JWST recent pictures of the oldest galaxies

[Think twice]

WOW!
My original questions answers went in a different direction than I'd thought!

Sort of. But it’s all part of discussing the pros and cons of the BBT.
And if you look at the latest news...the arguments against the mythology of the BBT are looking pretty good.

James Webb Space Telescope images challenge theories of how universe evolved

Astronomers find that six of the earliest and most massive galaxy candidates observed by the James Webb Space Telescope so far appear to have converted nearly 100% of their available gas into stars, a finding at odds with the reigning model of cosmology.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Lyman_alpher]

Figure 2 does not show any spectra from any Sn1a source. It is a computer generated plot of an imaginary composite spectra

It is a low redshift template spectrum. Combining different objects into a single reference isn't unusual, it is simple the mean spectrum. It even shows the standard deviation, showing that the individual spectra going in were in good agreement with the stack.

thst has been manipulated fitted faksified and adjusted to such
a degree that it bears little in common with any actual spectra.

And where is your proof of this? Surely you wouldn't just accuse someone of falsifying data if you hadn't made your own template and shown precisely what was done wrong? Did you download the spectra and plot them yourself, or are you just guessing?

Nor does it nor any other figure in the
paper even attempt to to try to compare an *undilated* version of
his imaginary low redshift spectra with any hi redshift spectra.

You don't seem to understand the point of the paper. There is no dilation in the spectra (other than redshift), it is the rate at which the spectra age. That is not something that can be seen comparing one spectrum with another. You need a library spanning different ages.

And fig 3 Goldhaber does not show any SN1a lightcurve. Nor does it compare any dilated or un dilated lightcurves at all in fact. Try again.

It is a composite, as I said. It does show dilated and undilated versions, that's what the upper and lower spections. There is clear disagreement between low and high redshift. At no point is the standard of evidence "showing invidivial objects one-by-one", you're just trying to shift the goalposts.

You can also do it mathematically like this. You have 10-20nm light of energy E. Which is then redshifted over distance to 20-40nm. The wavelength of the redshifted light range gives you 1/2 E. But the range of the redshifted light is twice that of the non redshifted range. Giving you 2*(1/2E)= E
You have the same total energy in the redshifted light as that of the emitted
light. The mistake you made was to pretend light isn’t a wave.

You've just restated your claim. Please calculate the energy of the 10 photons from in terms of wavelength and Planck's constant, before and after redshift.

 

[Think twice]

It is a low redshift template spectrum. Combining different objects into a single reference isn't unusual, it is simple the mean spectrum. It even shows the standard deviation, showing that the individual spectra going in were in good agreement with the stack.

Exactly. It’s not a real spectrum. Let’s see a couple of REAL low redshift spectra. And compare them. Blondin only resorts to a featureless mishmash of a template. Because he knows I he compares real with real...he will end up showing no expansion.

And where is your proof of this? Surely you wouldn't just accuse someone of falsifying data if you hadn't made your own template and shown precisely what was done wrong? Did you download the spectra and plot them yourself, or are you just guessing?

Why would I want to make my own falsified template?. You seem to misunderstand my argument. NO templates of spectra should be made. Any template is a falsification. Let’s see real compared to real. Why couldn’t Blondin show a few real low redshift templates. (He says he has many on his homepage) Why? He knows he might get caught out. For that matter he doesn’t even show any comparisons between his faked idealised low redshift template and a real hi redshift spectra. What sort of paper says it has compared data with data to prove a model, and then neglects to show the actual comparison proofs between the data.
This isn’t 1450 AD.

You don't seem to understand the point of the paper. There is no dilation in the spectra (other than redshift), it is the rate at which the spectra age. That is not something that can be seen comparing one spectrum with another. You need a library spanning different ages.

I know exactly what he is doing. Or I know at least what he is pretending to do, seeing as he never actually shows any examples of what he pretends he did. He is ( pretending to) generate imaginary day spectra (fig 2)from his low redshift template by time dilation to match the z of the hi redshift spectra observed days. And seeing if the hi redshift days show time dilation compared to the low redshift faked template time delay days.
Unfortunately he never actually shows us the comparisons. We’re supposed to take his word on “faith”

You've just restated your claim. Please calculate the energy of the 10 photons from in terms of wavelength and Planck's constant, before and after redshift.

It is you who keeps re stating a claim. A non expanding model is based on empirical observations including the wave like properties of light. Unlike the BBT which is based on unobserved imaginary assumptions like photons. Photons which incidentally were refuted by the observation by Hubble that light frequency decreased over distance . So,...Please calculate the energy of a 10-20nm emission range and see if it matches the energy of the same light redshifted to 20-40nm. It does.
(Dont forget Planck, Ritz and Hubble, and many others thought photons were nonsense. And that the Hubble shift of light over distance was not caused by expansion.)
Incidentally this forum doesnt allow JPEG’s. So I had to,resort to posting 3 comparisons lightcurves from Knop in my profile icon.Noticed Dilated are at least as good as undilated . And that’s using Knops fiddled HST data.

 

[Lyman_alpher]

Any template is a falsification.

Nope, that's just moving the goalposts again. Stacking spectra is perfectly common, it is not falsification. It's quite clearly stated how it was done. You specifically said it was "adjusted to such a degree that it bears little in common with any actual spectra", taking a mean spectrum is not that.

Why would I want to make my own falsified template?.

I asked you to back up your baseless claim that it is "falsified" and "adjusted to such a degree that it bears little in common with any actual spectra". If you cannot prove this then it's quite clear you're just making things up, at that there is no rational discussion to be had.

It is you who keeps re stating a claim.

Because I'm trying to make you actually consider real physics, instead of just moving words around. But it seems you're not interested. I cannot "calculate the energy of a 10-20nm emission" because as I have tried to explain, that is literal gibberish to me.

 

[Think twice]

Nope, that's just moving the goalposts again. Stacking spectra is perfectly common, it is not falsification. It's quite clearly stated how it was done. You specifically said it was "adjusted to such a degree that it bears little in common with any actual spectra", taking a mean spectrum is not that.

In that case why doesnt Blondin use a few real spectra?
And you still haven’t answered why doesn’t he actually
even show any examples of his falsified spectra comparisons
to his hi redshift sample. Why? He knows if he did he would prove
his own argument wrong.
So far you have avoided answering *any* criticisms and failed
to supply any evidence for your arguments. Except say..
” I won’t respond to gibberish”?!
Very Scientific.

Because I'm trying to make you actually consider real physics, instead of just moving words around. But it seems you're not interested. I cannot "calculate the energy of a 10-20nm emission" because as I have tried to explain, that is literal gibberish to me.

You don’t know how to calculate the energy of light emitted
at 10-20nm redshifted to 20-40nm? What part do you not understand?
Light is only observed to be a wave....nm are a measurement on very small scales, usually associated with the visible light spectrum
Redshift (Ie cosmological redshift) is where light loses frequency over
distance. A discovery by Hubble which incidentally successfully refuted
the photon model.
Real Physics? Does inventing imaginary never ever actually observed photons count as real physics. Or is real physics just based on empirically
observed phenomena like light is a wave?
Which do you prefer? Fantasy or fact?

 

[Lyman_alpher]

” I won’t respond to gibberish”?!
Very Scientific.

Did I write this? No. Don't put quotation marks around a falsified quote. Lying about what people say is not only unscientific but it's deeply rude. It's the same with all your wild accusations about Blondin, you're inventing elaborate hidden motives but you have absolutely no evidence to back these claims up. That's not a scientific discussion, it's a conspiracy theory. It's quite clear you have no interest in having a rational or even polite discussion so I'm not going to bother any further.

 

[Think twice]

Did I write this? No. Don't put quotation marks around a falsified quote. Lying about what people say is not only unscientific but it's deeply rude. It's the same with all your wild accusations about Blondin, you're inventing elaborate hidden motives but you have absolutely no evidence to back these claims up. That's not a scientific discussion, it's a conspiracy theory. It's quite clear you have no interest in having a rational or even polite discussion so I'm not going to bother any further.

You don’t even read your own posts Lieman.
Heres a direct quote from you on Thursday 10:47 pm when you replied to a post of mine.

Because I'm trying to make you actually consider real physics, instead of just moving words around. But it seems you're not interested. I cannot "calculate the energy of a 10-20nm emission" because as I have tried to explain, that is literal gibberish to me.

So now it looks like you did smear me with your gibberish insult,... Im still waiting for you to actually answer the question you were unable to answer.
Where exactly in Blondins paper does he compare either his faked low redshift spectra, Or any real low redshift spectra against the hi redshift samples?
Nowhere.
He faked it. And you got out of admitting this . By changing the subject and pretending you never used the word “gibberish”.