A post of unthinking belief in and ignorance of an obviously invalid paper.Oy Vey. ...
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.
Hopefully we will get an honest response showing that Michael understands this simple fact.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.
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?
SALT did not exist until 2005 so it is impossible for these papers to have used it!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:
These observations contradict tired light models of the redshift.
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.
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.
Upvote
0