Falsifying a young Universe. (re: Supernova 1987A)

The proof of this can be found here:http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/sn1987a/

Yes, there is a way to calculate the ring diameter by the way it was constructed. Paresce et al (1995 A&A Vol 299, pg 823) calculated the ring diameter of Nova Cygni 1992 based on
Distance = velocity * time.Refer:
The structure and evolution of the Nova V1974 Cygni shell from HST observations. - NASA/ADSAstronomers messed up the interpretation of sn1987a. I believe I have understood SN1987A clearly. My interpretation can be found here:http://www.geocities.com/peaceharris/sn1987a/The claim that the ring around sn1987a was formed before the star exploded has zero evidence.

Hello Sylas,The expansion rate of the ring would be detected easily if it continued to expand at velocities more than 1000km/s. But the ring expands at such high velocities only for the first few months, after that the expansion velocity decreases. This has been observed for nova cygni 1992. (refer table 3 of AJ Vol 121, pg 1636).Imagine throwing a stone vertically up. Will the stone always have the same initial velocity? No! It's velocity will decrease. Once the velocity drops after the first year, it would be difficult to measure the expansion rate.Sylas wrote "The speed of the ejecta from the explosion was also able to be found by spectral analysis, and based on this, and the size of the ring, a prediction was made in 1994 (Luo and McCray) that ejecta from the explosion would be seen to collide with the outer rings about 9 to 15 years after the explosion; in 1999 +/- 3 years. This prediction was spectacularly confirmed, as the rings have been lighting up from this predicted collision. This also is proof that the rings were in place well before the explosion and of the measured size."Harris: The calculations of Luo, McCray and Slavin (ApJ Vol 430, pg 264) predict that a "A bright arc will suddenly appear at the near side of the ring and grow into an entire ring about 11 months later."A tilted circular ring would look like an ellipse to us. The nearest and farthest side is along the minor axis of the ellipse. Could you show me a picture of the ring with a bright spot at the minor axis? 5.5 months later, half of the ellipse should be bright and the other half dark. The boundary separating these would be the major axis. Could you please tell me where I can find this photo? Please do tell me when exactly the bright arc appeared. I would like to compare the images taken on this date with an image taken 11 months later.regards,
Harris

Those who believe that the neutrinos came from a single source, were forced to 'rewrite' traditional physics.Prior to 1987, SN theory suggested that the neutrinos are formed within the time interval of a second. It wasn't very neccessary to rewrite traditional physics if there was more than 1 source.For example, Giani Simone argued that neutrinos can travel superluminally.
refer: http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-ph/pdf/9712/9712265.pdfde Rujula argued that supernova can 'bang twice'. He argued that there were 2 stages for sn1987a, where the core first collapsed to form a neutron star, then recollapsed to form a black hole.refer: Error: DOI Not Found(87)91709-6You have to copy the whole link above, I am unable to get the link above working.Does the neutrinos from sn1987a have anything to do with its distance?This message has been edited by peaceharris, 03-29-2005 12:04 AM

Are you saying that they do not predict that a bright arc will suddenly appear at the near side of the ring and grow into an entire ring about 11 months later?Are you saying that they do not believe the ring to be a tilted circle?You wrote, "... the difference in time for light traveling from the star to the portion of the ring nearest us lighting up "Luo et al are not talking about the 'light' travelling from the star to the ring. They are talking about the 'ejecta' from the star hitting the ring and illuminating it.Panagia's famous calculation is based on the 'light' travelling from the star and illuminating the ring.In any case, both are wrong in my opinion.The ring consists of the ejecta from the SN. The light from the SN illuminated the clouds of the LMC and and these were seen as the echo.Since the ejecta travels much more slowly than light, the size of the ring was only about 1 arc sec, while the echo reached a size of an arc minute.

Sylas,
Many of the things you say is incorrect. You wrote, "In 1999 the first spot appears, then in 2000 the first spots on the further side. we start to see more collision spots appearing around the ring. "The first spot (at position angle 31 degrees) appeared in 1997. Refer ApJ Vol 492, L 139.You also write, "Peaceharris requires the SN1987a ring to pretty much stop dead after 3 months"Could you explain how you come to this conclusion. I do not believe that the ring stopped expanding after 3 months.

There are a 2 points that I want to make:
1) Why we do not detect the expansion of the ring if it consisted of ejecta? Sylas argued that any expansion rapid enough to make the ring in three years would still be proceeding at a rate to see some difference in the next fifteen.The correct answer in my opinion is that the ejecta was moving very slowly after the first few years. Phillips et al (1988 AJ Vol 95 pg 1087) measured the ejecta for the first 130 days. (I have argued in my article at geocities that the absorption lines due to Fe were due to the central star, and not the neighbors). Within the first 30 days the velocity of the ejecta had dropped from 10000km/s to 3000km/s. Then upto the 90th day, the velocity of the ejecta was constant at about 2500km/s. From the 90th day to 130th day it dropped to 1700 km/s.
It is not at all surprising that the velocity of the ejecta could continue to decrease to 10km/s after a few years! (Sylas made the claim that the current expansion rate is 10km/s, and by playing this backward, the ring was formed 20000 years before the explosion)2) Are the bright spots interaction between the ejecta and the ring? My opinion is that the first bright spot was an interaction between the rings of ejecta. (In my article at geocities, I argued that the larger rings were from the neighbors). Irrespective of whether my interpretation is correct, we must realize that these spots had nothing to do with the predictions of Luo et al. Luo et al predicted a bright arc that would gradually grow into a ring 11 months later. Instead the first bright spot appeared in 1997 (at 11 o'clock position). Then in 2000, 3 more bright spots appeared at position 7 - 8 o'clock. Only after 2001, the other parts of the ring brightened up.You cannot use the the series of 15 images at McCray's website to verify my hypothesis that the first bright spot was formed due to interactions between the different rings. Both the larger outer rings are not visible in the series of 15 images. (I don't know why, but I suspect he used some weird image processing to remove them, since he probably just wanted to highlight the bright spots) But both the outer rings are visible in the image at plate L31 of ApJ Vol 492, L139. In this image you can see that the northern outer ring intersects the inner ring in the NE quadrant.Blue shifted H-alpha emission at -250km/s has been detected from this first hot spot (ApJ 492 L139).Sylas wrote, "On the other hand, we have timed the material in the ejecta now colliding with the ring, using Lyman alpha lines. It is moving at 15,000 km/sec." To use the lyman-alpha emission to prove that the ejecta collided with the ring is not correct. None of the other emission lines are consistent with the Lyman alpha emission. Broad Lyman-alpha emission has been observed by the IUE on sn1987a even in 1987. Astronomers had claimed that this was due to geocoronal emission, but in my opinion it was due to the SN ejecta.I don't see any reason why broad Lyman-alpha emission should be due to the ejecta colliding with the ring. If you want to use Lyman alpha emission to prove that the ejecta collided with the ring, I can prove in the same manner that the ejecta collided with the ring in 1987, since broad lyman alpha emission was seen even then. I think it is pure silliness.refer: MAST: IUE PreviewThe Lyman-alpha line is the most ambiguous line, please use some other emission/absorption feature to prove your point that the ejecta was moving at 15000km/s in 1997.

It is not likely that 3 stars at roughly the same position should explode at the roughly the same time. Nevertheless, most of my opinions are based on observation.The evidence for the 3 SNe is based on the fact that there were 3 bright sources, 3 peaks in its light curve, 3 light echoes and 3 rings of ejecta and 3 emission line objects.The 3 peaks are also backed up by the fact that there were 3 elements present abundantly in each of these 3 stars, whose absorption was seen most clearly when the light curve peaked.There's really no other way to explain sn1987a except by the fact that there were 3 stars which exploded.Reply to RAZD (message 289):
I would like to continue this discussion, but on a much slower pace. Maybe something like 1 post per week.

OK. I created a new thread entitled Supernovae. Not merely to discuss sn1987a, but anything else related to supernovae.