|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#72
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#73
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#74
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#75
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#76
|
|||
|
|||
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.) |
#77
|
|||
|
|||
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 # |
#78
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
French's Primordial Study and Schramm & Turner, 1997 | greywolf42 | Astronomy Misc | 19 | July 11th 04 06:43 PM |
FAQ-2-B: sci.space.tech reading list | dave schneider | Technology | 11 | June 10th 04 03:54 AM |
Spirit has a mind of its own? | Jon Berndt | Space Shuttle | 33 | January 28th 04 04:48 AM |
FAQ-2-B: sci.space.tech reading list | dave schneider | Technology | 23 | January 20th 04 11:42 PM |
A single data point. | Rich | SETI | 2 | October 8th 03 06:02 AM |