A problem with the analysis of type Ia supernovae

[RealityCheck01]

Oy Vey. ...

A post of unthinking belief in and ignorance of an obviously invalid paper.

26 February 2018: The paper by Crawford purposely removed the variation in the width of light curves by fitting them to a template light curve with an average width.

Repeats
5 March 2018: A blatant lie that the obvious fatal flaw in Crawford's paper is a flaw in type 1a supernova light curve calibration.
Light curve calibration is not a test of the time dilation of type 1a supernova light curves which is what Crawford did !

14 March 2018: Seems still ignorant of the fact that Crawford's "debunking" of SALT2 is not by looking at time dilation.

Ignorance about Crawford's paper - the "debunking" of SALT2 is not his flawed analysis of light curves. The "debunking" is in the previous section where there is an error about what the salt2_template_0.dat (Average spectral sequence) contains. This file contains an average spectral sequence over many type 1a supernova observed by multiple telescopes. Crawford has an analysis that starts with one telescope observing one type 1a supernova.

Hopefully we will get an honest response showing that Michael understands this simple fact.

The next issues with Crawford's paper.
A minor issue that he is someone with unknown expertise. We have maybe an amateur astronomer trying to debunk many experts in type 1a supernova.

A major issue that he completely ignores the contents of the papers that have found time dilation. He does cite them. A valid argument against these papers would be to show that the papers are wrong or even 1 of them .
Has the time dilation of distant source light curves predicted by the Big Bang been observed?

This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1. The time dilation has been observed, with 5 different published measurements of this effect in supernova light curves. These papers are:

• 
  Leibundgut etal, 1996, ApJL, 466, L21-L24
• Goldhaber etal, in Thermonuclear Supernovae (NATO ASI), eds. R. Canal, P. Ruiz-LaPuente, and J. Isern.
• Riess etal, 1997, AJ, 114, 722.
• Perlmutter etal, 1998, Nature, 391, 51.
• Goldhaber etal, 2001, ApJ, 558, 359.

These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.

SALT did not exist until 2005 so it is impossible for these papers to have used it!

14 March 2018: Crawford's paper is ignorant of what the light curve time dilation papers actually did.
Take Goldhaber etal, 2001, ApJ, 558, 359. as an example. What the authors did is use 3 different methods to characterize the light curves as in the only mention of the word calibrate:

All three methods of characterizing the light curve shape or timescale have been used to calibrate the peak magnitudes.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The worst part of all this is the fact that more recent and comprehensive SN1A studies do not support your claim of 'discovery" of dark energy in the first place!

14 March 2018: A "more recent and comprehensive SN1A studies" and dark energy lie.
This is the article from October 17, 2016
Universe Not Accelerating? New Battle Over Supernova Results

The authors emphasize that while the best fit for the data does support the accepted model -- a Universe that's roughly 2/3 dark energy and 1/3 matter -- the red contours, representing 1σ, 2σ, and 3σ confidence levels, aren't overwhelmingly compelling.

It is a lie that this study does not support dark energy when it does.

The paper calculates lower confidence levels than precious papers. Ethan Siegel points out

So why not use the other basic pieces of information that we know, like the fact that the Universe contains matter.

This simple fact makes the paper's "marginal evidence" conclusion wrong.

 

[Michael]

14 March 2018: A "more recent and comprehensive SN1A studies" and dark energy lie.
This is the article from October 17, 2016
Universe Not Accelerating? New Battle Over Supernova Results

It is a lie that this study does not support dark energy when it does.

The paper calculates lower confidence levels than precious papers. Ethan Siegel points out

It is a lie that astronomers have "discovered' anything new in physics, or that they have "discovered" dark energy.

The new study *lowers* the likelihood of acceleration to the point that it cannot be called a 'discovery' in physics. Lots of observations at LHC "hinted" (to around three sigma) that something new might be found, only to be obliterated with a larger set of test data.

Hopes for revolutionary new LHC particle dashed

The first SN1A study was based on less than 60 events, and the newer one is still based on less than a 1000. Statistically speaking, you are two sigma short of a valid 'discovery' in physics. Worse yet, SN1A events have been shown to *not* be standard candles in the first place.

Supernova 'standard candles' not so standard after all | Cosmos

A type of exploding star – Ia supernova – is known in cosmology circles as a "standard candle" for its consistent bright flash, letting astronomers calculate how far it lies from Earth.

But the candles, it turns out, are not so standard. Manuel Moreno-Raya from the Spanish Research Centre for Energy, Environment and Technology and colleagues examined the local environment of 28 Ia supernovae and found those with more elements heavier than helium, which astronomers call "metals", were dimmer than their less metallic counterparts.

 

[Michael]

A post of unthinking belief in and ignorance of an obviously invalid paper.

I love how you offer no *published* rebuttal to any *published* paper that's ever been presented to you. Rather you decide for yourself that you and you alone are the sole "decider of truth", publishing world and peer review processes be damned.

There's no point in discussing Crawford's paper with you because you're doing exactly the same thing to Crawford that you did to Scott and that you constantly do to me. You're just 'making stuff up' again and bearing false witness against him like you do to everyone else.

You clearly do *not* understand the models that you claim to 'debunk' because Scott and Thornhill never actually predicted that stars emit "no neutrinos' as you erroneously claimed, and Crawford did not make the mistakes that you accuse him of either.

Just like your "threat" to change the WIKI page on the topic of "magnetic reconnection", and your *addition* of text to Somov's clear diagram and presentation which Somov never actually said, when you don't like someone opinions on any topic, you simply cheat by misrepresenting them and their work. It's your unethical "style" to simply misrepresent anyone and everyone that you disagree with. How unethical can you get?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I love how you offer no *published* rebuttal to any *published* paper that's ever been presented to you....

I pity the repeated denial of the simple mathematics that fitting raw data to a template removes variation in the raw data.
26 February 2018: The paper by Crawford has the obvious flaw of purposely removing the variation in the width of light curves by fitting them to a template light curve with an average width.

And
16 March 2018: Deep ignorance that that a paper published 30 Nov 2017 in a low impact journal will be rebutted about 3 months later or maybe ever!
It typically takes months for a paper to be written, submitted, peer-reviewed and published.
Open Astronomy began as a Lithuanian astronomy journal (maybe even an in-house institute journal), was brought in January 2017 and renamed by a publishing company. Scientists concentrate on journals that they know publish high quality papers on their subject. Few scientists will know abut this local journal.
Scientists do not waste their time writing 1 paragraph papers to refute papers than any scientist can see is invalid.

Which leads to the obvious questions that a reasonable person would ask when looking at this paper. Assume that the paper is totally valid. The SALT2 light calibration software has never worked correctly. A simple analysis of light curves shows that they do not show time dilation. The paper thus invalidates every mainstream paper that uses SALT2 or measured time dilation.
16 March 2018: Why did Crawford not publish his paper in a journal that published any of papers he supposedly invalidates? Why not a high impact journal that the authors of those papers would read?
Look at Goldhaber etal, 2001, published in The Astrophysical Journal

The Astrophysical Journal, often abbreviated ApJ (pronounced "ap jay") in references and speech,[1] is a peer-reviewed scientific journal of astrophysics and astronomy, established in 1895 by American astronomers George Ellery Hale and James Edward Keeler.

A possibility is that he submitted to these journals, was rejected by the editor or reviewers and shopped around until he found a journal willing to publish. This is a not unknown but frowned upon practice.

5 March 2018: A lie that the obvious fatal flaw in Crawford's paper is a flaw in type 1a supernova light curve calibration.

14 March 2018: Seems still ignorant of the fact that Crawford's "debunking" of SALT2 is not by looking at time dilation.
A couple more days and this will have to become "abysmally ignorant" about the contents of Crawford's paper.

14 March 2018: Crawford's paper is ignorant of what the light curve time dilation papers actually did (no SALT2 calibration before 2005, multiple "characterization" methods used in a 2001 paper).

More science missed in Crawford's paper, ignored in his Cosmoquest thread and probably to be ignored or denied by Michael.
19 January 2018: At Cosmoquest, Crawford's paper is falsified by independent measurement of time dilation in type 1a supernova aging.
We also have the observation of time dilation in spectra rather than light curves which happens to give the same expanding universe

 

[Michael]

I pity the repeated denial of the simple mathematics that fitting raw data to a template removes variation in the raw data.

I pity anyone who believes anything you say at this point Mr. "no neutrino".

You're as about as much of an 'expert' on this topic as you're an expert on MR theory or Scott's neutrino predictions. You have long and proven track record of intentionally misrepresenting other people's work.

 

[SelfSim]

... You're as about as much of an 'expert' on this topic as you're an expert on MR theory or Scott's neutrino predictions. You have long and proven track record of intentionally misrepresenting other people's work.

You must be speaking of your own abyssmal track record of misrepresenting just about everything in the fields of: the physics of electricty, astrophysics and cosmology.

 

[Michael]

You must be speaking of your own abyssmal track record of misrepresenting just about everything in the fields of: the physics of electricty, astrophysics and cosmology.

The mere fact that *none of you* have managed to produce that missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection' in a vacuum demonstrates conclusively that you have no clue what you're talking about. Your industry tries to dumb down everything related to electromagnetism in plasma to magnetism alone so you just blew up the irony meter on that one.

 

[RealityCheck01]

The mere fact that *none of you* have managed to produce that missing math formula to express a non-zero rate of "magnetic reconnection' in a vacuum....

A still deeply ignorant demand for a magnetic reconnection rate defined for plasma to exist in vacuum !

20 March 2012: Michael Mozina's delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma
20 March 2012 Michael: What is the Alfvén speed for a vacuum?

 

[RealityCheck01]

I pity anyone who believes anything you say at this point Mr. "no neutrino".

20 March 2018: A "Mr. "no neutrino" lie when it was Findlay who lied about no fusion-powered stars in an EU e-book endorsed by EU experts Thornhill and Scott.

ETA: Here is what Findlay wrote on page 79

We will be returning to the idea of nuclear fusion-powered stars later to delve into why this, in fact, is not the way the Sun works and to take a close look at how all stars actually do work, electrically of course.

This is denial of any fusion at all in stars. Previously he describes the scientifically supported fusion at the core powered stars.
The denial is supported by no neutrinos produced by fusion in the book. The word neutrino does not appear in the e-book, not even in his description of the mainstream model.

20 March 2018: Persistent denial that fitting data to a an average (template) removes variation.
This is easy enough for anyone to understand. Take a sample of any varying data. Calculate an average. Take a larger sample. For each value in that sample change its value to the average value and the variation in the data vanishes !

For light curves there is some additional complexity. The average is a template curve file at a single average redshift. Individual light curves differ in their peaks and widths. Crawford tries to test for widths changing with redshift. Crawford iteratively fits each individual light curve for a redshift to the template curve peak and width. Each curve has any systematic variation in width with redshift removed. Plot width against redshift and we get a random scatter around no variation.

19 January 2018, at Cosmoquest: Crawford's paper is falsified by independent measurement of time dilation in type 1a supernova aging.

26 February 2018: The paper by Crawford has the obvious flaw of purposely removing the variation in the width of light curves by fitting them to a template light curve with an average width.

5 March 2018: A lie that the obvious fatal flaw in Crawford's paper is a flaw in type 1a supernova light curve calibration.

14 March 2018: Seems still Abysmally ignorant of the fact that Crawford's "debunking" of SALT2 is not by looking at time dilation.

14 March 2018: Crawford's paper is ignorant of what the light curve time dilation papers actually did (no SALT2 calibration before 2005, multiple "characterization" methods used in a 2001 paper).

16 March 2018: Deep ignorance that that a paper published 30 Nov 2017 in a low impact journal will be rebutted about 3 months later or maybe ever!

16 March 2018: Why did Crawford not publish his paper in a journal that published any of papers he supposedly invalidates? Why not a high impact journal that the authors of those papers would read?

 

[Michael]

A still deeply ignorant demand for a magnetic reconnection rate defined for plasma to exist in vacuum !

No, the deeply ignorant claim was made by you when you and Clinger claimed to get magnetic reconnection *without* plasma or plasma particle acceleration. That's also why you're completely incapable of demonstrating your bogus claim with a real math formula.

You're the one that's completely misguided, and that's why you cannot produce a math formula to support any of your "magnetic reconnection" in an *EMPTY* vacuum* nonsense. It's physically impossible to get reconnection without plasma. You don't even know the difference between ordinary magnetic flux in an empty vacuum and the transfer of magnetic field energy in plasma known as 'magnetic reconnection'. You're utterly clueless when it comes to *real* physics as your missing math formula so clearly demonstrates. Did the dog eat your math homework for the last 6 years RC?

 

[Michael]

20 March 2018: A "Mr. "no neutrino" lie when it was Findlay who lied about no fusion-powered stars in an EU e-book endorsed by EU experts Thornhill and Scott.

Findlay never stated that 'no' fusion takes place in stars, he said it doesn't happen *in the core* of stars. Findlay never used the term "neutrino", but two *other* references cited in the same article did, and they did not predict "no neutrinos". Thornhill endorses his *own* beliefs RC, and the article claimed to be critiquing Thornhill's model, not Findlay's model. How unprofessional.

20 March 2018: Persistent denial that fitting data to a an average (template) removes variation.

You're not honest about David's paper, anymore than you are honest about Thornhill's neutrino predictions.

This is easy enough for anyone to understand. Take a sample of any varying data. Calculate an average. Take a larger sample. For each value in that sample change its value to the average value and the variation in the data vanishes !

That's not what he did in the first place anymore than Thornhill predicted "no neutrinos", or magnetic reconnection happens without plasma. You must make this stuff up and blame others for your own errors. You do it consistently too.

There's no point in discussing Crawford's paper with you anymore than there is any point in discussing MR theory with you, or Thornhills' neutrino predictions with you. You simply misrepresent whatever you want, and you cite *yourself* as the only authority on *everything* with ever citing a single published reference that actually agrees with you.

 

[RealityCheck01]

20 March 2012: Michael Mozina's delusion that a reconnection rate exists without plasma
20 March 2012 Michael: What is the Alfvén speed for a vacuum?

19 January 2018, at Cosmoquest: Crawford's paper is falsified by independent measurement of time dilation in type 1a supernova aging.

26 February 2018: The paper by Crawford has the obvious flaw of purposely removing the variation in the width of light curves by fitting them to a template light curve with an average width.

5 March 2018: A lie that the obvious fatal flaw in Crawford's paper is a flaw in type 1a supernova light curve calibration.

14 March 2018: Seems still Abysmally ignorant of the fact that Crawford's "debunking" of SALT2 is not by looking at time dilation.

14 March 2018: Crawford's paper is ignorant of what the light curve time dilation papers actually did (no SALT2 calibration before 2005, multiple "characterization" methods used in a 2001 paper).

16 March 2018: Deep ignorance that that a paper published 30 Nov 2017 in a low impact journal will be rebutted about 3 months later or maybe ever!

16 March 2018: Why did Crawford not publish his paper in a journal that published any of papers he supposedly invalidates? Why not a high impact journal that the authors of those papers would read?

20 March 2018: A "Mr. "no neutrino" lie when it was Findlay who lied about no fusion-powered stars in an EU e-book endorsed by EU experts Thornhill and Scott.

20 March 2018: Persistent denial that fitting data to a an average (template) removes variation.

 

[RealityCheck01]

That's not what he did in the first place ...

4 April 2018: A lie about what Crawford did in his paper.
Anyone who reads Crawford's paper understands the English in

2. Methods
...
2.2 Raw type Ia supernovae light curves
...
For each SNe the fitted parameters were the peak flux density, the epoch of the peak flux density and the relative width of the light curve. This fitting was done using the reference light curve provided by Goldhaber et al. [10].

He took a reference light curve and fitted raw light curve peaks, epochs and widths to the reference light curve. That is basically what I wrote:

For light curves there is some additional complexity. The average is a template curve file at a single average redshift. Individual light curves differ in their peaks and widths. Crawford tries to test for widths changing with redshift. Crawford iteratively fits each individual light curve for a redshift to the template curve peak and width. Each curve has any systematic variation in width with redshift removed. Plot width against redshift and we get a random scatter around no variation.

However it is not the SALT2 template light curve - it is a rather vague "reference light curve" in Goldhaber et al, 2001, ApJ, 558, 359 (maybe their "composite curve") which concludes

We also demonstrate the 1+z light-curve time-axis broadening expected from cosmological expansion. This argues strongly against alternative explanations, such as tired light, for the redshift of distant objects.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I love how you offer no *published* rebuttal to any *published* paper that's ever been presented to you. Rather you decide for yourself that you and you alone are the sole "decider of truth", publishing world and peer review processes be damned.

There's no point in discussing Crawford's paper with you because you're doing exactly the same thing to Crawford that you did to Scott and that you constantly do to me. You're just 'making stuff up' again and bearing false witness against him like you do to everyone else.

You clearly do *not* understand the models that you claim to 'debunk' because Scott and Thornhill never actually predicted that stars emit "no neutrinos' as you erroneously claimed, and Crawford did not make the mistakes that you accuse him of either.

Just like your "threat" to change the WIKI page on the topic of "magnetic reconnection", and your *addition* of text to Somov's clear diagram and presentation which Somov never actually said, when you don't like someone opinions on any topic, you simply cheat by misrepresenting them and their work. It's your unethical "style" to simply misrepresent anyone and everyone that you disagree with. How unethical can you get?

Standard mainstream supporter tactic as they have no actual science to back them up. I mean when 96% of your cosmology relies on unseen and un-testable garbage, it is about all you are left with. You'll just have to forgive him, it's the only thing he has to argue with, lies and misinformation, since the facts don't support him.

 

[HitchSlap]

Standard mainstream supporter tactic as they have no actual science to back them up. I mean when 96% of your cosmology relies on unseen and un-testable garbage, it is about all you are left with. You'll just have to forgive him, it's the only thing he has to argue with, lies and misinformation, since the facts don't support him.

He must be a creationist.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Standard mainstream supporter tactic ....

Deep ignorance and parroting deep ignorance:
16 March 2018: Deep ignorance that that a paper published 30 Nov 2017 in a low impact journal will be rebutted about 3 months later or maybe ever!

4 April 2018 Justatruthseeker: Deep ignorance about why mainstream science is mainstream science!
Mainstream science is science that has been tested over a long period in many different ways to the point that it is accepted, textbook science. Reasonable and educated people can learn enough mainstream science to be confident that it is correct, for example: What is the evidence for the Big Bang? has actual science that most people can understand is enormous support for an expanding universe.

4 April 2018 Justatruthseeker: A "no actual science" lie when he knows that actual science exists.
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: Ignorance leads to a series of "the ad-hoc epicycles" lies
8 March 2018 Justatruthseeker: An "ad-hoc epicycles ... magical expansion of nothing" lie.

 

[RealityCheck01]

He must be a creationist.

Maybe not. His posts suggest that he is an electric universe supporter.
This is a few authors mostly expanding on the obviously deluded ideas started by historian and mythologist Immanuel Velikovsky, e.g. he had Venus being ejected from Jupiter in recent times and whizzing around to provide manna to the Hebrews, stopping the Earth rotating and restarting with the same length of day! Two of his followers David Talbott and Wal Thornhill started the main electric universe web site, The Thunderbolts Project (named after their book Thunderbolts of the Gods).