Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Folkhemmet
It seems rather unlikely that all of the supernovae systematic errors could combine and make it look like the Universe is accelerating and still agree, albeit roughly, with other lines of evidence that support the existence of dark energy.
|
As others in this thread have pointed out, if relativistic expansion parameters are wrong, the calculated attenuation factors used in every line of cosmic study are also wrong, and this is why dark energy is needed to explain every observation. These agreements with other lines of analyses adds credence to the hypothesis that there may be common systemic errors.
Quote:
|
Jerry said: "Observations that can't be modeled and demonstrated in the laboratory of local space are always problematic - the explanations are speculative." This is statement outright false, for example, CMB theory is based on our laboratory tested understanding of acoustic oscillations.
|
The problem here is that the acoustic oscillations observed in the CMB
did not agree with laboratory predictions! They were two magnitudes smaller! Dark Energy and Dark Matter were added into the equations until the supernova data agreed with the ‘CMB’ peaks isolated. So 96% of the weight assigned in the equations cannot be modeled in the laboratory.
Quote:
|
Big Bang conditions can be simulated via particle accelerators. Supernovae are being modeled by computer simulations. Clearly, more work needs to be done in all of these areas, but it is a stretch to assume, as Jerry does, that the laws of physics (e.g. the bahavior of plasmas, emission/absorption spectra, and sound ways) are vastly different in each part of Universe so that we cannot conclude anything about the Universe's large scale properties.
|
Two things:
1) Successful computer models [i]do not exist[i]. That is why inflation is used; Inflation has zero laboratory or particle physics heritage – no mathematical connections to the real world. Inflation is a massive layer of magic between the initial condition dynamics that have been carefully modeled using known physics, and the endless structure of the universe we observe.
2) I
expect systems to behave exactly the same cosmically as they do locally. That is why I reject concepts that cannot be analytically derived, and look for flaws instead in the local physical models. This may not be the correct approach, but it beats the hell out of adding a new parameter every time our observations don’t agree with existing models.
Quote:
|
Similar to the supernovae data, it seems equally unlikely that the CMB spectra follows a theoretical curve based on our knowledge of the physics of acoustic oscillations (which have been tested in laboratories on Earth despite what Jerry says) and yet is still a hopelessly contaminated mess.
|
No. Laboratories do not have jars of Dark Matter and Dark Energy that they can pad acoustic signatures with in order to get the bounce they are looking for.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Folkhemmet
If the CMB is a hopelessly contaminated mess, as Jerry contends, the chances of the data points lining up as well as they do with the theoretical curve would be incredibly small; it would be much more likely for them to be situated in a pell-mell manner not following any curve.
|
Look at the curve: 96% of the agreement is padding provided by three sets of parameters: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Inflation. Every ounce of agreement is slimed with a pound of intangible lard. Bad astronomy!
But you have taken your eye off-of-the-ball again. For four years I have been reasoning that there should be
selection effects in our search for distant supernova: The most distant supernova found should be more representative of the brightest events that we observe in the local sample. For 15 years supernova research team have been arguing there are no net differences between local and distant supernova. Now they concede
there are measurable differences, but they don’t agree upon what the new observational data means.
It will take years to sort this all out, but it shouldn’t take decades. Supernova research teams need to start focusing on the distant supernova events that look like type Ia, but appear as much as two magnitudes under-luminous, and have very short light curves. (Riess said they found at least one, but they did not do follow-up studies because the light curve evolved too quickly to be a time dilated supernova type Ia). I think they are out there – lots of them.