What steps have you, yourself, taken to apply the Jerry radical scepticism to your own interpretations?

How would you go about estimating the possibility - in some quantitative fashion - that your own interpretations (etc) contain (fatal) basic failures (of reasoning)?

Exactly!

If they had normalized their sample at any other redshift, the cancellation would not have been exact. This became clear as additional supernova were observed at higher redshift, and the average stretch factors started to get smaller for these higher redshift supernovae - (personal communication from SN researchers) this one reason that the stretch factor method was abandoned and new-but-similar techniques have been used to reduce more recent crops of supernovae.

The 'Stretch factor' method resurfaced in a comparative analysis of supernova rise-times. In the rise-time analysis, (I think) they k-correct to the local time frame and the stretch factor is normalized to 1, defined as the "average" supernova rise time after K corrections. (Which brings up a MAJOR question: Why apply a stretch factor at all, before comparing supernova rise-times; especially if one of the things you need to know is if the rise-time changes with distance?) The rise time study is cut at a redshift of z=0.88, effectively normalizing the rise-time sample at z=0.49 and eliminating the high z problem children in one slash!

Ref: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0607363v3.pdf

During the late 1990's, the M(B)50 value was published for all supernovae type Ia. This is also a number that is derived from a normalized midpoint, and the same thing happened: With increasing distances, M(B)50 values started to skew. Supernovae researchers are constantly tweaking their data reduction routines; and as long as they continue to make optomistic assumptions and use iffy normalizing standards, it is reasonable to question the veracity of the results.

See also

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.0726v1.pdf

DIVERSITY OF DECLINE-RATE-CORRECTED TYPE Ia SUPERNOVA RISE TIMES:
ONE MODE OR TWO?

Mark Strovink

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Have you actually done any analysis yourself, Jerry?

I mean, downloaded some relevant data, analysed it according to your own impeccable, bullet-proof methods and algorithms (which you have, of course, published ahead of doing the data reductions), and shown that actual, honest-to-goodness observational data are consistent with your clearly enunciated hypotheses?

Jerry says he is convinced that "no one has answers." Nevertheless, Jerry boldly tries to lift away the proverbial fog (all the while making assumptions of his own) and set us straight in an I am holier than thou manner--hardly the kind of humility one might expect from a true radical skeptic. Jerry's view is that most of modern physics is still up for grabs, very little of what is said to be known is actually known, life is full of mystery, etc. Essentially, Jerry seems to hold a philosophical assumption which is, at least in my opinion, pretty nihilistic and gloomy--that is, he assumes that the Universe is inherently unknowable and impervious to human understanding. Hence, Nereid's "Jerry radical skepticism" phrase is quite apt. Yet time and again, very strangely, Jerry wants to have it both ways-- he acts like so much is unknown or unknowable about the Universe; however, uncannily, precisely enough stuff is known so he can use at least something as a foundation for his supernovae criticisms or CMB idea. Thus, Jerry holds a philosophical assumption which he himself persistently violates!

A disturbing pattern which Jerry continues to exhibit is this: if a finding is released which casts doubt on the Big Bang theory, supernovae data, or CMB physics comes out, then it is automatically correct (“See, I told you so”); if a finding comes out which seems to confirm the Big Bang, then it is automatically incorrect (“I am so sure their methodology has to be flawed”). This pattern can be seen just by perusing the baut Story Comments section and looking at most of Jerry's posts. Jerry's behavior is textbook example of what psychologists refer to as confirmation bias or belief fixation. Ironically, this type of bias is the same one which Jerry accuses the cosmology community of when in actuality cosmologists have changed their views over the years. He accuses the cosmology community of closed-off narrow-minded thinking and assumptions, but perhaps those living in glass houses should not throw so many stones.

Another red-flag pattern, which Jerry continues to exhibit, is a further reflection of his aforementioned confirmation bias. Jerry often complains about the ugly complexity of the cosmological model with its “multiplying” parameters and epicyclic nature. So, on the one hand you have the "reluctant cosmologist" complaining that there are too many parameters in mainstream cosmology. On other hand, the reluctant cosmologist often proclaims that the Universe is much more complex than we can imagine. This is pretty convoluted reasoning; obviously it reveals more about those making it than it does about the state of modern cosmology. When an observation comes out implying that we understand something about the Universe, the reluctant cosmologist plays the Universe is more complex card. When an observation comes out implying that the Universe is more complex, the reluctant cosmologist plays the Universe is simpler card. This type of thinking should raise many a red flag!

Call it Big-Bang or something else, as it not so much the individual theories that bother Jerry. What bothers him is the idea that we are actually getting somewhere after mellenia (and he is somehow missing out because his ideas are not mainstream) in terms of understanding the story of the stars, planets, galaxies, and Universe—the greatest story ever. Moreover, those, like Jerry, who complain about the complexity of the current cosmological model also selectively fail to mention that there are other cosmological models which have even more parameters.

I don’t know Jerry, have never met or corresponded with him, am not one of his “kids”, and don’t agree with everything he says. But these ad hominem infomercials are pretty tiresome. His posts are a breath of fresh air in the polluted atmosphere of the “cosmology community” (is that like the “international community”?) which, for example, gives the world the “wisdom” that life is doomed in X billion years (and is therefore purposeless). Which begs just what is the purpose of these attacks. I suspect a lot of people beside myself wonder what kind of “understanding” cosmology is really after or about. It is sad that a young person looking for direction outside the realm of tribal myth will not find it in the kludge-powered “theology” of cosmology.

To me the idea of accelerated expansion, justified by interpretation of supernova observations, is a crucial misuse of evidence. I don’t know the “science” behind the interpretation. But what sticks out like a sore thumb (to me) from the Hubble diagram is that the expansion is very nearly constant, and yet it seems that because GR does not allow a constant expansion there can be no “constant expansion” model. And from this failure (my opinion) the magic words of the “cosmological community” are now “dark energy”, which are so quickly and deeply ingrained into the “cosmological community” that they are taken as revealed truth! Just today in Arxiv:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...706.2186v1.pdf

And yet, also in Arxiv today:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...706.2346v1.pdf

Quote: “The observed non-Gaussianity may therefore probably be imputed to the CMB itself, thereby questioning the basic inflationary scenario upon which the present concordance cosmological model relies.”

So where, other than in a forum like BAUT, can people debate these issues? And yet when they do they are subjected to posts like those above which are nothing but personal smears.

From the post by Folkhemmet, “What bothers him is the idea that we are actually getting somewhere after mellenia (and he is somehow missing out because his ideas are not mainstream) in terms of understanding the story of the stars, planets, galaxies, and Universe—the greatest story ever.”

My main impression from reading Jerry’s posts is that he is skeptical. Everybody who thinks about anything has ideas, and judging those ideas is one thing. Judging the person is another. And my main impression from the statement above is that in terms of understanding the universe, the current “understanding” is far from “the greatest story ever” - unless in “greatest” you include “ugliest”.

Ngeo, actually, you conveniently ignored the majority of the sentences in my last post which were critical of Jerry's methodology/ideas and you focused on the small part where I speculated on his personal motivations. But to pretend that personal motivations do not figure into scientific thinking is flat-out wrong. Again, most of my last post, since you and Jerry are so big on pointing out inconsistencies, had more to do with raising red flags and pointing out specious patterns of reasoning (inconsistencies, confirmation bias, selective use of evidence to support one's view, tending to lend credence to certain views just because they are ATM, radical skepticism-- these are not ad hominem-- unless you are willing to admit that you don't really understand what ad hominem means).

Also, actually, Jerry-like anti-Big Bang posts are a dime a dozen rather than a "breath of fresh air." They are ubiquitous. I would hardly call ideas which seem to be majority opinion "breathes of fresh air" unless you are willing to admit that you don't really understand what the statement "breath of fresh" is supposed to indicate. Ignorance/hostility toward the idea that our Universe evolved from a hotter denser state to a cooler less dense state, and toward science in general, is a phenomenon which appears to be firmly ingrained in US society. Polls consistently show that only about a third of the US population believe in well-established scientific ideas. Being a radical skeptic only adds to this overall picture. Not to get too far off topic, but Jerry-like radical skepticism is precisely the tool that Exxon-Mobil and other giant moneyed interests use to quell concerns over pollution/climate change.

Your "main impression of Jerry's posts is that he is skeptical" misses the fact that, as Nereid points out and I tried to point out in my last post, Jerry wants to have it both ways-- he acts like so much is unknown or unknowable about the Universe; however, uncannily, precisely enough stuff is known so he can use at least something as a foundation for his supernovae criticisms or CMB idea. Thus, Jerry holds a philosophical assumption which he himself persistently violates!

Yes, using physics, telescopes, and other tools to detect planets around other stars, learn how stars form and evolve, perhaps detecting the first stars, learning about the large scale properties of the Universe (its age, size, shape, composition, etc) is to me a beautiful human accomplishment amongst a host of blemishes. Would you say that figuring out and developing a coherent picture of human evolution is ugly? If not, why would you say so of cosmic evolution? Furthermore, at least astronomers and cosmologists, unlike archeologists, have the luxury of being able to see the past objects/processes they are studying.

And yet you quite confidently claim that the science is a crucial misuse of evidence. Does this position of yours not strike you as odd?
The actual evidence from the observation shows an increase in expansion, preceded by a decrease in expansion. That's simply not constant expansion. Even the case with constant expansion is ruled out. (Check out http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/ . In particular: http://www-supernova.lbl.gov/public/...ubbletrans.pdf , which unforunately has the Omega(Matter)=0 line left out, unlike earlier papers, but you can extrapolate.)
Dark energy is taken seriously because it has a role to play in explaining the observations, observations that are taken seriously because they are very careful and have a significant amount of cross-checks within the datasets themselves.

From Kwalish Kid,

"And yet you quite confidently claim that the science is a crucial misuse of evidence. Does this position of yours not strike you as odd?"

Yes, that looks pretty odd (I admit you made me laugh). But it appears that what I said was that the crucial misuse is in the (unknown to me) science required to interpret the evidence, not in the science (actually also largely unknown to me) required to observe the evidence. I have a feeling they aren’t the same thing. In other words, there is an observation of light taken as a supernova, of a certain magnitude and redshift - the observation in this case. I believe the science behind the observation can be tested outside the realm of the theory that infers accelerated expansion. In other words, it has an external check via absorption or emission lines which can be compared with lab results. I would accept the check that redshift of these lines is evidence of a recessional velocity (and other checks I am sure I don‘t know about). So the various observations can be positioned on a graph.

But then a correlation is made, and the positions of the various light observations relative to the lines on the graph are ultimately taken as evidence of accelerated expansion. However this evidence is not testable outside the realm of the theory that infers the acceleration. The theory seems to be using the magnitude-redshift-distance relationship, determined by the theory, as evidence for the theory. It is like using a ruler, marked off with inches of a certain length, saying “that is the length of an inch”, and then saying, “See, those inches are exactly an inch long”. It all depends on the ruler. Going out on a limb, in this case the ruler is constructed from a model that ultimately springs from a speculation: that the universe began as a ball of “energy soup” in a hot dense state which cooled off because the ball expanded. The energy soup ball seems to be described by quantum effects, the acceleration scenario seems to be described by GR, it seems they don’t go together, so how accurate is the ruler? Is it really so accurate that it can rule out scenarios based on small differences in magnitude?

So (in my view) while the graphs showing supernova magnitude and redshift may be on solid ground, the lines showing universes that are “always accelerating”, etc. are not. And that is one reason why I say “misuse” when the graph is taken as evidence of accelerating expansion. Another is that (as the title of this thread implies) the light observations are not necessarily from identical kinds of sources.

Of course they aren't the same thing.
Here's the thing: the theory of interpreting redshift as a relativistic effect related to a global increase in mean distance works really well. It's something predicted from the basic theory, but not expected before available observations.

If one accepts this interpretation of redshift, then observing acceleration or deceleration for this phenomena is fairly straightforward.
Well, it could be that the universe is simply very strange in such a way that it mimics the acceleration perfectly. What is observed is a relation between distance and redshift that changes over great distances. These changes, if they are of a certain nature, allow us to measure the relative strength of different parameters of the cosmological model. We can compare these measurements with those from other measurements.
1) The redshift relation is based on the assumption of large-scale homogeneity and isotropy. This was realized well before the theory of the early period of primordial nucleosynthesis.
2) There is no conflict between traditional accounts of primordial nucleosynthesis and standard GR and standard particle physics. There is no conflict between GR and quantum mechanics except for certain interpretations of QM.
3) The determinations of acceleration are quite robust to small changes in the magnitude of the SN Ia.

Yes I have, and just as importantly, I have discussed my observations with the cosmological community, and we all understand the broad implications of a miss-calculation of the supernovae distance scaling. The primary reason most of the community accepts the premise for now, (that the most distant supernovae we have observed are very similar to the local population), is that so many, many things would have to be wrong in order for the conclusions of Goldhaber, Perlmutter and Reiss to not be true.

There are A LOT of papers coming in nowadays, reporting possible bimodal distributions, and that the complete family of observations hint of binary episodes and other possible ranging errors for supernovae - including fundamental scaling:

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/p...706.2361v1.pdf

I don't know how this effects the ladder of observations leading to supernova distance scaling; but a luminosity error of 1.5 magnitudes this close to us has the potential of requiring a major revision in distance scaling. Watch and see.

I think we should be embracing and anticipating a revolution in thinking, rather than sulking around with the notion we only comprehend 4% of the known universe.

Unfortunately it also closes the ranks in the established science community: Anyone proposing radical solutions to the endless conundrums facing today's astrophysical community is disdained because of this very suspicion. The enemy of science is not the religious or financial communities, it is complacency with the status quo, when the status quo is dressed with so many poor and failing explanations. There is much to learn.

Jerry has made, and will continue to make very pointed and specific predictions, and as much as the board monitors will allow, I get as many people involved as I can involved in the testing and monitoring new possibilities - something I am very appreciative of all of you for doing. And if the predictions or ideas are demonstrated to be wrong - so what? Reject the theory and find a new one. Isn't that what we are supposed to be doing?

The Messenger probe, by the way, will be getting gravitational assist on Jan 14, 2008 as it passes near Mercury. I calculated that the assist will net significantly less gravitational braking than expected - at least three sigma. Let's see what happens.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

I agree with this, very tiresome. Unfortunately, we have even a BAUT moderator making these unsubstantial posts criticizing only Jerry's posting style/person. I also find it disturbing that folkhemmet has made four posts in this thread now, and not a single one is about diversity in supernova Ia. To me it looks like this is some kind of personal crusade against Jerry (I don't know if it is, but that's what it looks like to me).

It seems to me that if Jerry is so utterly wrong, it would be much simpler to show exactly what is wrong with things Jerry had said in this thread, instead of making these vague arguments about Jerry's posting style or quesses about his mental orientation about these issues.

What I regret the most is that I had to make similar unsubstantial post complaining about their unsubstantial posts.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

Can you share some of these calculations with us?
This seems to be the reason to accept almost any scientific claim. Indeed, it seems not just that so many things have to be wrong, they have to be wrong in a coordinated way.
This actually has nothing to do with the supernovae observations. They are very self-contained and independent of determinations of the Hubble constant and distance measurements from other sources.
I don't understand this claim, what does it mean?
Radical ideas are one thing, wildly improbably ideas are another. In this thread, you are proposing that a number of systematic errors are working in tandem, including some errors that seem to be quite well controlled.

Well, you know the old saying about being not even wrong. It's hard to oppose someone if they're playing in a completely different stadium across town. You've got to get a taxi, etc., etc. It's not as simple as you imply.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I think he's implying that a different view of supernovae 1a will do away with dark energy.

We hear this attitude a lot. Are you so "baryocentric", Jerry? So what if the atoms we know and love are not the big superpower of the universe? There are several independent observations and lines of logic that lead to the conclusion that the energy density of our universe must be comprised of 74% dark energy, 24% dark matter, and 4% "atoms". What if this conclusion is correct? Then you're advocating embracing a false "revolution."

And anyway, who's "sulking"?

What unambiguous evidence is there that would lead one to embrace this revolution you're talking about? "Current problems in astrophysics" and "gaps in our knowledge" don't count. Is there any positive evidence FOR some other model, as opposed to negative evidence AGAINST the broadly accepted current model?

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

I've never understood why the revolution should always be in the future. The discovery of the positive cosmological constant was quite a revolution, but those people actually looking for revolutions seem not to want their revolutions to ever arrive.

Absolutely. The dark matter is a perfect example: Either something is out there we cannot see, or we have a big fly in the ointment.

Almost true. The baseline luminosity is established stepwise: Change the absolute magnitude of supernova events in nearby galaxies, and the entire curve must adjust accordingly. But you are correct, changes in these scaling factors would not effect the overall cosmological implications, just move the decimals around a bit.

The current consensus cosmology states only 4% of all matter is baryonic; the rest of the universe has no local analog. To me, this is like saying 'heaven is 94 times greater than earth'. I don't know how to evaluate a statement like that.

It is not wildly improbable to entertain the hypothesis that the most distant supernova we are finding are at least as bright as the brightest events we observe in the local sample. However, the hidden implication is that the supernova magnitude/light-curve width relationship established locally does not break down! When time dilation is not factored in, the distant ultra-bright supernova should have much longer light curves, just like we see in the local, ultra-bright sample. We do not observe that. This major implication, that the redshift world is not time dilated as well, throws a major curve into the imagined space-time relationship - pun intended.

I'll pull out a numeric example, as you requested.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Time will tell whether or not our current basic picture of the Universe's structure and evolution is correct which is to say that cosmologists will continue to apply the scientific method to determine the standard model's validity or lack thereof; Jerry does not have a monopoly on the scientific method even though he often pretends like he does. Although unlikely, perhaps Jerry will obtain a Nobel Prize for proving that there is no accelerating expansion of the Universe. Yes, anyone who can definitely show that the standard model is wrong will be worthy of a Nobel Prize-- without a doubt. Imagine the headlines! Astronomers Forced to See the Light! Professionals Catch Up to Amatuer.

Diversity per se in the supernovae samples is not enough to overturn the overall picture which strongly suggests that our Universe is accelerating. What matters is the degree of diversity in the supernovae data set. Consider the following analogy, imagine that aliens who look at Earth through a super-advanced telescope (previously not knowing anything about human psysiology) observe that there is a diversity of heights among growing children. Some children are even taller than the average adult. These exceptionally tall children should not lead the aliens to conclude that the general picture which is that adults are taller than children is incorrect. Also, one could look at the discovery of this diversity as a positive development within the context of the standard model-- it would mean that we are are learning to spot the odd-balls and exclude them from the analyses thereby enabling improved constraints.

Jerry said: "Absolutely. The dark matter is a perfect example: Either something is out there we cannot see, or we have a big fly in the ointment." I agree with Jerry on this. However, Jerry often accuses the astrophysics community of narrow-minded thinking, but the persistence with which the cosmology community is sticking with this idea and testing it to the hilt a good thing. There are dozens of experiments the world over which will be able to tell whether or not "something is out there." Sometimes one has to put a lot of effort into looking for something or someone (e.g. dark matter or the right romantic partner) instead of giving up at the first sign of difficulty. So, if no evidence for dark matter shows up soon even with all of the efforts put into finding it (GLAST, LHC, direct detection experiments), then the theory should be given up and thus the CDM part of LCDM would have to be abandoned. On the other hand, Jerry, what would be your position if the dark matter particles predicted by theory are found and the abundance of particles precisely matches the 20-30% of the critical density figure implied by the CMB and other astronomical observations? would this be just another coincidence or suppression of alternatives like what you think is going on right now with other aspects of the standard model? The same thing is true of Higgs particles, dark energy, gravitational waves, B-mode polarization. We live in exciting times!

Either the accelerating universal expansion will be confirmed beyond a reasobale doubt or Jerry will receive a Nobel prize for for proving that there is no accelerating expansion of the Universe. I'll let baut forum members decide which possibility they think is more likely to occur....

I'll get to commenting, in detail, on ngeo's and Ari's posts later (maybe a few days' later); for now, may I simply ask you both (but especially Ari) if becoming a moderator precludes one from having opinions?

Oh, and I think you meant "unsubstantiated" Ari; if so, then, ahead of my more detailed response, you may wish to:
a) read what I wrote, carefully, in the post of mine you cite; and
b) review the extent to which I have been able to substantiate statements I've made, about BAUT member's posting records, on earlier occasions.

From a very recent Jerry post (my bold)Is this statement of Jerry's "bald, black&white"? [A: yes]

Is it "supposedly based on reliable sources"? [A: I think so]

Does it "on investigation* to be outrageously, riotously, hilariously, infuriatingly, ... wrong"? [A: yes*]

"does Jerry change his behaviour, based on having so many of his diatribes shown to be so disconnected with the actual research findings/approaches/whatever?" [A: obviously not; this is a quote from Jerry, made after the Nereid post which Ari characterised as 'unsubstantiated']

*And the investigation requires a level of knowledge of the "current consensus cosmology" far less than Jerry obviously has.

Responding to post #39 above by Kwalish Kid, I have some questions (maybe better suited to the Q & A forum if a moderator wants to put this there).

“. . . the theory of interpreting redshift as a relativistic effect related to a global increase in mean distance works really well. It's something predicted from the basic theory, but not expected before available observations.
“If one accepts this interpretation of redshift, then observing acceleration or deceleration for this phenomena is fairly straightforward.”

I wonder if you could clarify the statement, “a relativistic effect related to a global increase in mean distance”. Are you saying that within a system of global increase in mean distance, there are relativistic effects, or that a global increase in mean distance is itself a relativistic effect, i.e. derived from GR - or both? Is “mean distance” a vacuum, or does it measure a medium in which the speed of light varies? It doesn’t seem that any determination of distance can be made only from redshift, so the interpretation determines the distance. It would be no wonder that the interpretive theory “works really well” in that case.
“. . . it could be that the universe is simply very strange in such a way that it mimics the acceleration perfectly. What is observed is a relation between distance and redshift that changes over great distances. These changes, if they are of a certain nature, allow us to measure the relative strength of different parameters of the cosmological model. We can compare these measurements with those from other measurements.”

Again, I wonder how you measure the great distances that lead to the observation of a change in the relation between distance and redshift. Although you can measure redshift as a Doppler effect using independent checks and derive a recession velocity , this velocity is itself an interpretation based on local conditions. To then further derive a distance seems two steps removed from the observation, and is totally dependent on the theory. It seems like using the distance derived from the theory to confirm the theory, and using the theory to confirm the distance. Again, it would be no wonder that “works”.
I can see how a redshift-magnitude relation could be established, but not a redshift-magnitude-distance relation. How was this problem solved?

“1) The redshift relation is based on the assumption of large-scale homogeneity and isotropy. This was realized well before the theory of the early period of primordial nucleosynthesis.”

I’m not sure what you are getting at. How large a scale of homogeneity and isotropy are you talking about? I assume you mean the CMB radiation. At smaller scales the universe doesn’t appear to be homogeneous or isotropic (to me). So the light coming from different regions of space may be traveling through different media and different gravitational fields, which would mean the light has been traveling at different speeds. The current theory of early primordial nucleosynthesis seems to be dependent on inflation, or am I wrong?

“2) There is no conflict between traditional accounts of primordial nucleosynthesis and standard GR and standard particle physics. There is no conflict between GR and quantum mechanics except for certain interpretations of QM.”

I wonder if you could clarify this? It would be reasonable that there would be no conflict if the “traditional accounts of primordial nucleosynthesis” are manufactured to fit the specifications of GR and standard particle physics. In the second sentence are you saying there no conflict between GR and interpretations of QM which lead to “standard particle physics”, or what? It is my understanding that GR describes the motion of bodies and the changes in distances between them by a geometry that includes changeable time, while standard particle physics describes events in a constant time frame. Am I wrong? I also recall arguments that GR is not renormalizable - that is, while standard particle physics theories “work“ by cancelling out the singularities in their equations, GR leads to singularities which cannot be cancelled out. However, accepting the idea that there is no conflict between GR and standard particle physics, it seems the universe must be a system which neither particle physics theories nor GR can explain, otherwise dark matter and dark energy wouldn’t be “dark“. From what I read it appears that a cosmological constant as vacuum energy doesn’t compute, whereas a cosmological constant as a theoretical artifact doesn’t appear physical.

“3) The determinations of acceleration are quite robust to small changes in the magnitude of the SN Ia.”

I have to wonder how robust these determinations are, in view of the following:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p...0608386v16.pdf

“When viewed sufficiently far from the poles, the TNB (thermonuclear ball) will dominate the luminosity, S/Si absorption lines will appear/deepen, the SN will be classified as a Ia, but similar high velocity lines will also appear from the sides of the PBFs due to material advected from the TNB, in addition to IME lines, including Si again. The assumption implicit in Ia cosmology is that the TNB will be a standard candle (Pinto & Eastman 2001), which can be compared to the redshift of the host galaxy to determine the expansion properties of the universe.

“. . . it might be possible that, because of the assumption of an invalid paradigm for SNe Ia (SD), and the desire to avoid contaminating the sample of Ia’s by including Sne which appeared too “Ic-ish,” with too much EW in IME lines, and too little in the SII and SiII lines, a local sample of Ia’s was selected in which many were viewed very close to the equator of the DD merger. When the high velocity of the small amount of matter in near polar ejecta of Ia’s exposes a fraction of the TNB to non-equatorial views during the interval when (delta) m15 is measured, insufficient WL corrections could result in distant Ia’s which appear to faint for their redshifts.”

In addition,

“… a 7% Ibc contamination level is sufficient to produce (Omega lambda) = 0.7 from no effect Homeier 2005). Small wonder then that statistical considerations alone may rule out any cosmology derived from SNe Ia (Vishwakarma 2005).”

Speaking of Vishwakarma, there is a recent paper:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...705.0825v1.pdf

I know next to nothing that he is talking about, but he says, To conclude, we must mention that the solution to the problem related with a pressure term in GR is obtained at a heavy cost. The energy-stress tensor of a perfect fluid is expected to lead to that of a disordered radiation in the relativistic approximation. Hence it must have a vanishing trace since electromagnetism is conformally invariant. However, the new tensor (17) does not fulfill this requirement. What does this mean? Is GR not compatible with electrodynamics? We could not unify these two interactions successfully so far anyway. Only further investigation will answer these questions.”

I wonder if you have read this or have any comment that would be intelligible to the uneducated.

Any answer to these questions or observations will be gladly received, and I hope not to bother you with more.

Sorry for the confusion. Trying to write these things briefly makes them somewhat convoluted and/or full of jargon.

The simplest spacetime for the universe (in the framework of the General Theory of Relativity) is one that is homogeneous throughout (the same density throughout) and isotropic (there is nothing that picks out a preferred direction). We can think of this spacetime as filled with an even distribution of dust, that is, particles that do not interact through forces other than gravity. This dust will either sit in place, drift apart, or collect together (collapsing under collective gravity). If the dust doesn't sit in place, then we can think of representing the movement that it has as the result of a global funciton, a scale factor, that is attached to spatial location and varies over time. We can assign each grain of dust a coordinate that doesn't change, it is only the distance between each coordinate that changes according to the scale factor.

In 1917, it was realized that if there was an expansion in such a spacetime, then it would have the effect of causing a redshift in light. By 1923 [Phys.Zeit. 24, 230], Hermann Weyl had worked out the redshift-distance relation that we today identify through the Hubble constant. That is, we have identified that there is a linear relationship between redshift and distance (at least for relatively low redshifts).

While redshift can be deteremined more-or-less directly, distance is determined through a variety of means. The general method is through the cosmological distance ladder. Astronomers build up techniques for judging distances that overlap in places.
Redshift is not Doppler, according to the standard theory. The "movement" in this case is interpreted through General Relativity. The redshift we observe, according to theory, is primarily the effect of time delay.

The SN Ia observations do not directly measure distance but they measure relative luminosity distance. That is, they compare, for ranges of redshifts, how much the light from the source is dispersed. Just like a lightbulb that is further away appears dimmer that an identcal bulb that is closer, so too do we expect light to dim in the cosmos, though according to a slightly more complicated formula. This formula is governed by the parameters that control the scale factor. Even without knowing the exact relation between redhift and distance, we can make good observations about relative dimming over a range of redshifts.
You'll have to look into the cosmological distance ladder.
"Inflation" is a different theory than simply expansion. I think we shouldn't really consider the theory of Inflation in this thread, it seems a little off topic and, as far as I'm concerned, it is so far irrelevant to the Big Bang model.

As I mentioned above, the relationship between redshift and distance was conceived well before it was observed, and well before it was attached to a finite universe (it was actually attached to a spacetime model that seemed to have an infinite past). As long as the universe is roughly equally dense on or somewhat over the scale of clusters of galaxies, we're OK for the general theory. Space is big, so small scale inhomogeneities don't matter all that much for the visible universe as a whole. The redshift relationship doesn't rely on the CMB or an theory of primordial nucleosynthesis; that it tends to agree with these theories is a bonus.
I'm not sure exaclty what you'd like me to say. First, I believe that there are many places in standard particle physics for dark particles to hide. Lots more work can be done in the realm of the very small.

The cosmological constant appears physical to the extent that it has effects that can be measured in a number of ways. It has never been shown that the cosmological constant should be identified with vacuum energy hypothesized in relation various quantum theories. It would be nice if a quantum theory could provide a mechanism for the cosmological constant.
Early papers show the results of using a quite wide range of SN magnitudes. The results still seem to point to a cosmological constant.

Again, those who want to argue for a significant second population of SNe have to show why these objects happen to seem exactly right given all the crosschecking analysis that goes on. Why is there a conspiracy of systematic errors?

Unfortuantely, I won't get around to reading Vishwakarma or more recent Narlikar until the end of August.

Of course not, but:

- Is it really necessary to post your opinions about someone's person here, especially if they are negative? I think it's just common courtesy to leave such things unsaid. And as they are almost certainly off-topic, that's another reason to not say them. Also, comments like that are known to cause "flame wars", and destroy the discussion, so there's yet another reason to not saying them (unless that was your purpose to begin with: if it's hard to show that someone is wrong, then at least destroy their discussion). If those are not enough reasons for you, then I'll just add that I find that kind of posts insulting (not towards me, but towards a fellow poster), and seeing enough posts like that here are one reason why I'm not posting much here anymore.

- The fact that you are a moderator makes some people to consider you as a role model, like it or not. Therefore it is even worse if you make disruptive, off-topic posts. Some people will look at your actions and follow your lead, just because you have a moderator status here.

No, I didn't. Unsubstantial is closer to what I was trying to say, but I quess I should check things from dictionary more often as unsubstantial might not be the best of words I could have used; I meant off-topic posts, that seem to exist only to put someone (in this case Jerry) in bad light. In the context of this thread those posts lack substance, therefore they are unsubstantial. So, it seems that rest of your post doesn't have anything to do with what I was saying.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

I'll give you one.

They get 1a's and 1c's confused frequently at relatively close range, SO, what if x number of the '1a SuperNova on demand' were really 1c GRB's that were 'detected' after their super luminosity phase, when they 'could' be mistaken for 1a's?

ETA; especially since there is 'supposed' to be about 500 a day that we DO NOT detect because of their 'beaming' angle!!! (Determined by 2 independent methods even...gee I wonder where they all are?)

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I would like to dispute Ari's claim that Nereid's and my own posts are off-topic and ad hominem with respect to Jerry. First of all, most of my posts, since you and Jerry are so big on pointing out inconsistencies, have more to do with raising red flags and pointing out specious patterns of reasoning (inconsistencies, confirmation bias, selective use of evidence to support one's view, tending to lend credence to certain views just because they are ATM, radical skepticism-- these are not ad hominem-- unless you are willing to admit that you don't really understand what ad hominem (Lat., to the man) means). Nevertheless, to pretend that personal motivations do not figure into scientific thinking is flat-out wrong.

It is also wrong to think that the only way to criticize what someone is saying is by exclusively criticizing what specific data they put forth-- this is conservative thinking and actually contradictory coming from an ATM supporter such as yourself. If it was true, then it would mean that no one outside of a scientific discipline has grounds for criticizing research that takes place inside that discipline. It is akin to saying that anyone who is not a scientist cannot criticize a scientists research methodology and if they dare to do so then they are automatically guilty of making personal attacks. Such thinking is contradictory on your part because, as an ATMer, you yourself accuse the scientific community of excluding alternative ideas which may or may not even have a basis in established science and often don't have much to do with the specific issue at hand. On the one hand, one can choose to criticize methodology/reasoning. On the other hand, one can challenge specific data depending on their qualifications, but they should not be limited to one or the other. You complain about the cosmology community quelling and/or controling the terms of the debate, but you are being hypocritical by attempting to do the very same thing in this thread. And, as clearly demonstrated by Nereid, Cougar, myself, and many others, Jerry's methodology and reasoning is often specious and convoluted even if one is not always in a position to tell if every last one of his often esoteric facts are correct or not.

Let's see the details. It's not enough to cry that mistakes may be made. One has to address the details of spectral characteristics, curve fit, and other details that are consistent accross samples.

??? Type 1a supernovae do not have a beaming angle. They are roughly the same luminosity no matter what angle they are viewed from. They blast out a nearly spherical cloud of stuff that we see many days later because of the decaying Ni56. The geometry of the star itself and its bloated companion doesn't matter.

GRBs don't get detected because of beaming angle, but that's another thread.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

Antoniseb. That's not true. 48 of 52 supernova remnants observed by Manchester and Kesteven at the Molonglo Synthesis Observatory Telescope, Epping, New South Wales, and reported in the Australian Journal of Physics, many moons ago were barrel-shaped. Another 4 were possible barrels. There are few spherical blast clouds. The shape is more of a football, or prolate spheroid, with radial symmetry, not spherical symmetry.
The issue is weak interactions. All weak interactions show parity effects, a polar preference. The same precursor magnetic field that ends up in the pulsar, dictates the asymmetry in type 2's or !c's, but as 1a's make up a substantial portion of barrel remnants, they too are convoluted. Viewing angle does make a difference. Ejecta clouds aren't spherical, or the remnants would be. That means as neutrino opacity reduces in core collapses, neutrinos, ejecta (Son of Supernova 1987a), gamma rays, are beamed and jets form with a polar preference. Ias are not immune to polar asymmetries, jets, or parity effects. Anytime a proton changes to a neutron or vice versa, that's a weak interaction, and parity effects are there.
It has been that way since T.D.K.Lee and C.N. Yang showed it in the fifties. Nobody had looked. It was present in every run of every experiment that had been tried. Universal. I have to have posted on this at least twenty times since I've been here. Nobody can claim spherical symmetry for these events as the rule...only the 8/60 exception. The inverse square law for 1a's,1c's or 2's as standard candles is specious, and not supported by the remnant data from radio astronomy (Molonglo), speckle interferometry (Nissenson, Papaliolios,Center for Astrophysics, Ap.J), or the high transverse velocities observed for pulsars (Bailes et al, "A Survey of Southern Pulsars MNRAS..)(Harrison, Lyne, Cordes, etc).
I put my own two cents worth in at Vassar 92.."Parity, Pulsars, and Supernova Remnants",AAPT Meeting, Williams 93 "R Corona Borealis, Infrared Enigma",AAPT/APS Joint and Harvard 94, "Gamma Ray Bursts, A Halo of Neutron Stars at 400 Kiloparsecs" AAPT ( the Matt Damon, Ben Affleck in the back row-talk...ask them, they play golf with my sister's boyfriend). There are still people believing supernovae are spherical, just as there are people who think I didn't solve the supernova numerical simulation first in front of Matt, Ben, & company with a bimodal scattering distribution compiled from the observed asymmetry in the Bates Linear Accelerator's then recently run He-3 Parity experiment, coupled with the novel mechanism from Leinson, Oraevskii, in the Soviet Journal of Nuclear Physics for neutrino/magnon scattering.
To think I thought convincing students that perpetual motion machines ....was an exercise in futility....

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

I didn't use the term "ad hominem".

I didn't use the term "ad hominem". Perhaps you should try to read my posts before responding to them.

I didn't suggest anything like that about personal motivations.

I didn't suggest that either. You can also criticize their sayings by using well-established physics for example.

Nothing like that came from me. So, you consider me an "ATM-supporter". Is that why you are putting all these words, that I haven't said, in my mouth?

Rubbish. I'm outside scientific discipline, and I don't have trouble dealing with specific data. Especially in astronomy, even a layman can access the data.

Well, since I didn't say that, what's the point with this?

I didn't accuse scientific community of anything. Would you kindly stop putting words in my mouth, I think it is very rude. In fact, in the past I have defended scientific community against such accusation.

I do no such thing. Again you are putting words in my mouth. Your dispute is quickly turning into a parody.

I just expressed my opinion, that I don't like the disruptive posts, which have only the purpose of making someone look bad without addressing the subject at hand.

So, did you demonstrate it as "clearly" as you disputed my claim?

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

There is much more evidence for and against asymmetry in Type Ia supernovae in the recent literature. Spectropolarimetry, detailed spectral analysis, and even light curves can show (or NOT show) deviations from spherical symmetry during the days and weeks after the explosion. I suggest you go to ADS and type into the "Abstract Words" box the following:

supernova asymmetry explosion

Then click on the "Submit" button. You'll receive a list of tens and hundreds of papers published in the last few years which discuss this topic in detail.

I suggest you read them.

Ok, I was hoping to update the CMAGIC tables found here: (P 6)

http://arxiv.org/ftp/astro-ph/papers/0404/0404207.pdf

That are trouble by small number statistics. There is the appearence of an correlation between the slope of the (B) and (V) light curves (beta) after peak, relative to absolute magnitude in the 'local' sample; meanwhile, the redshifted sample of supernova demonstrate a negative or opposite slope correlation. But the (B)(V) slope is directly proportional to the relativistic time correction; and if this factor is removed from the redshifted sample, the local and distant sample of the 'beta' value relative to magnitude are the same. There is nothing convincing in this observation, because the sample is too small, but I hoped to continue to monitor the 'beta factor' in future papers to see if the relationship holds up. But I can't: None of the subsequent papers indentify the beta parameter, not even this one:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/p.../0602411v2.pdf

That uses the CMAGIC beta value to confirm the accelerating expansion found using the stretch factor. This is what I constantly run into: Each new crop of supernovae is analysed in a new way that eliminates the possibility of identifying any normalizing bias in the key observational parameters. During the 90's you could always find a table of M(B)50 values, then there were the MCLC tables, then stretch factor tables, then CMAGIC, and so on. I can't substantiate whether or not the data reduction processes used by SN researchers masks distance bias, because the methodology is evolving as fast as the data is collected. (Sorry Cougar, insert another red flag>)

What I do know is we continue to see new supernova in the local sample that are occasionally 2-4 magnitudes more brilliant than any observed in the distant sample, given the current data reduction processes. At the same time, we have observed much more brilliant gamma rays at redshift distances than we have observed locally - the gamma ray associated with 1987A was very small, relative to the distant sample. It remains a reasonable hypothesis that if long gamma rays we are likely to observe at great distances are more energetic, more distant supernova observed are likely more energetic as well. If this is true, there must be gross systematic errors in the way supernova data are reduced.

As far as the comments on my credibility go, I deserve a few lumps. I have thrown ideas out there that are garbage, misread papers and so on, (although some of the time, I quote from a paper, in which I disagree strongly with the interpretations of the data by the authors - that gets me in trouble, too).

Other times - I don't see what is wrong with the '4% of the universe that is baryonic, according to the consensus cosmology' statement. What am I missing this time?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?