Evidence for a static universe

My paper ( http://viXra.org/abs/1611.0310 ) strongly argues that
universe is static because the light curves of type Ia supernovae
do not show time dilation. My first argument shows that the standard
method of analysis, Salt2 (or similar), has the property of being
unable to distinguish between intrinsic variations of the characteristics
of the type Ia light curves and any other variations that are a
simple function of redshift. It is known that the intrinsic
characteristics of the light curves are a function of the wavelength
at which that are observed and therefore the light curve observed
at a large redshift will be different to that at a nearby redshift.

See below as to whether I have understood what you claim is here.

However it is assumed that the supernovae are the same at all
redshifts so that a light curve of a high redshift supernovae at n
observed wavelength can be used to determine the intrinsic light
curve at the rest-frame (i.e. the emitted) wavelength.

I've written a few papers using supernova-cosmology data so I have some
familiarity with the topic.

Your key point seems to be in section 6, in the second paragraph. It's
not immediately clear what your point is, though. In particular, you
write "the width of the reference light curve is proportional to the
rest-frame wavelength". I think you mean: There is an INTRINSIC
dependency of the width of the light curve on frequency which is
proportional to the wavelength. Thus, when observing a supernova at
high redshift, one (wrongly, in your view) divides the width by (1+z),
getting a smaller width. Also, this will correspond to a shorter
rest-frame wavelength. You claim that the width at shorter rest-frame
wavelengths is INTRINSICALLY shorter.

The rest of this post assumes that the above is correct.

Supernova at essentially zero redshift have been observed at several
wavelengths. Show us a light curve in several wavelengths for such an
object which demonstrates that the width is proportional to the
wavelength. This should be obvious from the plots.

Yes, one can check the original data, but it is YOU who are claiming
that everyone else has missed something here. So give us such a plot:
the lightcurve of a supernova in several wavelengths so that we can see
if your claim that the width depends on wavelength (in fact, is
proportional to it) is true. You didn't observe it yourself, so cite
the paper from which you got the data. There must be magnitudes as a
function of time for each wavelength. Make it easy to convince the
reader by giving these as tables.

I'm surprised that this isn't in your paper, since it seems to be your
key claim.

On the other hand, if I have misunderstood your claim, then I am not
surprised that no-one else has understood it either.

(Also note that you have citations of the form "[? 21]". Presumably the
citation can't be found in the reference list.)

In article , jacobnavia
writes:

Le 03/12/2016 à 19:05, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
If there were no stretching of the light curve with
redshift, then the calculated absolute luminosities would be wrong, and
one would get a different result.

http://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-u...say-physicists

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the claim that the universe is
static. Nothing at all.

You seem to trumpet anything and everything which in some form---either
radically as in the case of the static universe, or in details as here
(though the authors over-hype it)---criticizes the standard model, and
ignore stuff which supports it.

quote
Since scientists first proposed dark energy, no one's gotten any closer
to figuring out what it could actually be.

True, but irrelevant.

But now an international team of physicists have questioned the
acceration of the Universe's expansion, and they've got a much bigger
database of Type 1a supernovae to back them up.

The first part is true, the second is not.

By applying a different analytical model to the 740 Type Ia supernovae
that have been identified so far, the team says they've been able to
account for the subtle differences between them like never before.

These are extremely fine details.

They say the statistical techniques used by the original team were too
simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can't
reliability be applied to the growing supernova dataset.

This applies to the statistical model.

They also mention that the cosmic microwave background isn't directly
affected by dark matter, so only serves as an "indirect" type of evidence.

This is a bizarre claim. One of the main pieces of evidence for dark
matter on cosmological scales is the CMB. And, yes, it is "directly"
affected by dark matter in any sensible meaning of the term. Even MOND
adherents concede that the CMB is evidence for dark matter. :-)

"We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over 10
times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was
based

Yes, but not ten times bigger than more recent analyses. As the author
himself notes at the URL below "We use *exactly* the same dataset".

- and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at
most, what physicists call '3 sigma'," reports lead researcher, Subir
Sarkar, from the University of Oxford.

"This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a
discovery of fundamental significance."
end quote

Assuming that their analysis holds up, this is a storm in a teacup.
First, the 5-sigma level is completely arbitrary. Second, 3 sigma is
still 99.7 per cent. So, they are saying that there is a chance of .03
per cent that the data are compatible with a non-accelerating (NOTE: not
static) universe. The other 99.7 per cent indicate acceleration.

Third, 5 sigma is common in particle physics, where the null hypothesis
is that there is no particle. I think it makes sense to demand high
significance here. But in cosmology, we are measuring parameters. 99.7
is really significant. It is much more significant than many other
accepted results in cosmology.

Let's get seriuous.

This very interesting result hasn't been commented here and is a pity.

Maybe because people interested have followed the discussion elsewhere,
such as at https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...ting-universe/
[[Mod. note -- That url should probably be
https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...ting-universe/
-- jt]]
and concluded that it isn't worth debating. Check out the figure at
this URL (from the original paper). All the hype is about the fact that
three is a bit of stuff within the outermost contour and above the
dotted line. That's it.

The more we see from the observable universe, the more our theories will
change, and new cosmologies will appear.

As has been always the case since we started looking at the heavens.

Yes, but please read "The Relativity of Wrong" by Isaac Asimov, which
you can find online.

On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 5:59:02 AM UTC+11, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) wrote:


Your key point seems to be in section 6, in the second paragraph. It's
not immediately clear what your point is, though. In particular, you
write "the width of the reference light curve is proportional to the
rest-frame wavelength". I think you mean: There is an INTRINSIC
dependency of the width of the light curve on frequency which is
proportional to the wavelength. Thus, when observing a supernova at
high redshift, one (wrongly, in your view) divides the width by (1+z),
getting a smaller width. Also, this will correspond to a shorter
rest-frame wavelength. You claim that the width at shorter rest-frame
wavelengths is INTRINSICALLY shorter.

I thought that I was clearly referring to the widths in the Salt2 templates and not the intrinsic widths.

In article ,
David Crawford writes:

Your key point seems to be in section 6, in the second paragraph. It's
not immediately clear what your point is, though. In particular, you
write "the width of the reference light curve is proportional to the
rest-frame wavelength". I think you mean: There is an INTRINSIC
dependency of the width of the light curve on frequency which is
proportional to the wavelength. Thus, when observing a supernova at
high redshift, one (wrongly, in your view) divides the width by (1+z),
getting a smaller width. Also, this will correspond to a shorter
rest-frame wavelength. You claim that the width at shorter rest-frame
wavelengths is INTRINSICALLY shorter.

I thought that I was clearly referring to the widths in the Salt2
templates and not the intrinsic widths.

It wasn't clear to me.

OK, let's back up. You say that there is no stretching of the light
curves with redshift, as would be expected if the redshift is
cosmological, thus you see this lack of stretching as evidence for a
static universe.

Can't we just look at light curves for different redshifts and see if
they stretch, if not for an individual supernova then at least on
average? OK, different redshifts will correspond to different
rest-frame wavelengths, so any dependence there could be confused with a
redshift-dependent effect. Is this your claim?

If so, then, again, many supernovae at essentially zero redshift have
been observed in several bands. Does the width depend on the wavelength
at which it is observed? Is it proportional to the wavelength? Point
us to some published light curves which demonstrate this.

Assuming that their analysis holds up, this is a storm in a teacup.
First, the 5-sigma level is completely arbitrary. Second, 3 sigma is
still 99.7 per cent. So, they are saying that there is a chance of .03
per cent that the data are compatible with a non-accelerating (NOTE: not
static) universe. The other 99.7 per cent indicate acceleration.

Should be 0.3 per cent, not 0.03 per cent. The 99.7 per cent for 3
sigma is correct.

Third, 5 sigma is common in particle physics, where the null hypothesis
is that there is no particle. I think it makes sense to demand high
significance here. But in cosmology, we are measuring parameters. 99.7
is really significant. It is much more significant than many other
accepted results in cosmology.

Another way to look at this: The situation is more like a civil trial
than a criminal trial. We don't need "beyond any reasonable doubt", we
need "balance of evidence". When claiming the existence of a new
particle, or the detection of a gravitational wave, then it makes sense
to have a higher threshold. But if I'm measuring whether some number is
greater or lesser than a certain threshold (which is the case here;
their claim is that it is 0.3 per cent probable that q=Omega/2-lambda is
greater than 0), surely balance of evidence makes more sense. Sure, the
more evidence, the stronger the claim, but "data don't support an
accelerating universe" is rubbish.

And suppose they had found that the signal is 5.000001 sigma, but less
than earlier claims. Would they have then said that there is evidence,
but not if it were 4.999999?

Maybe because people interested have followed the discussion elsewhere,
such as at https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...ting-universe/
[[Mod. note -- That url should probably be
https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...ting-universe/
-- jt]]
and concluded that it isn't worth debating.

Yes, I had the URL wrong as well.

Check out the figure at
this URL (from the original paper). All the hype is about the fact that
three is a bit of stuff within the outermost contour and above the
dotted line. That's it.

Should be BELOW the dotted line.

The more we see from the observable universe, the more our theories will
change, and new cosmologies will appear.

As has been always the case since we started looking at the heavens.

Yes, but please read "The Relativity of Wrong" by Isaac Asimov, which
you can find online.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscien...ityofwrong.htm

Hi I am writing this general partly as a reply to some of the
arguments but also to rephrase my basic arguments in a possibly
clearer fashion.

The extraordinary evidence that I supply is the raw widths of the
light curves from individual filters for 733 Type Ia supernova.
The plot is shown in figure 2. These are the original observed
widths without Salt2 calibrations. As a function of redshift he
regression equation has a slope of (0.020 +/- 0.024). This slope
differs from the expanding model expectation of one by 41 sigma.
Note that the effects of the correlation between the width and the
peak luminosity, the Phillip's effect, will only increase the scatter
and not the slope.

The next step is to explain why this lack of time dilation is not
generally observed. Consider an intrinsic (rest-frame) wavelength
X with a light curve width W. Then at a redshift of z it will be
observed at a wavelength of x=(1+z)X. Suppose that the observed
widths have a redshift dependence of f(1+z) then the observed width
is w=Wf(1+z) = Wf(x/X). This last term is only a function of
the widths and can be considered as a function of the intrinsic
width W where w is it normalisation point. Thus the observed average
widths as a function of X will include f(x/X) as well as any intrinsic
variation. Thus this calibration method cannot distinguish between
intrinsic variation and redshift dependent variations. Now the
analysis for an expanding model removes the time dilation before
the averaging. Thus is the universe is expanding then the effective
(f(x/X) is unity and all is well. However if the universe is static
then this removal is unwarranted so that the reference templates
have light curve widths proportional the intrinsic wavelength. This
is observed.=20

A consequence of the Salt2 analysis is that the expected value of
the width parameter x1 is zero and will not contain any information
about any redshift dependencies.

Regards David

In article ,
David Crawford writes:
The plot is shown in figure 2. These are the original observed
widths without Salt2 calibrations. As a function of redshift he
regression equation has a slope of (0.020 +/- 0.024).

I don't know what "figure 2" you mean, but if you are claiming time
dilation is not observed, you are doing something wrong. What do you
get for SN1995E in B-band compared to 1997ek in I-band? Even a
cursory glance at the SN data shows clear time dilation.

SN light curve widths depend weakly on wavelength but are nowhere
near proportional to wavelength. (Widths can be measured for SNe
near zero redshift.) If time dilation weren't present, the standard
analysis would show that. You can show that by running mock data
through the standard analysis, if you are unconvinced by anything
else. Just make sure your mock data fit the z=0 light curves rather
than something you've invented.

As to the supernova data supposedly not requiring dark energy, my
comments are in sci.astro at Message-ID:

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

Le 04/12/2016 à 20:01, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
In article , jacobnavia
writes:

Le 03/12/2016 à 19:05, Phillip Helbig (undress to reply) a écrit :
If there were no stretching of the light curve with
redshift, then the calculated absolute luminosities would be wrong, and
one would get a different result.

http://www.sciencealert.com/no-the-u...say-physicists

This has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the claim that the universe is
static. Nothing at all.


Yes, you are right. The fact that the accelerated expansion is wrong
doesn't imply immediately that the universe is not expanding. It could
be expanding normally, not accelerating.

But I have been arguing since several years that that viewpoint can be
very WRONG. I believe that data can be understood in several ways, and
our lack of advanced scopes precludes to definitively rule out space
expansion.

I have philosophical (common sense) questions against any space
expansion since I do not see how that contre-sense space is "expanding".

Space itself can't expand. Into what would space expand into?

Into more space. Obviously.

And that new space is created out of nothing?

Yes. We have had this discussion before, and we will have it again.
Current cosmology is the emanation of an old pass-time we always have:
Our need to have some explanation for everything.

I think cosmology is bound by the data that mankind has gathered about
our surroundings. Science can only speak about the observable universe
and not about the universe as such, that will always be unknowable by
definition.

You seem to trumpet anything and everything which in some form---either
radically as in the case of the static universe, or in details as here
(though the authors over-hype it)---criticizes the standard model, and
ignore stuff which supports it.


All cosmologies had some data support. This one is no exception.

quote
Since scientists first proposed dark energy, no one's gotten any closer
to figuring out what it could actually be.

True, but irrelevant.


Interesting. You acknowledge then, that all this "dark energy" stuff is
really kind of suspect isn't it?

Why this "dark" adjective?

Why can't astronomers just name it "unknown", it would be better than
arbitrarily making something that until yesterday they said that was
making 70% or more of the mass of the universe, "dark".

Why paint everything that we have no idea of "black", "dark", whatever?

Why not just open up and say the truth: We do not know what it is.
Do astronomers have to propose some theory about "the universe" as such?

They can only speak about their observations. From those observations to
concluding "the universe is such and such" or even "the universe started
13.7 billion years ago" there is a wide stretch of imagination I do not
follow.

But now an international team of physicists have questioned the
acceration of the Universe's expansion, and they've got a much bigger
database of Type 1a supernovae to back them up.

The first part is true, the second is not.


OK. Why is their database not bigger than the data base used then? Can
you really point out something here?

By applying a different analytical model to the 740 Type Ia supernovae
that have been identified so far, the team says they've been able to
account for the subtle differences between them like never before.

These are extremely fine details.


Details?

This is the crux of the matter: the accelerated expansion was hanged to
those observations!

They say the statistical techniques used by the original team were too
simplistic, and were based on a model devised in the 1930s, which can't
reliability be applied to the growing supernova dataset.

This applies to the statistical model.


Yes, of course this applies to their statistical model and they say it
is wrong.

They also mention that the cosmic microwave background isn't directly
affected by dark matter, so only serves as an "indirect" type of evidence.

This is a bizarre claim. One of the main pieces of evidence for dark
matter on cosmological scales is the CMB. And, yes, it is "directly"
affected by dark matter in any sensible meaning of the term. Even MOND
adherents concede that the CMB is evidence for dark matter. :-)


Why can't the CMB be the background emission of the sea of galaxies that
we are inmersed in?

Other explanations for the CMB are possible, within another frameworks.

"We analysed the latest catalogue of 740 Type Ia supernovae - over 10
times bigger than the original samples on which the discovery claim was
based

Yes, but not ten times bigger than more recent analyses. As the author
himself notes at the URL below "We use *exactly* the same dataset".

- and found that the evidence for accelerated expansion is, at
most, what physicists call '3 sigma'," reports lead researcher, Subir
Sarkar, from the University of Oxford.

"This is far short of the '5 sigma' standard required to claim a
discovery of fundamental significance."
end quote

Assuming that their analysis holds up, this is a storm in a teacup.

Yes, it is about the universe. A storm in a big teacup isn't it?

:-)

First, the 5-sigma level is completely arbitrary. Second, 3 sigma is
still 99.7 per cent. So, they are saying that there is a chance of .03
per cent that the data are compatible with a non-accelerating (NOTE: not
static) universe. The other 99.7 per cent indicate acceleration.


There you go. Not 5 but 3 sigma?

Let's make an even bigger data base then.

Third, 5 sigma is common in particle physics, where the null hypothesis
is that there is no particle. I think it makes sense to demand high
significance here. But in cosmology, we are measuring parameters. 99.7
is really significant. It is much more significant than many other
accepted results in cosmology.


Look, if we are speaking about dark energy, it is not really a small
effect. The huge consequences that were hanged on that observation...
Nothing less than 70% of the universe's mass!

This is inflation of observations really!

Let's get seriuous.

This very interesting result hasn't been commented here and is a pity.

Maybe because people interested have followed the discussion elsewhere,
such as at https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...ting-universe/
[[Mod. note -- That url should probably be
https://telescoper.wordpress.com/201...ting-universe/
-- jt]]
and concluded that it isn't worth debating. Check out the figure at
this URL (from the original paper). All the hype is about the fact that
three is a bit of stuff within the outermost contour and above the
dotted line. That's it.

The more we see from the observable universe, the more our theories will
change, and new cosmologies will appear.

As has been always the case since we started looking at the heavens.

Yes, but please read "The Relativity of Wrong" by Isaac Asimov, which
you can find online.


Yes, it is a good read. To speak about the shape of the earth is
fascinating, but it is something I trust we can figure out.

Another thing is to speak about the universe.

I am convinced that we will never know. The universe will be always
bigger than anything any creature can imagine.

About 15 years ago I collected SNIa data with a view to testing for a
"static" universe also. At that time I found that all data had been
pre-processed with redshift dilation already removed, so it was
frustrating that the original raw data wasn't being reported. What
struck me then was that the most distant SNIa were not the most
intrinsically brightest because with the redshift dilation removed,
they didn't have as wide a profile (that is, time-wide) as more nearby
ones -- in complete violation of the normal expectation that the most
distant ones should be the intrinsically brightest ones because only
those should be visible to us (at high redshifts). Anyway, this is
just a story from 15 years ago. I'm currently busy working on an
optical catalogue so can't revisit this topic in depth. Maybe later.

In article ,
"Phillip Helbig (undress to reply)" writes:
... no-one has claimed that the supernova data prove the expansion
of the universe.

Are you sure about that? I thought the SNe make up a key part of the
distance ladder for measuring the Hubble parameter. There are, of
course, other distance measurements available over the distance range
the SNe cover, so it's not as though they are the only evidence for
expansion.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA