Ari, first of all, perhaps to some extent I was not fair with a small amount of what I said about your position on these matters.

In your last post you complain about off-topic, disruptive posts but just for your information (and antoniseb will attest to this) Jerry et al have tried to turn non-ATM posts into ATM posts-- an act referred to as hijacking a post. I never said his doing this is disruptive although others may think it is. So actually I am showing Jerry more charity than he has shown others in the past.

Ari said: "I agree with this, very tiresome. Unfortunately, we have even a BAUT moderator making these unsubstantial posts criticizing only Jerry's posting style/person. I didn't suggest anything like that about personal motivations." So, you did not use the term ad hominem. However, saying that our "posts criticize only Jerry's style/person" is easily synonymous with saying our posts are ad hominem and have to do with personal motivations. That is pretty obvious, perhaps you should reread your own posts.

Ari said: "Nothing like that came from me. So, you consider me an "ATM-supporter". Is that why you are putting all these words, that I haven't said, in my mouth?" Your website on anomalous redshifts seems pretty ATM to me. The idea upon which this website is based I think would be considered ATM by the vast majority of baut viewers. I never put words in your mouth-- all I did was follow through with the implications of what you said. In fact, I did not quote you once in my last post.

Ari said: "I didn't suggest that either. You can also criticize their sayings by using well-established physics for example." Sure you said it. Here is how you said it: "it would be much simpler to show exactly what is wrong with things Jerry had said in this thread, instead of making these vague arguments about Jerry's posting style or quesses about his mental orientation about these issues." This latter statement strongly implies that you believe the only way to criticize what someone is saying is by exclusively criticizing what specific data they put forth. In fact, the entire last paragraph of my last post that you quoted in a piecemeal manner and failed to see the main idea of successfully deconstructed the latter statement. You seem not to have been able to synthesize the main point I made in my last post which is that one does not necessarily have to use scientific data or "well-established physics" to criticize a scientific view point. It is far from rubbish to say that one who implies that the only way to criticize science is by using science acts as if only people in command of scientific principles/data are qualified to criticize what goes in scientific circles. Here is an example which illustrates what I mean by saying that one does not have to use science to criticize the conclusions reached by scientist: in a recent supernovae paper the authors use circular reasoning by assuming what they set out to prove (see Ned Wright's news of the universe New Data on Dark Energy from High z Supernovae 20 Nov 06 entry.) One does not need to be a Ned Wright, however, to tell when someone is using circular reasoning, or any other type of fallicious reasoning for that matter.

Lastly just because you didn't use the exact words doesn't mean that you haven't implied what I indicated, as I showed above (esp. the ad hominem part).

Barrel shaped is fine. It is close enough to the isotropic luminosity of spherical for my purposes. My point is that there is no beaming effect (no jet) that RussT (who is usually pretty knowledgeable about things) was talking about. A ten percent variation is not that big a deal, though it will be useful to find ways to narrow the observations based on orientation to the poles.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I don't think you thought through what I was actually suggesting. You just took the 'beaming' part and ran with it.

I probably should have left it just like this without adding the second part.

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Antoniseb. Actually I believe the asymmetry can be much larger than 10%. Pulsations of Mira, the Cepheid standard candle run to about 40% on speckle interferometric images. It does not enlarge equatorially (oblate spheroid), but in a polar mode (prolate spheroid). This work is from Nissenson, Karovska, Boyle, and Papaliolios..Ap.J.
Similarly, the radio maps published in the Australian Journal of Physics by Manchester et al show barrels that if enclosed by ellipses give on average about a ~ 7/5 major/minor axis ratio...again ~ 40%. This is not a small error bar. Showed them at Vassar,"92". Three guys in the back said" Holy ----"..does Kirshner know about this? At the time he didn't, Nov....within two months he did. (Kirshner pioneered type 1a's as standard candles). Pete.

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Replying to Folkhemmet’s post #39, I don’t think the idea that modern science can produce complex errors in a complex system is contradictory - a system can be both simpler than the complex errors suppose, and more complex than the simple observations suppose. Trying have things both ways applies to all humans, to “mainstream” as well as to “anti-mainstream” thought. So “. . .specious patterns of reasoning (inconsistencies, confirmation bias, selective use of evidence to support one's view, tending to lend credence to certain views . . .)” can apply to any point of view. I don’t pretend to any particular knowledge, but in my view, “He’s wrong, therefore (or because) he’s an (idiot, equivocator, etc.)” and “He’s an (idiot, obfuscator, etc.), therefore (or because) he’s wrong” are both ad hominem, and the idea is really to just try to keep to the point being argued: “He‘s wrong, because . . . .”

I’m sure there is a book to be written (not by me) on the distortion of science by other human actions, and vice versa, up to and including to the present day, resulting in distorted evolution. I believe harmony and growth are intertwined, integral to each other - maybe even faces of the same “thing” - and chaotic blemishes, while inherent in our system, are to be condemned in human evolution. My problem with the topic at hand is that on a theoretical foundation that cannot NOW be tested, those at the “cutting edge” of cosmology point us toward a universe where life will not exist. This “wisdom” is propagated NOW, and to my mind forms a chaotic blemish NOW. Kwalish Kid’s cosmological distance ladder and what follows from it (re supernovae 1a as “standard candle”) does not convince me that there is any justification for the mainstream’s acceptance NOW of accelerated expansion. I believe it would be much more useful to put accelerated expansion into the same category as say tachyons or what have you. But the cat is out of the bag NOW. Maybe that is one reason the “public” doesn’t believe. I don’t put all the blame on scientists, but there are plenty of five-eighths politicians among them just as there are among the “public”. Somehow this misinformation is getting out.

Re the hot dense soup ball, again that is a hypothetical, what is observed is microwave background radiation.

As has already been pointed out, at least twice in this thread alone, the methods and approaches used in scientific work are as important as the data themselves.

BAUT is an avowedly science-based discussion forum, focusing on astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology) and space science*.

So, the methods and approaches Jerry uses, in his presentations, are as much a part of those posts as the observational data.

Jerry's posts in BAUT, and before BAUT UT and BABB, are all (AFAIK) still available for everyone with internet access to read.

Is it valid to examine the methods and approaches Jerry uses? or only the data he presents? I feel both are worthy of examination.

Is it valid to attempt to draw general conclusions about those approaches and methods, and to present a critique of them? I feel that it is.

If, after a detailed examination and analysis of Jerry's posts in BAUT, one concludes that there is a consistent pattern, of gross mis-representation, of persistent mis-interpretation, of wild exaggeration, etc, is it appropriate to say so? Not only do I feel it is appropriate to say so, but I feel the consistency of the mis-representation, mis-interpretation, exaggeration, and so on points to a deep disconnect with science ... and I think it is important to bring this to readers' attention.

In fact, for some time now, I've been wondering how BAUT can lift its game wrt the kind of a-scientific (or even anti-scientific?) approach that so many of Jerry's posts seem to contain.

If BAUT is avowedly science-based, why should it continue to permit such persistent non-science? Time, soon, I think, that I start a thread in the About BAUT section.

*Obviously, the OTBB and, to some extent, CT sections aside.

I hadn't read this post of your while writing my response to your earlier one, but there's a nice tight theme here ...

Start with 'astronomy is a science'.

Add 'except for within the solar system, and cosmic rays, 19 neutrinos, and a few grams of neutral He and stardust, everything in astronomy is interpretation of the detection (or non-detection) of photons'.

If you wish, you may conclude from this that we know nothing whatsoever about the universe outside the solar system ... and such a position could well be logically defended.

However, it would not be science.

If you are curious about what astronomy (astrophysics, cosmology), as a science, is about - what conclusions there are, what theories, what problems and puzzles, etc - then you've come to the right place ... BAUT is the best internet discussion forum, devoted to a science-based look at astronomy and space science.

If, however, you want to talk philosophy, or religion, or even the nature of modern science, then BAUT is probably not a good place to hang out.

So, what's the essence of the science of astronomy, given that all we have to work with is a few zillion photons?

First, however refreshing the breezes blowing from Jerry's posts are to you, I feel a very strong case can be made that they are not science (see my previous post).

Second, 'perhaps', 'maybe', and other expressions of less than full certainty are the hallmark of science ... which means that of course any of the modern theories in astrophysics and cosmology may turn out to be wrong ... scientific conclusions are forever tentative and provisional*. And there are formal methods for analysing and expressing uncertainty.

Third, science abhors a theory vacuum - the formulation and testing of hypotheses and theories are the engine of science. And in astronomy, the full power of modern physics is brought into play - in the design, building, and operation of telescopes and instruments as much as in the analysis and interpretation of photon detections (another fact Jerry almost never acknowledges ... if he did, he'd have no data to analyse, for example). If, for whatever reason, you don't like the LCDM concordance model, then the most certain way of ridding yourself of that irritant is to develop a better model.

Oh, and I don't know if you know that 'accelerated expansion' is supported by data that is quite independent of high-z 1a SNe - the WMAP 3-year data, for example, and the matter (galaxy) power spectrum (a.k.a. large-scale structure). Of course Jerry knows this, but then Jerry has plenty of non-science posts on the WMAP results too (but none, AFAIK, agin the SDSS and 2dF matter power spectrum ones ...)

*This alone tells you that Jerry's posts are unlikely to be science - even when riotously, blatantly, ridiculously wrong, these posts are not lacking in certainty.

Whether or not you have accused Jerry about disruptive posts is irrelevant when we consider if your own posts are off-topic or disruptive.

Well, you clearly complained about my use of term "ad hominem" in your last post. That was what I objected to.

You are quote mining, tieing together two quotes from my different posts. Let's take the last part of that quote from my last post again with the quote I was actually referring to:

There "like that" refers to "do not figure into scientific thinking". I try to rephrase my comment again so that you would understand it:

I didn't suggest that personal motivations do not figure into scientific thinking.

I'm not the one who needs to do the rereading.

Whether or not I'm an ATM-supporter is irrelevant, because my question was not about that. I asked that are you putting words in my mouth because you think I'm an ATM-supporter?

But, my website deals with ATM subject - that's true. Did you even for a moment stop considering if I might be just interested in the subject and therefore investigating it, rather than immediately assuming that I support it?

Even if I would be ATM-supporter, you shouldn't assume my opinions on certain issues. It is possible that someone is ATM-supporter, and still think that scientific community doesn't exclude alternative ideas. (For the record, I don't think that.)

Oh, you didn't put words in my mouth? Let's see now:

I didn't do the accusation or complaint, so how is that not putting words in my mouth?

I can't control what my sayings imply to you. You can "show exactly what is wrong with things Jerry had said in this thread" also by other means than criticizing what specific data he puts worth. For example, you can show that his interpretations about the specific data is wrong.

And where have I claimed that one does necessarily "have to use scientific data or "well-established physics" to criticize a scientific view point"? I only have suggested that one should criticize the things Jerry says here directly, instead of trying to make him look bad in order to cast doubt about his sayings.

If the circular reasoning is using science, then one does need to know science to detect it, unless it's very obvious example of circular reasoning. And showing that someone uses circular reasoning is quite far from criticizing someone's psychology (post #34), which is just one of the things I'm protesting against.

See above.

You have now made lot of wrong judgements and jumping to conclusions about my sayings, and about my motives (pretty much the same you did with Jerry). That is quite enough for me. You can have your last say, I'm sure you can come up with yet more creative ways to twist my words and make up some more "implications" of my sayings or my website or whatever. I won't be bothered with it anymore. Have a nice day.

-------------

Jerry, I'm sorry that I took part of disturbing your supernova discussion with this off-topic nonsense.

__________________
"Stupidity gets denser in a crowd" - Old Finnish saying. [My website and My BLOG] [Nimblebrain forums]

You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you? I wrote that the cosmological distance ladder is the common way to determine distance, but that the SN Ia observations were independent of this methodology. As such, the SN IA and the cosmological distance ladder can be used to support each other.
The difference is that we can detect and measure the accelerated expansion. The onus is on those who would deny expansion to deny, and explain, the measurements.
Again, there are measurements about the background radiation that must be explained here.

The book that you have said could be written has been written, many times over by many different people. I've read quite a few of them. The good versions of this book take into account the work (and measurements) that scientists perform. Sometimes scientists go astray, though often for good reasons. (The study of phlogiston is a good example.) The bad versions of this book merely look at the conclusions scientists generate, and then in only a vague way.

Nereid you seem to be illustrating an argument that “cosmology” isn’t “science“. And what is “science”? The etymological dictionary shows its roots as “distinguish“, “separate“, “divide“, “cut“, etc. (And that’s as far as my off-topic “analysis” goes.) The LCDM model itself doesn’t irritate me - sources of irritation noted previously and above. I should know better than to post on this science based discussion forum, but I keep clicking on it - have to figure out how to kick the habit of reinforcing negative thoughts - maybe a more forceful exit invitation would work?

Responding (for the last time, promise!) to Kwalish Kid,

“You didn't actually read what I wrote, did you? I wrote that the cosmological distance ladder is the common way to determine distance, but that the SN Ia observations were independent of this methodology. As such, the SN IA and the cosmological distance ladder can be used to support each other.”

If by this you mean:

“In 1917, it was realized that if there was an expansion in such a spacetime, then it would have the effect of causing a redshift in light. By 1923 [Phys.Zeit. 24, 230], Hermann Weyl had worked out the redshift-distance relation that we today identify through the Hubble constant. That is, we have identified that there is a linear relationship between redshift and distance (at least for relatively low redshifts).”

Actually I did read that (yesterday, or the day before?), and even googled around it, but didn’t find anything that I could make much sense of. But today I used some different words and found:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:...&cd=1&gl=us#11

which was absorbing reading (for an ignoramus). It left the impression that the basis for accelerated expansion in the Hubble diagram is indeed model dependent: the choice of the ruler determines the distance measured. “Weyl studied a model of diverging time-like flow lines . . . which were very naturally given by a geometrical construction on the hyperboloid. The orthogonal spacelike sections to the flow lines had constant positive curvature and constituted segments of spherical spaces of the de Sitter radius . . . .“ etc. Sounds like a model to me.

Would it not be correct to conclude that the value of the Hubble constant depends on the choice of model, that accelerated expansion flows from that choice, and that since the Hubble constant value is not yet even now set, and the redshift-distance relation has not really been solved? (By the way, I have no problem with expansion itself, but with the publicity for accelerated expansion as gospel.)

Interestingly, re “physicality” (from the link above) : “Most markedly, Hermann Weyl whose diverging flow line model in the de Sitter manifold played a crucial role for the spread and rise of the later expanding world approaches, insisted on the essentially mathematical model character of the “space kinematic” description of cosmological redshift, which “must on any account be examined as a possibility” (Weyl 1930, 301). Confronted with the turn of many of his colleagues toward the expanding world models he warned, however: “...It is not my opinion that we can vouch for the correctness of the “geometrical” explanation which relativistic cosmology offers for this strange phenomenon . . . with any amount of certainty at this time. Perhaps it will have to be interpreted in a more physical manner, in correspondence with the ideas of F. Zwicky. (Weyl 1930, 300f.)” Zwicky had just proposed to consider a field theoretic explanation of the energy loss of photons on long range passages over cosmic distances. His attempts to calculate such effects were surely premature. But it remains to be seen whether the paradigm of a “real expansion” of space sections, which turned into the completely dominant one in the later part of the 20th century will stay so in the next one.” Has the “physicality” problem been solved?

Re (off-topic - sorry -) the review of books on mutual distortion of human evolution by scientific and other activities, I wasn’t thinking so much about where scientists go “wrong“, but where they go “right”. Any titles to share?

I don't doubt your extensive study in this area, but as I'm sure you know, the use of supernovas as standard candles pertains only to Type Ia supernovas. As far as standard candles are concerned, it's irrelevant to talk about supernovas in general.

I don't get the connection between subatomic parity and a macroworld polar preference....

Let me know when Reese Witherspoon shows up to one of your presentations.

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Surely you jest! (I know...don't call you Shirley)

Evidently this is NOT being understood, or....taken seriously.

Originally Posted by RussT
They get 1a's and 1c's confused frequently at relatively close range, SO, what if x number of the '1a SuperNova on demand' were really 1c GRB's that were 'detected' after their super luminosity phase, when they 'could' be mistaken for 1a's?

Here is a SN site...
http://www.rochesterastronomy.org/supernova.html

Wow, the list on the left side used to be a lot longer!

But, here's the point. I have not been keeping track (Maybe someone has), but a lot of 1c's and 1a's have been being recatagorized!

Before 1997, when a Bright SN spot was indentified, they tried to determine whether it was a Type II or a 1a. Fairly straight forward, yes?

BUT, what happened after 1997? Now, when they find that Bright SN spot, there is a problem.

IF, they did not catch that GRB 1c when it peaked as a GRB, then they could be seeing that bright "SPOT" at any time during its 'fading period'.

And since 1a's and 1c's are in that classification, it is mostly because of the 'lack of Hydrogen' detection, thus the confusion, and that's just at that level. There are definitely other problems with this, that are not being recognized...core collapse definitions being 'one'.

So, you see, there really is a problem here. I guess this goes to the 'reality thread'?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

Cougar. see:http://www.astron.nl/documents/conf/science_papers.htm

p.271

As far as the microscopic/ macroscopic let me take an example from polarized light. The optical rotation of the plane of polarized light occurs in some crystalline solids. With the regular three-dimensional geometric arrays in crystals, it's pretty easy to picture a collection of interactions resulting in photons emerging from the crystal at a fixed angle (Snell) or with their collective planes of polarization affected.
A trickier question arises when one dissolves a water-soluble compound that contains an asymmetric carbon atom. Such substances have both left and right handed isomers....enantiomorphs. A solution of one type rotates the plane of polarized light in one direction, while it's opposite handedness partner's solution rotates light in the opposite. But, what of the asymmetry here? In a solution the molecules are randomly oriented (this is no liquid crystal). Shouldn't the random orientations cause equal amounts of left and right rotations? (It was a question I asked in chemistry class as a student...and the Stonehill professor drew up short, saying "I don't know...good question". It turns out that only certain orientations of the molecules contribute to plane-rotating, and others do so less well. It's then a vector sum of the individual contributions of the interactions. Despite the seemingly chaotic solution internal geometry, a fixed result occurs with respect to cell concentration, path length, chiral molecule of choice. (See Martin Gardner's "Mirror Asymmetry & Time Reversed Worlds")
So, it's no far reach for me to assert that in the same way the vector/tensor sum of the parity contributions from individual interactions at the microscopic level (weak interactions), will have a corresponding macroscopic effect on the morphological structure of expanding supernovae fireballs or their remnants.
So, at a microscopic level, the orientation of a given neutrino/magnon interaction (spin waves interacting with neutrinos give Leinson, Oraevskii the additional 30% scattering and transfer of momentum and kinetic energy necessary to put the Supernova explosion over the top kinematically, and actually explode without recollapsing like all prior models) "feels' the directionality of the B field, like all weak interactions do. The cross section (sigma) for their secondary scattering contains B for the field's strength.
Implicit in this reasoning, is that a stronger precursor B field, a larger component of secondary scattering, a more asymmetrical remnant (whether core collapse type 2,1c, or type 1a)...and in the case of pulsar formation, higher ejection velocities. This is exactly what is seen by Bailes et al "A Survey of Southern Pulsars, MNRAS. Coefficient of correlation for transverse pulsar velocities vs residual field strength of the pulsar (where it ends up)...0.70. Anything above 0.3 is statistically significant.
Not only that but evidence from recent work by Bryan Gaensler (link, above, p. 271) shows that the axis of symmetry of barrel shaped remnants is invariably aligned with the galactic magnetic field's plane. Future work will determine whether this holds for other galaxies as well.

"I tot I heared a Puddy-TaT" Tweety..... pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

The 4% baryonic figure is consistent with modern cosmology, Jerry. I see no problem with that. The biggest reason you are taking lumps in this thread is lack of focus. Avoid flitting from paper to paper. I don't have the time to read and intelligently remark on all of them.

Cougar. 1.The detonation of a type 1a supernova is a giant weak interaction....any thermonuclear bomb is a smaller version of said same. All weak interactions show parity effects.
2.This is known to be universally true in particle physics laboratories, and nuclear physics laboratories throughout the world...every experiment, every run.
3.This has been well known by nuclear and particle physicists for over 50 years, but has been lightly regarded by the astrophysicists and astronomers.
4.Weak interactions exhibiting parity effects means they behave differently with respect to the orientation of any ambient magnetic fields.
5. The magnetic fields associated with pulsars in type 2, 1c events can run 10¹¹ to 10¹³ Gauss, causing strong parity effects...but that's the measured values after the collapsar...during it, it's less as the compact object is assembled from the progenitor.
6. The strongest fields found in white dwarfs..(the partners of red giants in type 1a explosions, runs not far from this. See:http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003hst..prop.6209J
7. So, the rationale for parity effects and asymmetry in those explosions is well considered, and corroborated by the data from the literature. meow. pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Snippet:

Cougar. I'll let you know should she show up, next time I give a talk in the Olney Science Center. I'd like to know if she can see people's faces or animals in the clouds on those beautiful summer days with the puffy cumulus clouds ...great for the imagination when you have your kids out for a picnic...or for a few laughs with friends, lovers, and a glass of wine on a breezy hilltop.

Now, use your imagination in the following. Do you see the two exploding poles in the blue false color X-ray data? How about the bottom of the barrel, and it's sides delineated by edge brightening in near infrared? ...and the composite, visible, x-ray, near-infrared....the whole schmiel?,,,barrel with bottom?, walls?, longitudinal axis of symmetry? direction of blown off lid?.....I do.....and this is a type 1a remnant.

P.S. I dreamed about this last night, so pardon the late edit. If my scenario holds weight, then the alignment of the axis of symmetry of SNR barrels with the host galaxy's magnetic field in general, should lead to a straight-forward prediction....as we locate GRB's with greater sensitivity, and higher resolution (instrumentation always improves)...we should find that the great majority of the bursts are from host galaxies that are face-on to us...nice dancing pinwheels in the viewfinder. That puts us directly in the beams-of-fire. I'll bet a hot fudge sundae. Pete
see:http://www.phschool.com/science/scie...ive_tales.html
purrr.... Pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

Pete would that enable a 'standard candle' measurement? Also, I wonder whether alignment with magnetic field lines would be a cause for two stars to merge.

ngeo. The degree to which the remnant is asymmetrical depends on the progenitor's physical specifications. Highly magnetized stars will be different from those with small fields, whether type 2, 1c, or 1a. Progenitors are not unique, so a band of possibilities exists in each category. The physical dimensions of SNR varies a great deal and some of it is the ISM into which they explode, while a lot of it is not. This will be tricky to sort out. Pete

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

How would you characterize the possible variation within a type 1a's luminosity 20 to 60 days after the explosion based on how magnetic the progenitor was? The same amount of Ni56 will be decaying, and the cloud will be thin enough that only a small fraction will be blocked regardless of orientation, and shape of 'the barrel'.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

The probability that they are getting confused at great distances increases ASTRONOMICALLY every time a very Ia-type that has a longer light curve and is more luminous than your garden-variety, is observed locally.

I am of the opinion some supernova classified locally as type II may also be classified as type Ia in the distant sample. The best example was a Universe Today feature story: A type type II supernova at an absolute magnitude of -22. This brilliant supernova had a very Ia-like light curve and spectrum. It was the presence of hydrogen lines in the spectrum that placed this in the type II category. What I am wondering is if a hydrogen envelope could even been seen at very high red shift?

The primary evidence, the best evidence of distance scaling that supports modern cosmology is supernova Ia attenuation. If this attenuation factor is 1-2 magnitudes greater than currently believed, nothing fits. You can't ignore the recent local events that are 1-2 magnitudes greater than anyone expected when the type Ia supernova was certified as a standard candle. There is no scientifically valid reason for assuming ultra-bright events are strickly a local phenomenon. It is more reasonable to assume that the most distant events are more like the brightest of the supernova observed locally: This is an observational fact that does not support the 4% number.

Sorry. Although may I suggest that part of the problem is the same problem I am having: Supernova researchers keep changing their approach to the data: The is no simple way to look for and characterize biasing trends when the methodology is constantly being revised.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Antoniseb. I would argue that the observed asymmetries in the pulsations of Mira, would argue for a similar effect in type 1a's...they are both thermonuclear powered. While the literature supports a thinning atmosphere with reduced polarization for at least one event, I find as yet not multiple observations for the polarized light indicating asymmetry, to thin on that time scale. I'll keep looking.
As for the nickel-56, it isn't the total amount that I'm interested in, but the distribution over the two polar regions. The chronic barrels are indicative of a pair of torii, emanating from the polar regions stretching the ejecta out. Higher mean velocities mean higher temperatures, and subsequently higher luminosity...not exactly T⁴...but close to it.see;http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...374L..51K

see also:http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301120


see also type 1a models , up to 40 % energy difference..(Schmidt);
August 5, 2004 August 5, 2004 Modelling of SN Ia Explosions Modelling of SN Ia Explosions 25 25
Conclusions Conclusions
Flame morphology and evolution of burning is sensitive to the SGS model:Initially slow burning, up to 40 % variation of final energy, anisotropic turbulence produce Delayed detonations produce phenomenologically realistic SNe Ia: Plenty of energy, nickel and intermediate mass elements. Detonation waves possibly stall in ash.

"We find significant differences in the velocity distribution of radioactive nickel between the symmetric and asymmetric models" A.L. Hungerford, C.L. Fryer, M.S. Warren

__________________
A third rate theory forbids.
A second rate theory explains after the fact.
A first rate theory predicts.
A. Lomonosov

It is clear (from your references) there is observed magnetic alignment of thermonuclear events, there is clear observational evidence of magnetic fields surrounding white dwarf stars, and there is observed polarity and barrelling expansion in nearby supernova remnants. Just putting 1+1+1 together adds up to a preferred (brightest) angle for viewing supernova events: The more distant the supernova, the more likely we are to observe it from the brightest prospective; conversely, locally, we should more likely observe a supernova event from a less-than-optimal viewing angle.

I don't understand how and why the obvious conclusion is being ignored:The most distant supernova are more likely representative of the brightest of the local sample.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

But why should that matter? If the brightest still follow the light-curve-to-peak-brightness relationship, there is no real concern.

The peak-brightness-light-curve relationship has a positive correlation: The longer the light curve takes to drop one magnitude, the brighter the event.

The real concern is that so far, ALL of the most distant events we have observed have garden-variety light curves lengths, and none of them have light curves as long as the brightest supernova events observed in the local samples. That gives us four possibilites, five if you include the unphysical notion supernovae have evolved in magnitude but not in SED:

1) We have not seen any very distant, very bright events.

2) There is something in the intervening space that grossly distorts light curve shapes, basically compressing the aging history. (Extremely unlikely)

3) There is something systematic in the data reduction causing time curve compression (Also extremely unlikely unless...)

4) The time dilation correction factor is artificially compressing longer light curves and screwing up the distant magnitude scaling. (Which would mean something other than expansion is responsible for redshifting, and/or that the time dilation predicted by GR is not occurring.)

Today, the firm answer in the mainstream world is 1) We have not observed any distant events that are as bright as the brightest in the local sample.

This is why supernova research continues to be so facinating and important: If the sample of local events continues to demonstrate brighter events with longer light curves than the redshifted sampling, one or more basic physical premise used in our distance scaling will become 'statistically' falsified.

Notice that if the sample of supernovae is large enough, it does not matter how we sort them by type: The longest light curves in the distant sample of all supernovae (that are above observational limits) should be at least as long as the longest light curves in the local sample.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/arxiv/p...706.4088v1.pdf

This is a highly detailed paper about supernova 2005gj, which concludes 2005gj is a type Ia event that occurred in a rich circumstellar environment. The light curve remains extremely bright for a very long time, and they attribute this to thermal nuclear reactions involving both ejecta and the 'dirty' circumstellar medium.

It is worth noting that many of the Balmer (hydrogen) lines observed in these events are broadly smeared, which might mean that in a similar high-redshift event, the hydrogen lines could remain undetected. This family of events is 1-2 magnitudes brighter than garden variaty of local supernova type Ia.

See also http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/astro-p.../0611125v1.pdf

Benitti et al, Supernova 2002ic: the collapse of a stripped-envelope, massive star in a dense medium?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Not quite. The high luminosity is attributed to radiative shocks between the SN ejecta and a clumpy circumstellar medium surrounding the SN (possibly emitted by a companion to the WD which exploded). No significant energy input (at these early times) due to "thermal nuclear reactions" between the ejecta and circumstellar medium.

Thanks, but I don't understand the reasoning.

It would seem to me that this would dampen the light curves, not increase the intensity 1-2 magnitudes over a period of months. True, we see a similar thing happening with the Crab nebula, but I don't think there are good explanations, in terms of the total energy budget.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

Here's a simplified view of the energetics. Perhaps it will satisfy you.

A supernova explodes in a vacuum. It sends a large mass of ejecta flying outwards at very high speeds. The ejecta is initially very hot, so it emits some radiation; it also contains some radioactive nuclei, which decay and thus emit additional radiation (directly and indirectly). So, consider this the baseline luminosity of the supernova.

Now modify the situation: before the star explodes, place it inside a large cloud of low density gas. As the ejecta flies outwards, it will collide with this gas. Some of the kinetic energy of the ejecta -- an "invisible" type of energy -- is converted into heat, raising the temperature of the ejecta and of the surrounding gas. This hot gas emits a great deal of visible radiation. Colliding with circumstellar gas (of the right density) will increase the visible luminosity of the event.

Of course, if we make the circumstellar gas _dense enough_, as you are probably suggesting, then the visible luminosity will shrink due to absorption of the visible light. The overall luminosity will still be larger than the baseline case, but it will be emitted in the infrared and radio regimes, not the visible.

The basic idea is that anything that can convert kinetic energy into electromagnetic radiation will increase the (bolometric) luminosity of a supernova. In some cases, the nature of the circumstellar gas is just right to increase the visible luminosity by a significant factor.

This was just linked onto another thread...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN_2006gy

And here is the Chandra version.

http://www.universetoday.com/2007/05...est-supernova/

Does anyone want to take my above post/quote seriously now?

__________________
RussT
________________________________
Everything is, as it should be, otherwise, it wouldn't be!

I have copies of all the IAU Circulars and electronic telegrams for the past ten years or so. These documents contain brief announcements of new supernovae and their classification. I thought briefly of "taking your above post/quote seriously:" I would have to read through the roughly 3000 items (each only a few paragraphs long) to find cases in which a supernova was given one classification, but later changed, then tabulate the results.

I figure this would take me 3 or 4 hours.

Then I realized, the onus is on YOU to prove your statement. YOU should do this sort of work, count the number of SNe which were initially given one classification, then later another. YOU should present the results in a quantitative manner.

That's the way science works. To back up the statements you make, you provide evidence.

So, please go and do the work, then come back and let us know what you find.