Quote:
Originally Posted by korjik
You avoided my question. You assume that all scientists willingly participate in fraud to have to keep from admitting they are wrong. You accuse them up just pulling numbers out of air to sound good. You go on irrelevant tangents.
|
No, I answered your question, and so did Dgruss.
Do you know what the 'Magnitude in Blue 50' technique is or what it means? You calculate how many days after the peak magnitude it takes a supernova to lose one magnitude in blue, subtract fifteen days and invert the answer. So if it takes 18 days for a 'type Ia' supernovae to lose one magnitude from the peak in the at-rest blue light band, the value is -3, (I think, it has been a while).
Why subtract 15 days? At the time the method was established (~1995), the average supernova 'type Ia' took fifteen days to lose one magnitude. It should be an easy matter then, to determine whether or not the population observed today has the same average light curve profile as supernova did in 1995. But it is not, and the reason is that even though they are still tracked, the
Magnitude in Blue 50 values are rarely published today. Why not? I really don't know. It seems like a useful parameter to follow.
Since then, at least four new techniques have been developed that normalize about one thing or another. What I do know for a fact, is that the scale has been sliding - the normal distribution ten years ago was different than it is today: supernova vary more than was expected. You can't apply Occur's razor when you do not know how long the field is. It is very hard to tell what is happening when everytime the field is ruled off, a different standard is used. Whether or not changing rulers is fraudulent is generally tied to motive. If the motive is to keep the answer as simple as possible without raising eyebrows, I couldn't call it fraud. I couldn't call that good science, either.