Any complete standardized SNIa data out there?

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:
The *magnitudes* are k corrected (this is necessary due to
different filters, if I understand correctly). This does
not change the fact that the data still is for the observed
frame, i.e. the time behaviour is not changed in any way.

The magnitudes are color corrected yes , I also said this
in an earlier post.And Knop says this in the quote below.

What on earth are you talking about? The k correction has
nothing to di with multiplying the time axis with 1+z!!!

If a k correction to rest frame has nothing to do with
multiplying or dividing the template time axis with 1+z
then how do you explain the following quote from Knop
(page 10 col 2)...

"In order to perform lightcurve template fit-
ting, a cross-filter K-correction must be applied
to transform the data in the *observed filter* into
a *rest-frame magnitude* in the filter used for the
lightcurve template (Kim, Goobar, & Perlmutter
1996). The *color correction* to the nearest stan-
dard Bessell filter followed by a *K-correction to
a rest-frame filter* is equivalent to a direct K-
correction from the observed filter to the stan-
dard rest-frame filter."

If the Kim Goobar formula which we cited earlier in this
thread has a division or multiplication of the timescale
by 1+z then how is it you think the kim Goobar `cross
filter k correction` mentioned above DOESNT transform the
timescale by 1+z? What else could the above quote .."
K-correction to a rest-frame filter"... mean but a
timescale contraction of the observed frame data?

But the data points in the templates come directly from the
tables, don't they? So using the table data instead of reading
the data of the graphs is much more accurate, don't you think?

The data points do come directly from the tables and I never
denied this. What I say is that the datapoint from the tables
of 1.54 HST that Steve uses as his peak+1 is not actually at
peak+1 on the template! 1.54 is below and later than peak+1 on
the template. Peak +1 on the template should be at *0.4*
(1.6 on the tables) . The HST reading of 1.54 is about 2 days
later and works out to about 0.37 on the vertical axis of the
graph. Look carefully at fig 1.


And if one uses only the table data one also gets the result
of no time dilation.

Care to demonstrate that?

You have a short memory. I already have demonstrated this and
described it to you many times and also in my last post. Heres
the description of my demonstration from my last post followed
by your acknowledgement that you understood (at the time) what
I had done.

(Sean)
"This is the whole reason why I have been posting on this thread.
If you look back at some of my earlier posts I have used a method
initially suggested by Steve to check what the decay rates are for
all 11 SN from the Knop paper. He suggested measuring off the
templates from figures 1 and 2 . He suggested comparing how long
it takes to decay by 1 mag from peak+1 to peak +2 from the
templates which I did by measuring off the graphs in figs 1and 2
in Knops paper and seeing how this compares with the same from a
restframe low z SN from Reiss` paper. (1995D was suggested by
Steve).
I found that there is on average no or negligible time dilation
for all 11 SN when compared with 1995D.I posted the results in
several earlier posts on this thread. "

(and Bjorns reply)
"Oh. *that* you meant. I simply was confused by your term
above. Sorry."

So my answer to your question is: if you want to see the
demonstration of `no time dilation` either go back to the
earlier parts of this thread where the numbers are posted or
do the test yourself following the description re-quoted above.
Its quite easy AND its recommended by Steve!

I understood Steve right, he used both for the peak value
and for the peak+1 magnitude the fitted curves. Coincidentally,
the peak+1 magnitude point lies pretty good on the curve, hence
he can simply look it up in the table. I *still* do not see your
problem.

If you look at fig 1, Steve uses the HST reading of 1.54 as his
peak+1.
But it isnt at peak+1 on the template! As the fitted curve
peak is normalized to 1 the peak+1 must be at 0.4. A close look
at the graph shows that 1.54 sits clearly after 0.4 by about 2
days and below 0.4. Steves calculations then are all based on an
incorrect start point for peak+1 and as the decay rate decreases
over time if he were to recalculate back using the correct 0.4
peak +1 (thats about 1.6 from the tables )he would get 14.5 days
which is what I got for 1997ek from using just the fitted curves.
And all 11 SN`s on average show no time dilation.
But this is seperate from my point about the tables . The table
peak is 4.8 and this puts the peak+1 calculated from the tables
at 1.8. And it takes only 12 days to decay 1 mag from 1.8 to
0.72 on the tables . This gives no time dilation at all for
1997ek if one uses just the observed table data.

Ignoring the actually known SN light curves in such an analysis
is a bad idea.

I did not ignore the SN lightcurves. This is untrue.
As I have said many times on this thread and earlier on this post,
I have *already* taken them ( known SN lightcurves)into account.
I have done 2 seperate analysis on 1997ek (all 11 SN actually
but Steve only does 1997ek so I will stick to his very limited
sample) The first method I used takes into account what
you call all "the known Sn lightcurves" etc.
These are what you also call the `fitted curves. I measured
peak+1 to peak +2 for all 11 available SN *FROM THE FITTED
CURVES*. My results are posted several times on this thread and
show on average no time dilation. My second method was to analyse
peak+1 to peak +2 from just the observed frame table data of
19978ek. This shows even more closely NO time dilation.
So I can prove that there is no time dilation using the available
known SN data as you wish AND using just the observed table data
sans the fitted curves. Thats proof using two different methods.

(look forward to no redshift detected for x ray spectra
of grbs from SWIFT in the next few weeks)

We will see who will have to eat his words.

It will be interesting to see how the theorists explain the
lack of redshift.

Sean www.gammarayburst.com

sean wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote:

The *magnitudes* are k corrected (this is necessary due to
different filters, if I understand correctly). This does
not change the fact that the data still is for the observed
frame, i.e. the time behaviour is not changed in any way.


The magnitudes are color corrected yes,

Err, I was talking about the K correction here, not the
(additional) color correction.


I also said this
in an earlier post.And Knop says this in the quote below.


What on earth are you talking about? The k correction has
nothing to di with multiplying the time axis with 1+z!!!


If a k correction to rest frame has nothing to do with
multiplying or dividing the template time axis with 1+z
then how do you explain the following quote from Knop
(page 10 col 2)...

"In order to perform lightcurve template fit-
ting, a cross-filter K-correction must be applied
to transform the data in the *observed filter* into
a *rest-frame magnitude* in the filter used for the
lightcurve template (Kim, Goobar, & Perlmutter
1996). The *color correction* to the nearest stan-
dard Bessell filter followed by a *K-correction to
a rest-frame filter* is equivalent to a direct K-
correction from the observed filter to the stan-
dard rest-frame filter."

What's to explain here? Knop says the same as I say above:
the *magnitudes* are changed by the K correction. *Not*
the time axis.


If the Kim Goobar formula which we cited earlier in this
thread has a division or multiplication of the timescale
by 1+z then how is it you think the kim Goobar `cross
filter k correction` mentioned above DOESNT transform the
timescale by 1+z?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the "Kim Goobar
formula". The only formula you mentioned in the recent posts
was
I(t)/Imax=fR((t-tmax)/s(1+z))+b,
and that was from the Goldhaber paper, not from the paper
by Kim et al. Do you mean that formula?

If yes: yes, indeed, that formula has a stretching of the
time scale with 1+z. But that formula has nothing to do
with the K correction!

So I still have no idea where you got the strange notion
from that the K correction has anything to do with changing
the time axis by a factor 1+z. It doesn't.


What else could the above quote .."
K-correction to a rest-frame filter"... mean but a
timescale contraction of the observed frame data?

*sigh* A correction for the *magnitudes*. As I and Steve have
repeatedly said now.


But the data points in the templates come directly from the
tables, don't they? So using the table data instead of reading
the data of the graphs is much more accurate, don't you think?


The data points do come directly from the tables and I never
denied this. What I say is that the datapoint from the tables
of 1.54 HST that Steve uses as his peak+1 is not actually at
peak+1 on the template! 1.54 is below and later than peak+1 on
the template. Peak +1 on the template should be at *0.4*
(1.6 on the tables). The HST reading of 1.54 is about 2 days
later and works out to about 0.37 on the vertical axis of the
graph. Look carefully at fig 1.

Err, we *are* talking about the same SN here, aren't we? Do you
remember that I pointed out that you and Steve apparently talked
about different SNs?


And if one uses only the table data one also gets the result
of no time dilation.


Care to demonstrate that?


You have a short memory. I already have demonstrated this and
described it to you many times and also in my last post. Heres
the description of my demonstration from my last post followed
by your acknowledgement that you understood (at the time) what
I had done.

(Sean)
"This is the whole reason why I have been posting on this thread.
If you look back at some of my earlier posts I have used a method
initially suggested by Steve to check what the decay rates are for
all 11 SN from the Knop paper. He suggested measuring off the
templates from figures 1 and 2 . He suggested comparing how long
it takes to decay by 1 mag from peak+1 to peak +2 from the
templates which I did by measuring off the graphs in figs 1and 2
in Knops paper and seeing how this compares with the same from a
restframe low z SN from Reiss` paper. (1995D was suggested by
Steve).
I found that there is on average no or negligible time dilation
for all 11 SN when compared with 1995D.I posted the results in
several earlier posts on this thread. "

Err, above you talked about *using only the table data*. In
this paragraph, you talk about *measuring off the graphs*.

Reading comprehension problems?



(and Bjorns reply)
"Oh. *that* you meant. I simply was confused by your term
above. Sorry."

So my answer to your question is: if you want to see the
demonstration of `no time dilation` either go back to the
earlier parts of this thread where the numbers are posted or
do the test yourself following the description re-quoted above.
Its quite easy AND its recommended by Steve!

Since the above was *not* about using "only the table data", I
still want to know where you ever did do that.



I understood Steve right, he used both for the peak value
and for the peak+1 magnitude the fitted curves. Coincidentally,
the peak+1 magnitude point lies pretty good on the curve, hence
he can simply look it up in the table. I *still* do not see your
problem.


If you look at fig 1, Steve uses the HST reading of 1.54 as his
peak+1.
But it isnt at peak+1 on the template! As the fitted curve
peak is normalized to 1 the peak+1 must be at 0.4. A close look
at the graph shows that 1.54 sits clearly after 0.4 by about 2
days and below 0.4. Steves calculations then are all based on an
incorrect start point for peak+1 and as the decay rate decreases
over time if he were to recalculate back using the correct 0.4
peak +1 (thats about 1.6 from the tables )he would get 14.5 days
which is what I got for 1997ek from using just the fitted curves.
And all 11 SN`s on average show no time dilation.
But this is seperate from my point about the tables . The table
peak is 4.8 and this puts the peak+1 calculated from the tables
at 1.8. And it takes only 12 days to decay 1 mag from 1.8 to
0.72 on the tables . This gives no time dilation at all for
1997ek if one uses just the observed table data.

See above. I still think you two talked about two different
SNs. I pointed that out already some weeks ago - you never
replied to that statement of mine.



Ignoring the actually known SN light curves in such an analysis
is a bad idea.


I did not ignore the SN lightcurves. This is untrue.
As I have said many times on this thread and earlier on this post,
I have *already* taken them ( known SN lightcurves)into account.
I have done 2 seperate analysis on 1997ek (all 11 SN actually
but Steve only does 1997ek so I will stick to his very limited
sample) The first method I used takes into account what
you call all "the known Sn lightcurves" etc.
These are what you also call the `fitted curves. I measured
peak+1 to peak +2 for all 11 available SN *FROM THE FITTED
CURVES*. My results are posted several times on this thread and
show on average no time dilation. My second method was to analyse
peak+1 to peak +2 from just the observed frame table data of
19978ek. This shows even more closely NO time dilation.
So I can prove that there is no time dilation using the available
known SN data as you wish AND using just the observed table data
sans the fitted curves. Thats proof using two different methods.

I'll have to look up again where you actually used the fitted
curves.


(look forward to no redshift detected for x ray spectra
of grbs from SWIFT in the next few weeks)


We will see who will have to eat his words.


It will be interesting to see how the theorists explain the
lack of redshift.

How can you be so damn sure that there will be none? That's
not a scientific attitude - that's a religious attitude.



Bye,
Bjoern

a giant organism. Their tasks will be increasingly
specialized so that their work will be, in a sense, out of touch with
the real world, being concentrated on one tiny slice of reality. The
system will have to use any means that I can, whether psychological or
biological, to engineer people to be docile, to have the abilities
that the system requires and to "sublimate" their drive for power into
some specialized task. But the statement that the people of such a
society will have to be docile may require qualification. The society
may find competitiveness useful, provided that ways are found of
directing competitiveness into channels that serve that needs of the
system. We can imagine into channels that serve the needs of the
system. We can imagine a future society in which there is endless
competition for positions of prestige an power. But no more than a
very few people will ever reach the top, where the only real power is
(see end of paragraph 163). Very repellent is a society in which a
person can satisf

intervention shows that the problem of controlling
human behavior is mainly a technical problem; a problem of neurons,
hormones and complex molecules; the kind of problem that is accessible
to scientific attack. Given the outstanding record of our society in
solving technical problems, it is overwhelmingly probable that great
advances will be made in the control of human behavior.

159. Will public resistance prevent the introduction of technological
control of human behavior? It certainly would if an attempt were made
to introduce such control all at once. But since technological control
will be introduced through a long sequence of small advances, there
will be no rational and effective public resistance. (See paragraphs
127,132, 153.)

160. To those who think that all this sounds like science fiction, we
point out that yesterday's science fiction is today's fact. The
Industrial Revolution has radically altered man's environment and way
of life, and it is only to be expected that as technology is
increasingly applied to the human body and mind, man himself will be
altered as radically as his environment and way of life have been.

HUMAN RACE AT A CROSSROADS



161. But we have gotten ahead of our story. It is one thing to develop
in the laboratory a series of psychological or biological techniques
for manipulating human behavior and quite another to integrate these
techniques into a functioning social system. The latter problem is the
more difficult of the two. For example, while the techniques of
educational psychology doubtless work quite well in the "lab schools"
where they are developed, it is not necessarily easy to apply them
effectively throughout our educational system. We all know what many
of our schools are like. The teachers are too busy taking knives and
guns away from the kids to subject the

So I still have no idea where you got the strange notion
from that the K correction has anything to do with changing
the time axis by a factor 1+z. It doesn't.
Im glad your willing to confirm that the table data has
not been transformed by 1+z. Because that fits with my
analysis of the 1997ek table data which shows no time
dilation.
Err, we *are* talking about the same SN here, aren't we? Do you
remember that I pointed out that you and Steve apparently talked
about different SNs?
I now refer to 1997ek as does Steve in his calculations.

(Sean)
"This is the whole reason why I have been posting on this thread.
If you look back at some of my earlier posts I have used a method
initially suggested by Steve to check what the decay rates are for
all 11 SN from the Knop paper. He suggested measuring off the
templates from figures 1 and 2 . He suggested comparing how long
it takes to decay by 1 mag from peak+1 to peak +2 from the
templates which I did by measuring off the graphs in figs 1and 2
in Knops paper and seeing how this compares with the same from a
restframe low z SN from Reiss` paper. (1995D was suggested by
Steve).
I found that there is on average no or negligible time dilation
for all 11 SN when compared with 1995D.I posted the results in
several earlier posts on this thread. "

Err, above you talked about *using only the table data*. In
this paragraph, you talk about *measuring off the graphs*.
Sorry. Wrong reference I gave. (You asked for the table data
demonstration and I gave you the fitted curves demonstration.)
Nonetheless the table data demonstration was also explained to
you only a couple of posts ago. Heres the exchange we had with
my explanation of how I get a no time dilation from the tables
responding to your question.(Im surprised that you couldnt find
this yourself as it was in my last couple of posts)
(Bjorn)
"..How did you determine the new lightcurve?..."
(Sean)
"..I plotted out the table data onto a graph. For multiple
measurements on the same day like 50817 or 50819 I average out for
a day average and plot that as one datapoint.(which Knop also does
incidentally) I then have a graph where peak+1 needs to occur at
1 mag less than the highest averaged day peak of 4.65 on day 50817.
This I work out to being 1.8. On the graph the only place this can
occur with available data is between 50835 and day 50846. Calcula-
ting a standard linear decay rate between those two points gives me
1.8 at about day 26. ETcetc for the next reading of peak+2 at 0.74
Its about as accurate mathematically that I can get using day
averages which Knop does but by being more accurate than Knop
because I dont determine the peak mag by averaging out over
20 days as he appears to do just to bring the actual observed
peak mag down to fit his template.
It also happens that the 12 day decay rate matches very closely
the 10 day rate for the restframe low z 1995D lightcurve which
I feel strengthens the validity of my methods . Its no accident
that they match as the `no time dilation` theory predicts it..."

See above. I still think you two talked about two different
SNs. I pointed that out already some weeks ago - you never
replied to that statement of mine
Maybe a while back Steve and were talking about 2 different SN
but my calculations above refer to 1997ek and it is also 1997ek
that he uses for his calculations. So my comments above still
stand.
He uses the HST reading of 1.54 on day 50846 as his peak+1
when I can show that it is an incorrect assumption by directing
anyone to look at the fig of 1997ek to see that the HST reading
Steve uses is NOT at peak+1 but 2 days later and noticeably
below 0.4 .(Remember, 0.4 is the *correct* peak+1 and
1.54 is not at 0.4 on the graph)
I'll have to look up again where you actually used the fitted
curves.
Way back in the thread. But here are those results again,
although you may have to read a few of those old posts in
context to better understand what Steve and I were talking
about.
X
1997ek (restframe438nm) z=.86 14.5/10 =1.45should be1.86
1998eq (restframe469nm) z=.54 15/14.5 =1.03 " 1.54
1997ez (restframe457nm) z=.78 16/13 =1.2 " 1.78
1998as (restframe602nm) z=.35 23/22 =1.04 " 1.35
1998aw (restframe565nm) z=.44 27/20.5 =1.3 " 1.44
1998ax (restframe542nm) z=.50 30/22 =1.36 " 1.50
1998ay (restframe496nm) z=.64 20/17.5 =1.2 " 1.64
1998ba (restframe569nm) z=.43 24.5/22 =1.1 " 1.43
1998be (restframe496nm) z=.64 18/17.5 =1.02 " 1.64
1998bi (restframe467nm) z=.74 15.5/14.5=1.1 " 1.74
2000fr (restframe528nm) z=.54 24.5/22 =1.1 " 1.54

Just to give a bit of explanation. The column of ratios
under `X` starting with 14.5/10 are a ratio of A/B, or, high
redshift SN/low redshift SN
`A` is the day count for peak+1 to peak+2 from the templates
in fig 1 Knop. B is the day count for peak+1 to peak+2 from
the rest frame SN 1995D which is a low redshift SN.
If there were no time dilation the ratio should be 1
If there were time dilation it should be something like
1.86 (for1997ek) depending on the high redshift SN.As you
can see on average most show no time dilation. If you
dont agree you`ll have to go to those figures and show me
what you think are the correct peak+1 to peak+2 day counts
So there you have it Bjorn. All the numbers taken as
accurately as possible from Knops figures and,.. for
the table demonstration of no time dilation I`ve also
supplied all the numbers and method used , all taken
directly from Knops tables. If you dont agree show
me where you think those numbers are incorrect and show me
your corrected calculations.
Incidentally I now know why the templates show no time
dilation even though they have been `stretched` by1+z.
The reason is that the Knops fitting formula best fit
uses the lowest end of the error margin of the highest
average day peak from the tables. That way he gets the
template to match the data from about day 20 onwards and
giving the false impression that the table data then must
be time dilated. If he had fitted the template to the
actual peak day measurement of 4.6 he would have found
that his template dilated by 1+z would not fit
any table data after about day 15-20. I`ve tested this by
normalizing the 1997ek template with the data peak at 4.6
rather than Knops incorrect lower peak of 3.89. What I find
is that the template matches up to about day 15 and then
becomes too time dilated to match the data.
Not only that but if I then take sample points along the
now too time dilated template and divide by 1.86
I find that the template now compressed back to*RESTFRAME*
and normalized to the average table day peak of 4.6 fits
the table data PERFECTLY !!!!!
In other words although the undilated original restframe
template actually better FITTED the table data , Knop
ignored this and used an incorrect too low peak of
3.89 for his template just so that when he dilated its
timescale it still would appear to fit the data and thus
incorrectly prove time dilation. A stunning find and final
proof that there is definitely no time dilation of SN`s.
And if you believe me I challenge you to find the original
undilated master template (p99 I think) and see if it fits
the table data. I think its available as the R band template
on page 9 table 2 but Im not sure if its been already
time dilated or not.?

How can you be so damn sure that there will be none? That's
not a scientific attitude - that's a religious attitude.

My GRB model is based solely on classical wave only
propogation of emr. Ive heard a lot of different critism of
wave only theory but yours is the first to accuse it of
being too religious! Very creative Bjorn.
In fact I am *cautiously* confident that no redshift will be
observed, but only if the x ray spectra made by SWIFT is of
the GRB xray afterglow at its peak. Its hard to figure out
in the NASA literature if the x ray spectra is made of the
GRB afterglow itself or of the nearest available high
redshift galaxy. If the latter is the case then yes a red
shift will be observed but I point out that in that case
it will only be of a high redshift galaxy and not the
GRB itself. Looking at the press release just now though
I see a fundamental error in NASA`s methods. The xrt field
of view will automatically select a host galaxy from within
its field of view for the much smaller uvot camera to search
for an optical afterglow. This presupposes that grb`s are
only located in galaxies which they are not. The likely
result of this flawed approach is that in many cases no
OT will be found by the uvot camera simply because it
will be looking in the wrong part of the XRT field of
view. We have the same problem with IPN where because it
incorrectly locates GRBs in the wrong part of the sky no
OTs are ever found from IPN only localizations and very few
are found where the IPN overlaps only part of the more
accurate HETE and Integral localizations.I will contact
NASA immediately about this mistake.
Sean


Sean

In article ,
"sean" writes:
If a k correction to rest frame has nothing to do with
multiplying or dividing the template time axis with 1+z
then how do you explain the following quote from Knop
(page 10 col 2)...

"In order to perform lightcurve template fit-
ting, a cross-filter K-correction must be applied
to transform the data in the *observed filter* into
a *rest-frame magnitude* in the filter used for the
lightcurve template (Kim, Goobar, & Perlmutter
1996). The *color correction* to the nearest stan-
dard Bessell filter followed by a *K-correction to
a rest-frame filter* is equivalent to a direct K-
correction from the observed filter to the stan-
dard rest-frame filter."

If you don't know what the k-correction is, I can see where the above
paragraph wouldn't teach you. Perhaps an example will clarify.

Suppose we observe a nearby SN in B, and a distant SN -- say 1997ek,
z=0.86 -- in I. If the I filter cuton and cutoff wavelengths were
exactly 1.86 times longer than the respective B filter wavelengths,
we would be making the exact same measurement in the rest frames of
the two SNe. For 1987ek this is almost true, but for say 1997eq at
z=1.54 it won't be very close. The rest-frame B magnitude will be
related to some combination of observed R and I magnitudes but not
exactly equal to either one of them. The process of correcting the
observations from the wavelengths actually observed to rest frame in
a standard filter is the k-correction.

As you will see from reading the paragraph you quote, the
k-correction is entirely in the magnitudes. The times of the
observations are not changed.

You could have saved Bjoern and me a lot of work if you had simply
asked what the k-correction is instead of guessing.

If you look at fig 1, Steve uses the HST reading of 1.54 as his
peak+1.
But it isnt at peak+1 on the template! As the fitted curve
peak is normalized to 1 the peak+1 must be at 0.4. A close look
at the graph shows that 1.54 sits clearly after 0.4 by about 2
days and below 0.4.

I have no idea where you get this. Are you looking at 1997ek in
Figure 1 from the Knop et al. paper? If I draw a horizontal line
between the 0.4 tick marks on each side of the graph, it goes
directly through the point for the HST reading. The time is clearly
before 30 days, but the exact value is hard to read from the graph.
I make it about 28 days or so, and this is consistent with the times
in Table 11.

--
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.)

sean wrote:
So I still have no idea where you got the strange notion
from that the K correction has anything to do with changing
the time axis by a factor 1+z. It doesn't.

Im glad your willing to confirm that the table data has
not been transformed by 1+z. Because that fits with my
analysis of the 1997ek table data which shows no time
dilation.

Well, if you now agree with me that the K correction has
nothing to do with transforming the time axis by a factor
1+z, you have the problem again that Knop et al. *did* obtain
time dilation in their analysis. Your claim about "20 day
averages" and the like below is simply wrong.


[snip]


Sorry. Wrong reference I gave. (You asked for the table data
demonstration and I gave you the fitted curves demonstration.)
Nonetheless the table data demonstration was also explained to
you only a couple of posts ago. Heres the exchange we had with
my explanation of how I get a no time dilation from the tables
responding to your question.(Im surprised that you couldnt find
this yourself as it was in my last couple of posts)
(Bjorn)
"..How did you determine the new lightcurve?..."
(Sean)
"..I plotted out the table data onto a graph. For multiple
measurements on the same day like 50817 or 50819 I average out for
a day average and plot that as one datapoint.(which Knop also does
incidentally) I then have a graph where peak+1 needs to occur at
1 mag less than the highest averaged day peak of 4.65 on day 50817.
This I work out to being 1.8. On the graph the only place this can
occur with available data is between 50835 and day 50846. Calcula-
ting a standard linear decay rate between those two points gives me
1.8 at about day 26. ETcetc for the next reading of peak+2 at 0.74
Its about as accurate mathematically that I can get using day
averages which Knop does but by being more accurate than Knop
because I dont determine the peak mag by averaging out over
20 days as he appears to do just to bring the actual observed
peak mag down to fit his template.
It also happens that the 12 day decay rate matches very closely
the 10 day rate for the restframe low z 1995D lightcurve which
I feel strengthens the validity of my methods . Its no accident
that they match as the `no time dilation` theory predicts it..."

I already explained the problems with this method (it completely
ignores the actually known light curves!)


See above. I still think you two talked about two different
SNs. I pointed that out already some weeks ago - you never
replied to that statement of mine

Maybe a while back Steve and were talking about 2 different SN
but my calculations above refer to 1997ek and it is also 1997ek
that he uses for his calculations. So my comments above still
stand.
He uses the HST reading of 1.54 on day 50846 as his peak+1
when I can show that it is an incorrect assumption by directing
anyone to look at the fig of 1997ek to see that the HST reading
Steve uses is NOT at peak+1 but 2 days later and noticeably
below 0.4 .(Remember, 0.4 is the *correct* peak+1 and
1.54 is not at 0.4 on the graph)

Sorry, but to me it looks as if the HST reading indeed *is* at
0.4 on the graph.


I'll have to look up again where you actually used the fitted
curves.

Way back in the thread. But here are those results again,
although you may have to read a few of those old posts in
context to better understand what Steve and I were talking
about.
X
1997ek (restframe438nm) z=.86 14.5/10 =1.45should be1.86
1998eq (restframe469nm) z=.54 15/14.5 =1.03 " 1.54
1997ez (restframe457nm) z=.78 16/13 =1.2 " 1.78
1998as (restframe602nm) z=.35 23/22 =1.04 " 1.35
1998aw (restframe565nm) z=.44 27/20.5 =1.3 " 1.44
1998ax (restframe542nm) z=.50 30/22 =1.36 " 1.50
1998ay (restframe496nm) z=.64 20/17.5 =1.2 " 1.64
1998ba (restframe569nm) z=.43 24.5/22 =1.1 " 1.43
1998be (restframe496nm) z=.64 18/17.5 =1.02 " 1.64
1998bi (restframe467nm) z=.74 15.5/14.5=1.1 " 1.74
2000fr (restframe528nm) z=.54 24.5/22 =1.1 " 1.54

Just to give a bit of explanation. The column of ratios
under `X` starting with 14.5/10 are a ratio of A/B, or, high
redshift SN/low redshift SN
`A` is the day count for peak+1 to peak+2 from the templates
in fig 1 Knop.

I.e. from 0.4 to 0.16? Looks rather difficult to read that
accurately off the graph. You should include some error
margins in your table above; I don't think one can achieve
a better accuracy than +-2 days.

For me, the peak+1 magnitude seems to be at 28 days, and
the peak+2 magnitude at 42 days, which gives a time difference of
roughly 14+-3 days. That is consistent with the 14.5 days you mention
above (how on earth did you manage to get an accuracy of 0.5 days?).
Assuming that the 10 days from SN 1995D also have such an error
margin, I get for the ratio: 1.4 +- 0.52. Obviously 1.86 is
still well within that range. If I assume that the 10 days
are totally secure, without any errors, I still get 1.4 +- 0.3,
so that 1.86 is still within a two sigma bound.


B is the day count for peak+1 to peak+2 from
the rest frame SN 1995D which is a low redshift SN.

Also read off from graphs, with the same difficulties in
accuracy, probably?


If there were no time dilation the ratio should be 1
If there were time dilation it should be something like
1.86 (for 1997ek) depending on the high redshift SN. As you
can see on average most show no time dilation.

I'll leave it to you to repeat your analysis, including proper error
margins this time. It simply makes no sense to pretend that you
can read off the times with an accuracy of 0.5 days!


If you
dont agree you`ll have to go to those figures and show me
what you think are the correct peak+1 to peak+2 day counts

Done for SN 1997ek.


So there you have it Bjorn. All the numbers taken as
accurately as possible from Knops figures

Well, since both Steve and I disagree with you on the placement
of the value 0.4, apparently either you or we were not accurate
enough, don't you think?


and,.. for
the table demonstration of no time dilation I`ve also
supplied all the numbers and method used, all taken
directly from Knops tables.

And I explained why that method makes little sense.


If you dont agree show
me where you think those numbers are incorrect and show me
your corrected calculations.

Including a proper analysis of the error margins is already
enough, as shown above.


Incidentally I now know why the templates show no time
dilation even though they have been `stretched` by 1+z.
The reason is that the Knops fitting formula best fit
uses the lowest end of the error margin of the highest
average day peak from the tables.

No, it doesn't. Thanks for showing that you *still* have
not understood the actual method.


That way he gets the
template to match the data from about day 20 onwards and
giving the false impression that the table data then must
be time dilated. If he had fitted the template to the
actual peak day measurement of 4.6 he would have found
that his template dilated by 1+z would not fit
any table data after about day 15-20.

They fitted the template using *all data simultaneously*, obtaining
the best possible fit of the *known* light curve to *all data
at once*. How often do I need to repeat this before it sinks
in?


I`ve tested this by
normalizing the 1997ek template with the data peak at 4.6
rather than Knops incorrect lower peak of 3.89.

Knop et al. did not use an "incorrect lower peak of 3.89". Stop
repeating these falsehoods, please.


What I find
is that the template matches up to about day 15 and then
becomes too time dilated to match the data.
Not only that but if I then take sample points along the
now too time dilated template and divide by 1.86
I find that the template now compressed back to *RESTFRAME*
and normalized to the average table day peak of 4.6 fits
the table data PERFECTLY !!!!!

All that is done by ignoring the actual fit to the *known*
light curve...

Do you have access to Mathematica or Maple? If yes, I can tell
you how you can do such a fit on your own.


In other words although the undilated original restframe
template actually better FITTED the table data , Knop
ignored this and used an incorrect too low peak of
3.89 for his template just so that when he dilated its
timescale it still would appear to fit the data and thus
incorrectly prove time dilation.

No, they didn't. Stop repeating this falsehood.


A stunning find and final
proof that there is definitely no time dilation of SN`s.

A final proof that you still do not understand the actual
method employed by Knop et al.


And if you believe me I challenge you to find the original
undilated master template (p99 I think)

You probably mean page 9.


and see if it fits
the table data. I think its available as the R band template
on page 9 table 2 but Im not sure if its been already
time dilated or not.?

It has not been time dilated, as is clear from the explanations
given.

Do you expect me to do a "visual" fit, like you have done all
the time, or to do a real, accurate chi squared fit? If the
latter, no, thanks, I know how inaccurate that is; if the second,
I would prefer if I teach you first how that is done, and then
we do that *both*.


How can you be so damn sure that there will be none? That's
not a scientific attitude - that's a religious attitude.


My GRB model is based solely on classical wave only
propogation of emr. Ive heard a lot of different critism of
wave only theory but yours is the first to accuse it of
being too religious!

I did not accuse your theory of being too religious - I
accused your *attitude* that no redshift will be observed.


Very creative Bjorn.
In fact I am *cautiously* confident that no redshift will be
observed

Statements like "It will be interesting to see how the theorists explain
the lack of redshift. " do not sound like "cautiously confident". They
sound like "damn sure".


but only if the x ray spectra made by SWIFT is of
the GRB xray afterglow at its peak. Its hard to figure out
in the NASA literature if the x ray spectra is made of the
GRB afterglow itself or of the nearest available high
redshift galaxy.

Probably of the afterglow itself, since galaxies usually don't
have so much x ray emission as a GRB.


If the latter is the case then yes a red
shift will be observed but I point out that in that case
it will only be of a high redshift galaxy and not the
GRB itself. Looking at the press release just now though
I see a fundamental error in NASA`s methods. The xrt field
of view will automatically select a host galaxy from within
its field of view for the much smaller uvot camera to search
for an optical afterglow. This presupposes that grb`s are
only located in galaxies which they are not.

And you know this how? Again, statements like "which they
are not" and "fundamental error" sound like "damn sure" - not
like "cautiously confident".


The likely
result of this flawed approach is that in many cases no
OT will be found by the uvot camera simply because it
will be looking in the wrong part of the XRT field of
view.

We'll see...


We have the same problem with IPN where because it
incorrectly locates GRBs in the wrong part of the sky no
OTs are ever found from IPN only localizations and very few
are found where the IPN overlaps only part of the more
accurate HETE and Integral localizations.I will contact
NASA immediately about this mistake.

[Mod. note: sentence removed for charter compliance -- mjh]


Bye,
Bjoern
#

In article ,
(Steve Willner) writes:

In article ,
"sean" writes:
If a k correction to rest frame has nothing to do with
multiplying or dividing the template time axis with 1+z
then how do you explain the following quote from Knop
(page 10 col 2)...

"In order to perform lightcurve template fit-
ting, a cross-filter K-correction must be applied
to transform the data in the *observed filter* into
a *rest-frame magnitude* in the filter used for the
lightcurve template (Kim, Goobar, & Perlmutter
1996). The *color correction* to the nearest stan-
dard Bessell filter followed by a *K-correction to
a rest-frame filter* is equivalent to a direct K-
correction from the observed filter to the stan-
dard rest-frame filter."

If you don't know what the k-correction is, I can see where the above
paragraph wouldn't teach you. Perhaps an example will clarify.

Suppose we observe a nearby SN in B, and a distant SN -- say 1997ek,
z=0.86 -- in I. If the I filter cuton and cutoff wavelengths were
exactly 1.86 times longer than the respective B filter wavelengths,
we would be making the exact same measurement in the rest frames of
the two SNe. For 1987ek this is almost true, but for say 1997eq at
z=1.54 it won't be very close. The rest-frame B magnitude will be
related to some combination of observed R and I magnitudes but not
exactly equal to either one of them. The process of correcting the
observations from the wavelengths actually observed to rest frame in
a standard filter is the k-correction.

As you will see from reading the paragraph you quote, the
k-correction is entirely in the magnitudes. The times of the
observations are not changed.

I haven't been following this thread very closely, but since the
confusion seems to revolve around this point, let me put in my 2 cents.

As mentioned above, the k-correction transforms the observed magnitude
into the magnitude at z=0. There are two components to this. One is
that the wavelength interval of the filter is stretched by (1+z). The
other is that the magnitude at the observed wavelength can be different
than that at that wavelength divided by (1+z), i.e. what would be
observed at z=0. BOTH of these are in the k-correction. (Older
literature can be confusing, since back in the old days some folks
absorbed the (1+z) factor into their definition of distance. This
wasn't wrong, but the current practice is more straightforward.)