article (I hope my last one in this thread)

From: (Steve Willner)
Subject: Any complete standardized SN11 data out there?
Path: cfa183!willner
Newsgroups: sci.astro.research
Distribution:
Followup-To:
References:
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Keywords:

In article ,
"sean" writes:
But Im not sure why a stretching
of the table data magnitude is unacceptable.

The magnitudes are what is measured. There is no justification for
"stretching" them. The only correction they need is the K-
correction, which is very small for 1997ek and in any case has little
variation with time.

It seems that for
most of the Knop graphs he has to do that to `normalize` the
table data to 1.0

Not at all. "Magnitude at maximum" is one of the parameters Knop et
al. derive from their template fit. The graphs have that value as
1.0, and all the measured magnitudes are converted to linear units
and plotted accordingly. No "stretching."

You have repeatedly asserted that the SN data are consistent with
absence of time dilation, despite both Knop et al. (by detailed
analysis) and me (by quick sanity check) finding the opposite. As
far as I'm concerned, you can assert anything you want. (The
moderator may have a different opinion.) You can most certainly
believe anything you want. However, until you can demonstrate a
mistake-free analysis of 1997ek, I don't see why anyone should take
your assertions seriously.

--
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA
(Please email your reply if you want to be sure I see it; include a
valid Reply-To address to receive an acknowledgement. Commercial
email may be sent to your ISP.)

From: Steve Willner )
Subject: article (I hope my last one in this thread)

However, until you can demonstrate a mistake-free
analysis of 1997ek, I don't see why anyone should
take your assertions seriously.

Although a good fit can be made, one that is within
error margins (of an undilated B band template to
1997ek) is not possible after all and I admit this in
my last post after having tried the numbers rather
than a visual comparison. Dont forget though that
Knop himself cant do this either in his paper.
Please note that 4 seperate observations made and
recorded in the tables do not ,even at the low end
of their error margins , fit his dilated template.
In fact he does this throughout his paper on other
SN`s and I have pointed out these errors in my last
post. Obviously your lack of response shows that
you agree that Knops templates do not fit the
data in many instances.
For instance his dilated templates do not fit some of
the data error margins from 1998ay, 1997ez,and
1998ba by margins of about 0.06-0.1 And as I showed
with numbers in my last post the 1997eq data fits an
undilated template within the same error margins.
At the very least this proves that the data supports
no time dilation as well as time dilation.
And once I get you to admit that the 1998ba peak HST
data does not fit his dilated template at all then I
will show you an analysis (with numbers) that shows a
good fit of the 1998 ba data to an undilated template.
That is.. as good a fit as most of Knops `not so
good` fits.
If you dont want to post anymore on this thread
as you allude to in your last post , please dont
mistake a lack of evidence on your part as a
substantiation of theory. Quite the opposite,
you need to provide and refute numbers to back
up your argument.
So until you can supply proof that all of Knops
templates fit the data within error margins then
I cant take your assertions seriously either.

Sean

sean wrote:
From: Steve Willner )
Subject: article (I hope my last one in this thread)


However, until you can demonstrate a mistake-free
analysis of 1997ek, I don't see why anyone should
take your assertions seriously.


Although a good fit can be made, one that is within
error margins (of an undilated B band template to
1997ek) is not possible after all and I admit this in
my last post after having tried the numbers rather
than a visual comparison. Dont forget though that
Knop himself cant do this either in his paper.
Please note that 4 seperate observations made and
recorded in the tables do not ,even at the low end
of their error margins , fit his dilated template.
In fact he does this throughout his paper on other
SN`s and I have pointed out these errors in my last
post. Obviously your lack of response shows that
you agree that Knops templates do not fit the
data in many instances.
For instance his dilated templates do not fit some of
the data error margins from 1998ay, 1997ez,and
1998ba by margins of about 0.06-0.1 And as I showed
with numbers in my last post the 1997eq data fits an
undilated template within the same error margins.
At the very least this proves that the data supports
no time dilation as well as time dilation.
And once I get you to admit that the 1998ba peak HST
data does not fit his dilated template at all then I
will show you an analysis (with numbers) that shows a
good fit of the 1998 ba data to an undilated template.
That is.. as good a fit as most of Knops `not so
good` fits.

Until you can't do a proper chi squared fit, you have
no basis for claiming that your fits are better than
the ones of Knop et al.


If you dont want to post anymore on this thread
as you allude to in your last post , please dont
mistake a lack of evidence on your part as a
substantiation of theory. Quite the opposite,
you need to provide and refute numbers to back
up your argument.

Riess et al. have done a *mathematical analysis* of
the quality of the fits. Nothing you have done so far
comes even in the vicinity of having that kind of rigor.


Bye,
Bjoern