turning that into a claim that the CMB-based method is wrong (and that therefore we have to throw out lamda-CDM and the whole space expansion thing). It's at best a mistaken reading of what the community is saying and at worst a deliberate misrepresentation.

And you can't resist from beating me up over any claim, not because I'm wrong, but because you can.

On the evidence of this thread, you are always wrong. Always.

 

[Steve]

Here's what I think is shameful.

The scientific community says the CMB predictions don't match the local measurements.

And you can't resist from beating me up over any claim, not because I'm wrong, but because you can.

Your zeal and personal attacks tip your hand.

You are more than merely wrong. You are wrong with no capacity to consider why you are wrong and no capacity to consider the considerable evidence provided that shows how you are wrong. Textbook Dunning-Kruger. You have no coherent "theory" or even a coherent hypothesis worthy of the name. To borrow a partial quote from a reasonably well known playwright:

"a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

 

[Ziggurat]

Here's what I think is shameful.

The scientific community says the CMB predictions don't match the local measurements.

And you can't resist from beating me up over any claim, not because I'm wrong, but because you can.

Your zeal and personal attacks tip your hand.

The problem was never that you were wrong, Mike. You were and are still wrong, but that’s not what anyone minds.

 

[Crossbow]

Here's what I think is shameful.

The scientific community says the CMB predictions don't match the local measurements.

And you can't resist from beating me up over any claim, not because I'm wrong, but because you can.

Your zeal and personal attacks tip your hand.

You are wrong again.

You have been wrong ever since you started this nonsense and you are still wrong now.

 

[theprestige]

And you can't resist from beating me up over any claim, not because I'm wrong, but because you can.

Take a look around this forum. Claims that aren't wrong don't really get beat up on like this.

And of course the reason your claims can be beat up on so easily is because of how wrong they are.

But this is an easy problem for you to solve: If nobody here is going to give your claims the treatment you think they deserve, then don't waste your time here. Find a more supportive venue, where your ideas will get whatever it is you believe they need to grow and flourish.

 

[hecd2]

The vigour of the beating correlates perfectly with the incorrigibility of the victim.

ETA: It's not being wrong that gets us riled.