Page 2 of 8 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 233

Thread: Creation of new galaxies ?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,700
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    You're citing some pretty old news here (2004).
    Do you see how funny this is, right after you cite some 2005 paper? Oops, sorry, that wasn't you.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    How did you determine that this is a credible paper? Just by it being on arxiv? It doesn't seem to be published, there is no hint of peer-review, and it was apparently presented at something called "the First Crisis in Cosmology Conference".
    Would it get published? Such a heretical suggestion, contrary to everything we know? If you were the reviewer choosing amoung a pile of LCDM papers and this, would you publish this one? In addition there are papers suggesting that angular size is linear with z and that therefore evolution has to coincidentally result in this relationship. I believe the formula for size is proportional to 1/(1 + z)^-e where e is almost exactly one. You can find this in a recent mainstream paper discussing the morphology of galaxies at z~1.2.

    Eric Lerner is a plasma physicist, not an astrophysicist by training. He has published a few other papers on the subject of astrophysics. Right now he is working on an underfunded Focus Fusion project that has produced the highest temperature plasma ever that I'm aware of. His paper on those fusion experiments has been published in a legitimate scientific journal.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Do you see how funny this is, right after you cite some 2005 paper? Oops, sorry, that wasn't you.
    Let's not go to the level of silliness in arguments. My point about old news in that case is that it is superseded by newer observations. What 2005 paper are you talking about? Lerner's? Do you know of a paper that contradicts it? All that paper attempts to show is that luminosity is consistent with a Euclidean static universe and no evolution.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,700
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Would it get published?
    Who knows? Let's not clutter this thread with that argument. The point is, it isn't, so we have no way of knowing if it was subjected to qualified peer review. This means it requires (at least some) expert knowledge to determine the validity of the paper. I believe you don't claim to be an expert, I certainly don't. How did Don J determine whether this is a valid paper or not?
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    Who knows? Let's not clutter this thread with that argument. The point is, it isn't, so we have no way of knowing if it was subjected to qualified peer review. This means it requires (at least some) expert knowledge to determine the validity of the paper. I believe you don't claim to be an expert, I certainly don't. How did Don J determine whether this is a valid paper or not?
    The datas in the paper(s) are available for all to see .... so the experts here can verify them .

    here the 2009 paper ....the 2005 paper is described in post 28.

    Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary results challenge the expanding universe model

    http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...df/0906.4284v1

    We performed the Tolman surface-brightness test for the expansion of the universe using a large UV dataset of disk galaxies in a wide range of redshifts (from 0.03 to 5.7). We combined data for low-z galaxies from GALEX observations with those for high-z objects from HST UltraDeep Field images. Starting from the data in publicly- available GALEX and UDF catalogs, we created 6 samples of galaxies with observations in a rest-frame band centered at 141 nm and 5 with data from one centered on 225 nm. These bands correspond, respectively, to the FUV and NUV bands of GALEX for objects at z = 0.1. By maintaining the same rest-frame wave-band of all observations we greatly minimized the effects of k-correction and filter transformation. Since SB depends on the absolute magnitude, all galaxy samples were then matched for the absolute magnitude range (-17.7 < M(AB) < -19.0) and for mean absolute magnitude. We performed homogeneous measurements of the magnitude and half-light radius for all the galaxies in the 11 samples, obtaining the median UV surface brightness for each sample. We compared the data with two models: 1) The LCDM expanding universe model with the widely-accepted evolution of galaxy size R prop H(z)-1 and 2) a simple, Euclidean, non-expanding (ENE) model with the distance given by d=cz/H0. We found that the ENE model was a significantly better fit to the data than the LCDM model with galaxy size evolution. While the LCDM model provides a good fit to the HUDF data alone, there is a 1.2 magnitude difference in the SB predicted from the model for the GALEX data and observations, a difference at least 5 times larger than any statistical error. The ENE provides a good fit to all the data except the two points with z>4.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by slang View Post
    How did Don J determine whether this is a valid paper or not?
    What's the test that determines that? If it supports well-established mainstream conclusions then it's valid? Seriously it's a very simple paper that takes measured surface brightness at different z's and shows that they correlate well with certain assumptions: Euclidean space, linear z/distance relationship and no evolution of galaxies. Did you read it?

    As far as I can no tell no one is interested in this coincidence. Oh well...

  7. #37
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,700
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    What's the test that determines that?
    I don't know.. if I knew, I'd be eligible to do peer reviews in this field.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Did you read it?
    Yes, I tried. I didnt get very far.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Seriously it's a very simple paper that takes measured surface brightness at different z's and shows that they correlate well with certain assumptions: Euclidean space, linear z/distance relationship and no evolution of galaxies. Did you read it?
    Yeah, it's garbage. Lerner compares the LambdaCDM with the Euclidean, non- expanding (ENE) model. However, z values are very model specific. Lerner blithely uses the the z values in Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) images and catalogs and the GALEX Medium Imaging Survey (MIS), within the ENE model. He doesn't mention how the z values are arrived at in either of those catalogs. But I'm willing to bet that they used the normal method of using the FLRW metric. Which gets the z value by comparing the wavelength of light using the scale factor. Which measures the curvature of the universe, knowing it has a greater curvature earlier and a lesser curvature as the universe expands. Lerner can't use the z factor from an object that gets it's z factor in an expanding universe and think the z factor in a non expanding universe would be the same. But that's one of the assumptions. And while both models may have a linear z/distance relationship, the z/distance relationship does not correlate between models.

    I'd also point out that the Universe cannot be Euclidean, as a Euclidean Universe is not Lorentz invariant. Which while you may want to argue on large scales(it's been done, unsuccessfully, I might add), it would also invalidate Quantum Field Theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    As far as I can no tell no one is interested in this coincidence. Oh well...
    Yeah, and to paraphrase Richard Feynman, I saw a license plate with my initials and three 5's in it.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    10,700
    Well, there you go. Thanks Tensor. Those are the kinds of things that make me wary when a paper is not published in a respected journal, when the author isn't a well known expert in the field, it's several years old but the paper reaches a staggering conclusion (which might well be trip-to-Oslo stuff), and yet a quick google mainly shows fringe sites like thunderbolt and journal of cosmology. I might have wasted hours going over this piece, trying to figure out the math, looking up references, words and symbols, and still miss something like valid data being used inappropriately.
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Board Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,401
    Would it get published? Such a heretical suggestion, contrary to everything we know?
    What's the test that determines that? If it supports well-established mainstream conclusions then it's valid?
    Here we go again. The reviewer conspiracy... If a paper makes extraordinary claims then it will be examined closely, perhaps more closely than something more mainstream. That is usually because no reviewer is simultaneously skilled in every single model/interpretation of every physics theory ever and has to rad up on the topics. So the bar is slightly higher for new ideas. Which his as it should be. Many, many people generate many, many new ideas every day. If they were not pretty rigorously checked they'd be a huge noise source in physics.

    And reviewers can and do pass the papers to people with more relevant background. Seen it happen many times. Had papers passed to me for this reason, then had to explain my case to the lead reviewer.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Yeah, it's garbage. Lerner compares the LambdaCDM with the Euclidean, non- expanding (ENE) model. However, z values are very model specific. Lerner blithely uses the the z values in Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF) images and catalogs and the GALEX Medium Imaging Survey (MIS), within the ENE model. He doesn't mention how the z values are arrived at in either of those catalogs. But I'm willing to bet that they used the normal method of using the FLRW metric. Which gets the z value by comparing the wavelength of light using the scale factor. Which measures the curvature of the universe, knowing it has a greater curvature earlier and a lesser curvature as the universe expands. Lerner can't use the z factor from an object that gets it's z factor in an expanding universe and think the z factor in a non expanding universe would be the same. But that's one of the assumptions. And while both models may have a linear z/distance relationship, the z/distance relationship does not correlate between models.

    I'd also point out that the Universe cannot be Euclidean, as a Euclidean Universe is not Lorentz invariant. Which while you may want to argue on large scales(it's been done, unsuccessfully, I might add), it would also invalidate Quantum Field Theory.

    Yeah, and to paraphrase Richard Feynman, I saw a license plate with my initials and three 5's in it.
    Well that's quite a refutation. So it's garbage. I thought z values are measurements of shift and nothing more and therefore not model dependent. But now you are saying that they are? Can you explain? If that is not what z values are that are reported in papers, then I think I'm back to square one trying to grasp cosmology. The z relationship to distance is model dependent. The model he chooses for comparison is "a simple, Euclidean, nonexpanding (ENE) model with the distance given by d=cz/H0". I guess I don't understand your objection.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Shaula View Post
    If a paper makes extraordinary claims then it will be examined closely, perhaps more closely than something more mainstream.
    The claim is not extraordinary per se, it is simply pointing out that certain assumptions are consistent with certain observations. You don't have to believe any of those assumptions. He even allows that more data is needed to see if the relationship is born out. The relationship does not prove anything by itself. The question is whether the paper is correct about the relationship. If you react to at as an attempt to overturn current theory and deny the relationship on that basis, then you are being intellectually dishonest if the relation does in fact exist. It could exist even within the context of current theory by coincidence.

    Who has examined this paper? Originally published in 2005 I can find no citation. Nothing that denies the claim for example.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,110
    Eric Lerner is pretty much always wrong about cosmology. That this work was not published in a peer-reviewed journal is entirely unsurprising, considering its poor quality. That it is uncited is also unsurprising: Lerner is ignored practicing cosmologists, with good reason.

    I don't know how he did the calculations that went into Figure 1, but cz/H_0 != Integral(c dt/a(t)) in the concordance cosmology. His plot (minus the supernova points) should look like this:

    distanceModulus vs. log(z).png

    This is not "[an] agreement ... better than 0.3 mag over the whole range of redshift up to z =5..." In fact, here's how different they are across the redshift range:

    delta-mu LCDM vs. Lerner.png

    I would call his choice of plotting vs. log(z) rather misleading as well, but that doesn't matter if he can't get the numbers right. If he can't do this simple calculation correctly (granted, its not an analytic integral, but that's what computers are for), what's the point of my looking at the rest of it?

    He also assumes that the high redshift galaxies are similar enough to the low redshift galaxies that one can do a direct comparison of their surface brightnesses. This is not at all a reasonable assumption in the standard cosmology, nor is it borne out by observations.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,401
    Who has examined this paper? Originally published in 2005 I can find no citation. Nothing that denies the claim for example.
    Most working scientists have better things to do with their time that write papers refuting unpublished papers.

    If it made no extraordinary claims and still has not been published then the most logical assumption is: bad paper.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Well that's quite a refutation. So it's garbage. I thought z values are measurements of shift
    Measurement of shift are not z values. For instance, the blue-green Hydrogen line is at 486 nm, in a rest frame. If, looking at the spectrum of an object, that line now shows it is at ~537nm. That object is showing a redshift of ~51 nm. That measurement does not depend on any model as that is a straight observation. You now have to take that observation and convert it. That is where the model comes in.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    and nothing more and therefore not model dependent. But now you are saying that they are? Can you explain?
    However, what that shift represents IS highly model dependent. Is it a straight doppler shift? How about a gravitational shift? Or could it be a cosmological shift? For an expanding universe, it is normally given by comparing α, the scale factor, 1 + z =α now/α then. Almost all z numbers are based on an expanding universe, and so use a scale factor.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    If that is not what z values are that are reported in papers, then I think I'm back to square one trying to grasp cosmology. The z relationship to distance is model dependent. The model he chooses for comparison is "a simple, Euclidean, nonexpanding (ENE) model with the distance given by d=cz/H0". I guess I don't understand your objection.
    What is the scale factor of the z-value in a non-expanding universe? Remember, simplified, the scale factor is a value for the radius of curvature for the universe. Earlier times have more curvature, latter times, with expansion, have less.
    How does he convert the z value, based on the expanding universe, with curvature defined by the scale factor, to one based on that z value in a Non-expanding universe? Is it a straight doppler interpretation? But, we know that a straight doppler interpretation doesn't work. Because around z = 1.5, the doppler shows recession at greater than c. Unless you can explain to us the straight doppler of the galaxies he uses with say around z > 1.5. We don't know, he doesn't specify. But we do know he can't be using a FLRW metric for his ENE universe.

    And, yeah, how about explaining how that Euclidean universe works, since it's not Lorentz Invariant.

    I would also point out that he doesn't specify the exact objects he used. He gives their averages, means, etc. But never a list of the exact objects.

  16. #46
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post

    However, what that shift represents IS highly model dependent. Is it a straight doppler shift? How about a gravitational shift? Or could it be a cosmological shift? For an expanding universe, it is normally given by comparing α, the scale factor, 1 + z =α now/α then. Almost all z numbers are based on an expanding universe, and so use a scale factor.
    What is the scale factor of the z-value in a non-expanding universe?
    The model dependent factor is taken into account as you can read in chapter 1 in the 2005 paper.
    Chapter 1-surface brightness test ...
    http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...o-ph/0509611v2

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,360
    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    Eric Lerner is pretty much always wrong about cosmology. That this work was not published in a peer-reviewed journal is entirely unsurprising, considering its poor quality. That it is uncited is also unsurprising: Lerner is ignored practicing cosmologists, with good reason.

    I don't know how he did the calculations that went into Figure 1, but cz/H_0 != Integral(c dt/a(t)) in the concordance cosmology. His plot (minus the supernova points) should look like this:

    distanceModulus vs. log(z).png
    The fig 1 you are talking about is from the 2009 paper
    http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...df/0906.4284v1

    Your plot is in fact confirming what he said, (ie) that the data fits the Non expanding universe theory. Read what is writed under fig 1 for details.
    http://www.bautforum.com/attachment....2&d=1336927243

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    The model dependent factor is taken into account as you can read in chapter 1 in the 2005 paper.
    Chapter 1-surface brightness test ...
    http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...o-ph/0509611v2
    Actually, no it's not. It talks about the angular size. For FLRW θ=k(z+1)/d and for Non Expanding θ=k/d. Can you point out where the changes to z are made between models? Then, it goes on to state that the θ-z relationship holds.... assuming d=cz/H. How did he convert the 1 + z redshifts given on the spectra to z in the formula? What does the redshift mean in his non-expanding universe, as he never mentions it.

    How about the Euclidean Universe not being Lorentz invariant?

    Do you have a location for objects he used in the paper?

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    I don't know how he did the calculations that went into Figure 1, but cz/H_0 != Integral(c dt/a(t)) in the concordance cosmology. His plot (minus the supernova points) should look like this:

    distanceModulus vs. log(z).png

    This is not "[an] agreement ... better than 0.3 mag over the whole range of redshift up to z =5..." In fact, here's how different they are across the redshift range:

    delta-mu LCDM vs. Lerner.png
    He is not claiming that cz/H_0 is concordance cosmology, it's an assumption that he is making for comparison and is specifically not the concordance model.

    OK, just to be sure I understand correctly, his plot for LCDM is entirely wrong and he must be using the wrong mathematics. It's too bad that everybody is too busy to tell him that. Consider this, that such things can mislead the public, so maybe it is worth someone actually writing a paragraph to respond to it publicly. After all, the people on this forum are constantly correcting people on their misconceptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    I would call his choice of plotting vs. log(z) rather misleading as well...
    Why is it misleading? I'm guessing he chose it because it's a linear relationship under his assumptions.

    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    He also assumes that the high redshift galaxies are similar enough to the low redshift galaxies that one can do a direct comparison of their surface brightnesses. This is not at all a reasonable assumption in the standard cosmology, nor is it borne out by observations.
    He explicitly makes that assumption which is the entire point of the paper - no evolution. It says that right at the beginning. Whether that assumption is correct does not directly bear on what he seems to be trying to illustrate - a relationship. The correctness of the assumption is a separate issue. Science has been built on discovering mathematical relationships among things (e.g. the motions of the planets) and then trying to formulate a theory that predicts those relationships.

    I'll accept your judgement for the moment that the paper is completely incorrect in it's representation of concordance cosmology. But may I make a small point? When someone points out a relationship of any kind in observations, they are not under any obligation to make that relationship fit with some existing model or other evidence. For example the Tully-Fisher relationship is obversed but I don't think we can state that it is fully understood. It's just a relationship based on observations. Whether an observation seems to support an existing theory or not does not change that observation.

    Strangely he says this at the end of the paper "The author wishes to acknowledge the large contributions to the analysis of this data of Renato Falomo and Riccardo Scarpa." A quick check shows that those folks (unless he is referring to others who coincidentally have the same names) are coauthors of published papers in astrophysics. So perhaps he's fibbing and they really did not check his analysis or they don't understand LCDM either. I noticed that they have some association with non-mainstream ideas (e.g. MOND).

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    12,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    However, z values are very model specific.
    I was very surprised when I read this, too.
    It isn't what you meant, is it? The z value is not at
    all model-specific. It is the interpretation of why the
    z value is whatever it is that is model specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Lerner blithely uses the the z values in Hubble Ultra Deep
    Field (HUDF) images and catalogs and the GALEX Medium
    Imaging Survey (MIS), within the ENE model. He doesn't
    mention how the z values are arrived at in either of those
    catalogs.
    I can't imagine how that would matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    But I'm willing to bet that they used the normal method
    of using the FLRW metric. Which gets the z value by
    comparing the wavelength of light using the scale factor.
    That makes no sense to me. Can't they identify any
    spectral lines? Are they depending on something other
    than identified spectral lines to determine z?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    http://www.FreeMars.org/jeff/

    "I find astronomy very interesting, but I wouldn't if I thought we
    were just going to sit here and look." -- "Van Rijn"

    "The other planets? Well, they just happen to be there, but the
    point of rockets is to explore them!" -- Kai Yeves

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    However, what that shift represents IS highly model dependent. Is it a straight doppler shift? How about a gravitational shift? Or could it be a cosmological shift? For an expanding universe, it is normally given by comparing α, the scale factor, 1 + z =α now/α then. Almost all z numbers are based on an expanding universe, and so use a scale factor.
    In bold above is the definition of z. It is just a measurement of the red shift. These numbers are not "based on an expanding universe", they are pure observations of shift in wavelength of known spectral lines. I don't understand the purpose of your last sentence above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    How does he convert the z value, based on the expanding universe, with curvature defined by the scale factor, to one based on that z value in a Non-expanding universe? Is it a straight doppler interpretation? But, we know that a straight doppler interpretation doesn't work. Because around z = 1.5, the doppler shows recession at greater than c. Unless you can explain to us the straight doppler of the galaxies he uses with say around z > 1.5. We don't know, he doesn't specify. But we do know he can't be using a FLRW metric for his ENE universe.
    I not sure what you're getting at here. He doesn't offer any explanation of his hypothetical assumptions, he simply states them. He uses d=cz/H_0 as an assumption which is obviously not the same as the concordance model. He does claim any physical reason for it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    I would also point out that he doesn't specify the exact objects he used. He gives their averages, means, etc. But never a list of the exact objects.
    He states the catalogs he used and his selection criteria in "3. Data analysis and results". This is quite common in papers. Do you seriously object to it?

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    He is not claiming that cz/H_0 is concordance cosmology, it's an assumption that he is making for comparison and is specifically not the concordance model.
    I understood that. But he made a plot with his redshift/distance relation (cz/H_0) and the LCDM redshift/distance relation, and at least one of the two things on the plot is wrong, as demonstrated by my plot. The way he plotted it makes it hard to see which one he did incorrectly.

    Certainly, his claim that a z vs. mu plot for supernova would match a line with mu~cz/H_0 is laughable. If you don't believe me, you can download the supernova data and try it yourself.

    In fact, his non-expanding cosmology is ruled out quite nicely by the supernova data. Seriously: download the data from the Union2 team, plot z vs. mu, and then overplot z vs. mu for LCDM, cz/H_0, and whatever other cosmology you prefer. You've done a lot of accusing of astronomers of not doing their homework on these threads, but I haven't seen you do any actual calculations yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    OK, just to be sure I understand correctly, his plot for LCDM is entirely wrong and he must be using the wrong mathematics. It's too bad that everybody is too busy to tell him that. Consider this, that such things can mislead the public, so maybe it is worth someone actually writing a paragraph to respond to it publicly. After all, the people on this forum are constantly correcting people on their misconceptions.
    Such things are only "misleading to the public" if the public uncritically reads every arxiv paper. As Shaula says above, "Most working scientists have better things to do with their time that write papers refuting unpublished papers." Of course, some of them do bother to post on message boards, but...

    Lerner has been consistently wrong for so many years that no one even bothers responding to him these days (some did in the 90's). There's a point at which responding just provides a semblance of legitimacy to silly ideas, and one should just walk away.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    He explicitly makes that assumption which is the entire point of the paper - no evolution. It says that right at the beginning. Whether that assumption is correct does not directly bear on what he seems to be trying to illustrate - a relationship. The correctness of the assumption is a separate issue.
    And the assumption is patently not correct, from any analysis of z>~1 galaxy photometry. Most of the galaxies that exist today have few to no analogs at high redshift, and vice versa. Here's a recent place to start.

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I was very surprised when I read this, too.
    It isn't what you meant, is it? The z value is not at
    all model-specific. It is the interpretation of why the
    z value is whatever it is that is model specific.
    Read my reply. A non-expanding universe cannot use a scale factor to get the z value, as there is nothing to compare (unless you want to note that the z value is 1). Conversely, in the current mainstream model, a straight doppler z value is incorrect out past ~ z = 1.5. Model specific.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    I can't imagine how that would matter.
    Well, he uses the z values, without mentioning what model those values were taken from.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff Root View Post
    That makes no sense to me. Can't they identify any
    spectral lines? Are they depending on something other
    than identified spectral lines to determine z?

    -- Jeff, in Minneapolis
    Again, he never mentions the spectra, he talks about z values he used and the different BANDS that were compared. But there are no specifics about how the z values were found.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    I understood that. But he made a plot with his redshift/distance relation (cz/H_0) and the LCDM redshift/distance relation, and at least one of the two things on the plot is wrong, as demonstrated by my plot. The way he plotted it makes it hard to see which one he did incorrectly.

    Certainly, his claim that a z vs. mu plot for supernova would match a line with mu~cz/H_0 is laughable. If you don't believe me, you can download the supernova data and try it yourself.
    Please examine Figure 4 here. This is plotted the same way as Lerner's Figure 1 and it looks identical to me. It's a straight line!

    If you're still laughing, can you explain why?

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Please examine Figure 4 here. This is plotted the same way as Lerner's Figure 1 and it looks identical to me. It's a straight line!

    If you're still laughing, can you explain why?
    Ah, yes, the "what's the problem, it looks like a FOO to me" defense. We don't do chi-by-eye in astronomy. At least, we try not to. I think that makes up a large part of your (and certainly most ATM proponents') problems.

    I'm just going to repeat what I wrote before. If you have questions about how to do it, you can start a thread here on BAUT, and people will be happy to assist you. I've already given you a link to the data, and some hints about how to perform the necessary calculations.

    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj
    ...download the data from the Union2 team, plot z vs. mu, and then overplot z vs. mu for LCDM, cz/H_0, and whatever other cosmology you prefer. You've done a lot of accusing of astronomers of not doing their homework on these threads, but I haven't seen you do any actual calculations yourself.

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    Ah, yes, the "what's the problem, it looks like a FOO to me" defense. We don't do chi-by-eye in astronomy. At least, we try not to. I think that makes up a large part of your (and certainly most ATM proponents') problems.
    What kind of response is that? You said "Certainly, his claim that a z vs. mu plot for supernova would match a line with mu~cz/H_0 is laughable."

    His plot is virtually identical to the plot I referenced. Lerner may have misrepresented LCDM (at least so you say). But his graph of supernova data matches that of Robert P. Kirshner (Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics).

    I don't need chi to tell me that it's a straight line. The scatter is fairly small and you can run a ruler straight through it. It's straight as can be, considering the amount of scatter.

    Let's stick to this point. Is Kirsher's graph also laughable or not? Your credibility in my mind is in doubt.

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    I don't need chi to tell me that it's a straight line. The scatter is fairly small and you can run a ruler straight through it. It's straight as can be, considering the amount of scatter.
    Congratulations, you've discovered that everything looks like a straight line on a log/log plot!

    Make the plot yourself, using the data I linked, and the theoretical curves from each cosmology, in the way I described: z vs. mu, not log(z) vs. mu. The latter would work, but the difference would be less clear. That's one problem with log/log plots. They have their uses, but in this case it isn't really necessary.

    I don't see much point in arguing this with you, unless you go and make the plot yourself. It's clear that you don't understand what Lerner's done wrong (have you ever integrated the Friedman equation?), and until you make an effort to do so on your own, we're not going to get anywhere.

    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Let's stick to this point. Is Kirsher's graph also laughable or not? Your credibility in my mind is in doubt.
    Oh, you doubt my credibility? Oh my, whatever shall I do. [/snark]

    I gave you two plots above showing the difference between the LCDM and Lerner cosmology z vs. mu values. The first plot is quite different from Figure 1 in his paper, and the second plot showed that his claims regarding his cosmology and the supernova data were strongly in doubt. I pointed you toward data from which you could make a plot to clear up this matter yourself, and gave you some suggestions about how to do so. I even suggested that if you have trouble doing so, people here might be able to help you.

    I don't want you to argue with me about it, I want you to make the plot and see for yourself. After all, I'm just some random schmoe on the internet...

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    1,677
    Quote Originally Posted by parejkoj View Post
    Congratulations, you've discovered that everything looks like a straight line on a log/log plot!

    Make the plot yourself, using the data I linked, and the theoretical curves from each cosmology, in the way I described: z vs. mu, not log(z) vs. mu. The latter would work, but the difference would be less clear. That's one problem with log/log plots. They have their uses, but in this case it isn't really necessary.
    Let's get back to the subject of Lerner's paper. Here's part of what he claims in that first figure:

    For this study, we assume that the relationship d= cz/H0 holds for all z. For a non-expanding model, M can be derived from the apparent magnitude m (in the AB system) using the relation: M - m = 5 -5Log(cz/H0).
    So his claim is that M-m is linear with log(cz/H_0). His graph shows that SN closely follow this relationship, as close as the scatter allows (apparently). I found another source that precisely duplicates his graph. Aside from your statement that his graph is wrong for the LCDM prediction, what exactly is wrong with his graph that makes it laughable? Don't tell me to draw some graph. Please answer the question. What is wrong with his statement and the graph which certainly looks to be correct (aside from LCDM calculations)?

    Are you telling me that data (even with that much scatter) is really not straight but definitely slightly curved? Please clarify.

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    1,110
    Quote Originally Posted by TooMany View Post
    Are you telling me that data (even with that much scatter) is really not straight but definitely slightly curved? Please clarify.
    I'm telling you to make the plot yourself. My "telling you" anything isn't going to help you learn what's going on here; you figuring it out on your own is.

    As I said, Lerner is pretty much always wrong about cosmology. Looking at his plot isn't going to provide you with anything useful. Make the plot, then we'll talk. If you don't know how, ask and we'll help you.

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wellington, New Zealand
    Posts
    996
    Quote Originally Posted by Don J View Post
    The datas in the paper(s) are available for all to see .... so the experts here can verify them .

    here the 2009 paper ....the 2005 paper is described in post 28.

    Tolman Test from z = 0.1 to z = 5.5: Preliminary results challenge the expanding universe model

    http://search.arxiv.org:8081/details...df/0906.4284v1
    Unfortunately this "paper" fails some of the criteria that a skeptical person would apply:
    1. It is not a paper! It is a conference presentation as is the 2005 "paper".
    2. The author's area of expertise is plasma physics and here he is analysing astronomical data. This makes it more likely that his analysis is wrong.
    3. It is a single author presentation. Today, major breakthroughs in science are rarely single author efforts.


    The best way to see that this is a simplistic and thus probably flawed presentation is to look at what astronomers have done, e.g. the 4 papers by Sandage and Lubin in 2001:
    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. I. Calibration of the Necessary Local Parameters
    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. II. The Effect of the Point-Spread Function and Galaxy Ellipticity on the Derived Photometric Parameters
    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. III. HST Profile and Surface Brightness Data for Early-Type Galaxies in Three High-Redshift Clusters
    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. IV. A Measurement of the Tolman Signal and the Luminosity Evolution of Early-Type Galaxies
    We conclude that the Tolman surface brightness test is consistent with the reality of the expansion. We have also used the high-redshift HST data to test the ``tired light'' speculation for a non-expansion model for the redshift. The HST data rule out the ``tired light'' model at a significance level of better than 10 sigma.
    and an update in 2009:
    The Tolman Surface Brightness Test for the Reality of the Expansion. V. Provenance of the Test and a New Representation of the Data for Three Remote HST Galaxy Clusters

Similar Threads

  1. Creation of new galaxies ?
    By Don J in forum Space/Astronomy Questions and Answers
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 2012-May-14, 02:38 PM
  2. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2011-Jan-13, 01:09 PM
  3. How would the Moons creation
    By Dro2 in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2010-Jan-23, 01:23 AM
  4. The Creation of The WSE!
    By Knowledge_Seeker in forum Space Exploration
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2006-Feb-09, 10:29 PM
  5. creation
    By universe in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 95
    Last Post: 2003-Jan-13, 12:09 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: