SN!A data seems to favor a static universe, not LCDM

[Michael Mozina]

There's a recent paper on Arxiv that I think it very well worth reading IMO:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1711.11237

I made some comments on this paper in a thread at CF that you can find here:

https://www.christianforums.com/threads ... e.8043450/

The author of the SN1A paper unfortunately or fortunately (David/us) decided to discuss his paper on Cosmoquest. Jerry is the only individual participating in the thread to post anything actually on topic about the paper. Most of the rest of the questions that were put to David at CQ are irrelevant to the content of the paper, and just relate to the whole childish Inquisition routine at CQ. For Jerry's heroic efforts to summarize David's paper for the CQ audience, he was also threatened by the mods for daring to engage in an open and honest dialog on the topic.

https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread ... rse-static

The most telling aspect of the Cosmoquest thread is that the conversation has been going on for over a week now, and not a single critic at CQ has even cited a specific statement in David's paper to discuss yet. I smell fear.

This issue looks to be another one of those 'dirty little secrets' of the SN1A data sets. Without overtly 'futzing' with the raw data, it fits perfectly with a static universe/tired light explanation for photon redshift, without time dilation. Only when they 'futz' with the filtering models, and mathematical models can they make claims about time dilation, but it also skews the data out of whack at the higher redshifts. The "hostility" toward CQ citizen Jerry seems to be related to the sensitive nature of this issue, not because Jerry wasn't the consummate professional scientist for trying to recap David's work and cite the problem discussed in the paper.

I haven't been able to pick out a problem in David's work, and apparently neither have any of the mainstream regulars over at Cosmoquest. That lack of any specific criticism of David's paper says a lot about the quality of the paper.

In the CF thread I answered most of the superfluous Cosmoquest inquisition questions for David in case anyone cares.

This could turn out to be a devastating revelation about SN1A data sets for the mainstream if this issue 'gets out'. I suspect they'll burn him at the stake and/or tell him that he cannot discuss it beyond 30 days.

[Michael Mozina]

Well, I just checked again today, and the critics over at CQ have yet to point out a specific page number, paragraph or statement in David's whole paper which looks problematic.

I see that Reality Check has decided to play the role of the 'Grand Inquisitor", while the hapless heretic is stretched on the rack and tortured with unrelated questions galore. What a childish and ridiculous place that QC has devolved into. They don't have a valid scientific rebuttal to David's work so they engage in pitiful theatrical entertainment while they hide like frightened little children behind their draconian rule system. They really cannot handle an honest scientific debate. That place is a waste of time. I hope David simply bails from that place. Nothing they asked is even remotely related to the paper, or it's clearly explained in the paper itself.

Well, I guess I'll have to reread the paper again. I didn't find anything obviously problematic on the first read through and apparently nobody else did either.

This is in fact a "big deal". If the SN1A data actually favors a static universe as David suggests, that means that the SN1A data, Eric Lerner's surface brightness test, and the Alcock-Paczyński cosmological test all favor or support a static universe model.

So......

Either photons transfer some of their momentum to plasma and dust in spacetime just like they transfer some of their momentum to plasma and dust in the lab, *or* magic happens in space. Those really are the only two choices here.

In order for inflation/space expansion/dark energy to be the "cause" of redshift and the cause of what we observe in SN1A events, we would *first* have to "assume" that photons are magic and behave very differently in space than they behave in the lab. In "real" labs on Earth, photons lose some of their momentum over distance to the medium. They collide and they bump into fields along the way, temperature gradients, etc, and transfer momentum to the medium.

In order for anything else to be the 'cause' of photon redshift, we'd have to begin by assuming that *zero* amount of the cause of photon redshift in space is related to ordinary processes that produce redshift here on Earth.

So either we live in a very ordinary plasma universe where ordinary photons in ordinary plasma in ordinary space behave just as they do here in labs on Earth, and photons lose some of their momentum to the spacetime medium over distance, or we live in a magic universe of "magic photons", space expansion metaphysics, inflation magic, dark energy energy conservation law defying supernaturalism, and magical invisible, never been seen before forms of matter.

Those are the two choices before us, an ordinary universe, or a magic one.

Call me boring and little old fashion, but I tend to believe that we can explain all the observations in space based on ordinary physics, physics which works here in labs on Earth.

[Michael Mozina]

It looks like JeanTate *finally* posted a legitimate (on topic) question in the CQ thread. That's progress.

Until now only Jerry's questions have really been on target, and David has already answered Jerry's questions from his perspective. I'd love to see JeanTate answer Jerry's questions. I guess in CQ's "Spanish Inquisition" format, that kind of two way dialog probably won't happen. Pity. That kind of free dialog and free and friendly exchange of scientific ideas is not even permitted on CQ. That's just sad.

[Michael Mozina]

I think that such a draconian type of rule system at CQ speaks to the mainstream's total lack of self confidence in the LCDM model. If their own cosmology beliefs held up to scientific scrutiny they wouldn't worry about alternative beliefs and alternative cosmology models being discussed openly.

LCDM proponents however must rely on mostly placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe our universe, and that puts them in a very awkward scientific position. Open debate isn't comfortable for them, and they're not used to open debate either. LCDM is mostly taught in a formal classroom setting where the 'student' is simply 'told' what to think. When they get into the 'real world' and have to think for themselves, it gets uncomfortable, particularly when they finally discover that there are other cosmology models to choose from.

Even when they get their Phd in astronomy, they don't even know the first thing about alternative solar models, or alternative cosmology models as Koberlein's FUBAR presentation on electric sun theory so aptly demonstrates. Not only are astronomers 'born" (credentialed) clueless (to other models), they're scientifically and empirically defenseless. I think that's why the webgods of astronomy believe that they have to round up the wagons on their own astronomy websites and crush out all talk of dissent with an iron fist. Otherwise the babes in the woods sheep (new students) will be scientifically slaughtered.

This is a really good example of everything that is wrong in astronomy today. Instead of engaging in a friendly, open and honest debate on these issues, CQ has turned all debate into a 'burn the heretic' inquisition routine. Their internet clergy have become more corrupt, and even worse than the church in terms of controlling dissent. They burn their heretics on a daily basis!

[Michael Mozina]

Well, we're over two weeks now since David started his thread at CQ. Jerry responded intelligently to the paper and asked two good questions of LCDM proponents, but Jerry got threatened by the LCDM webgods for daring to speak openly on the topic. No other intelligent responses were posted to the thread until JeanTate finally ponied up a couple of relevant and intelligent questions yesterday, but no overt mathematical errors in David's paper have been pointed out by anyone.

I wouldn't mind hearing David respond to JeanTate's questions, but first I'd like to hear JeanTate respond to Jerry's two questions:

Why do the observational data demonstrate such a much better "fit" to curves when cosmological factors are not included in the data reduction? Why does the data normalize so well about a major axis that does not correct for cosmological factors?

An "honest' discussion at CQ would involve a two way dialog, but instead they engage in the cowardly Spanish Inquisition nonsense. Selfsim and sjastro aren't able to offer up any specific and direct criticism of David's paper at CF either, just handwaves based on their own (Obler's Paradox) dogma, and neither of them will touch Jerry's two relevant questions with a ten foot pole.

This is pretty obviously one of those "really ugly" skeletons in the LCDM closet. They don't want the word to get out that if we look at raw SN1A data without 'correcting" it (based on dogma), it fits very well with a static universe interpretation of the raw data. Worse still, their processing method for 'correcting' the data has *flaws* in it too.

This paper is a "big deal" IMO. There's obviously a fear factor involved, hence the whole inquisition nonsense and that instant attack on Jerry for even trying to explain David's paper to the CQ community. I definitely smell fear.