A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Good News for Big Bang theory



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #271  
Old February 1st 07, 01:00 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Chalky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default Good News for Big Bang theory

On Feb 1, 10:06 am, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Chalky

On Jan 31, 6:18 pm, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Chalky


This is incorrect. Ho cancels out for the observed data tabulation,
but does have an influence for the theoretical curves.
Ned explains this, in terms of changing optimised cosmological
parameters, for models based on EFE, athttp://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wrig
ht/sne_cosmology.html.


It is not incorrect, and you would do well to understand Ned's
explanation before you make such bald statements.


Since your response does not explain why you claim this, I guess we
will have to chalk this up to another example of dogmatism, as opposed
to scientific enlightenment.


I have previously explained it, but it is becoming clear there is little
point in giving you explanations.


Where and when?

Your postings are so voluminous that it is difficult to discover what
you are allegedly referring to, at any specific poit in time.

Chalky.
  #272  
Old February 12th 07, 11:12 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Chalky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default Good News for Big Bang theory

On Jan 20, 8:20 pm, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"

Oh No wrote:


I have been using flat space standard models with Omega_lambda=1-Omega
for standard fits,


OK, that is what Chalky employed for his initial tabulation, using the
default values an Ned's cosmic calculator. However, we have had to
retabulate all that because, as Ned correctly pointed out, the Riess et
al data is based on an assumed Ho of 63.8, not 71.


What value have you been using for Ho?


It actually makes no difference to these exercises, because H0 is
effectively floating. Any difference will be absorbed into the fitting
parameter, dM, but Riess says he used H0=64.5, so I don't think Ned was
correct about that.


Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, Ned Wright does mention the
need to include the possibility of an offset parameter, and I note
that you also concluded that a best fit to my law would be achieved
using a small adjustment to the absolute magnitude of type 1a
Supernovae.

Would I be correct in concluding from this that such an offset
parameter is associated with correcting inaccurate prior absolute
magnitude assumptions of the 'standard candles, if not Ho?

One further question:- although you initially correctly concluded that
cosmological parameters were n/a for my law, within your chi^2
analysis, I recall that in one or two of your subsequent postings, you
started quoting cosmological parameters for my law too. What was that
all about?


Chalky
  #273  
Old February 13th 07, 10:15 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Oh No
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 433
Default Good News for Big Bang theory

Thus spake Chalky
On Jan 20, 8:20 pm, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake "John (Liberty) Bell"

Oh No wrote:

Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, Ned Wright does mention the
need to include the possibility of an offset parameter, and I note
that you also concluded that a best fit to my law would be achieved
using a small adjustment to the absolute magnitude of type 1a
Supernovae.

Would I be correct in concluding from this that such an offset
parameter is associated with correcting inaccurate prior absolute
magnitude assumptions of the 'standard candles, if not Ho?


Yes. Altering it and altering H0 are equivalent in the formulae, so an
error in one is absorbed by an error in the other.

One further question:- although you initially correctly concluded that
cosmological parameters were n/a for my law, within your chi^2
analysis, I recall that in one or two of your subsequent postings, you
started quoting cosmological parameters for my law too. What was that
all about?


Unless there was a typo I only quoted variation in absolute magnitude as
that was the only free parameter.



Regards

--
Charles Francis
substitute charles for NotI to email
  #274  
Old February 14th 07, 11:49 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Chalky
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 219
Default Good News for Big Bang theory

On Feb 13, 9:15 am, Oh No wrote:
Thus spake Chalky

Nevertheless, if I remember correctly, Ned Wright does mention the
need to include the possibility of an offset parameter, and I note
that you also concluded that a best fit to my law would be achieved
using a small adjustment to the absolute magnitude of type 1a
Supernovae.


Would I be correct in concluding from this that such an offset
parameter is associated with correcting inaccurate prior absolute
magnitude assumptions of the 'standard candles, if not Ho?


Yes.


Although I would like to, I am not yet sure if I can take this as an
unambiguous yes, because of the following qualification............

Altering it and altering H0 are equivalent in the formulae, so an
error in one is absorbed by an error in the other.


I currently find this confusing. I thought you had claimed earlier
that Ho errors cancel, per se.

One further question:- although you initially correctly concluded that
cosmological parameters were n/a for my law, within your chi^2
analysis, I recall that in one or two of your subsequent postings, you
started quoting cosmological parameters for my law too. What was that
all about?


Unless there was a typo I only quoted variation in absolute magnitude as
that was the only free parameter.


OK I will assume a typo, or misreading on my part, here.


Chalky
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
ED CONRAD KNOCKS 'EM DEAD ON LARRY KING LIVE Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 June 13th 06 01:27 AM
PROFESSIONAL SKEPTICS OF BILLY MEIER, EXTRATERRESTRIALS EATING CROW [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 May 11th 06 08:55 PM
Even More on BILLY MEIER & EXTRATERRESTRIALS -- Major Media Conspiracy Against Truth ---- Just like 911 Gov't Hoax & Man as Old as Coal ---- Ed Conrad Misc 0 May 10th 06 11:04 PM
ED CONRAD WILL WIN IN THE LONG RUN -- 1996 Prediction Coming True -- Evolution Going Belly Up -- Man as Old as Coal Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 May 10th 06 01:31 PM
Off to Early Start in Worldwide Burning of EVOLUTION Textbooks Ed Conrad Astronomy Misc 0 April 29th 06 09:08 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:11 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.