|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#271
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |