The Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has over the years been home for radically innovative thought. From its days as focus of the Manhattan Project which gave us the first nuclear weapons, out-the-box thinking has characterised the successes of Los Alamos. The legendary Dick Feynman was a citizen there, and so was plasma pioneer Tony Peratt. The most recent news to reach me from Los Alamos is a paper that addresses supernovae light curves in a way that prompts me to say, “Damn! Why didn’t I think of that?” The author is John Middleditch, and using SN1987A as an example, proposes that issues still outstanding after 22 years of analysis may be explained by one simple fact, so obvious in hindsight: What we see in supernovae is directly influenced by the progenitor object.

He links SNe directly to Gamma Ray Bursters (GRBs) and finds serious issues with the classification of type 1A supernovae as standard candles: “We note that the bipolarity, enforced on early SN remnants by their embedded pulsars, i.e., very fast axial ejection features within expanding toroids, may complicate their utility, as standard candles, to cosmological interpretation […] Thus Supernova 1987A, with its beam and jet producing its early light curve and MS, is potentially the Rosetta Stone for three of the four types of GRBs… Since there is no reason to suggest that this is not universally applicable to all SNe, this geometry has grave implications for the use of Type Ia SNe as standard candles in cosmology.” (John Middleditch Pulsed Gamma-Ray-Burst Afterglows arXiv: astro-ph/0909.2604).

An excellent summary of the principles of SNe light broadening and rise times is contained in Dr Tom Van Flandern’s article “Do Supernovas Prove an Expanding Universe?” (Meta Research Bulletin June 15, 2004). Quote: “There is no such thing as a standard single supernova (SN) lightcurve. SN of Type 1a are standard candles only in the sense that their intrinsic maxima are limited to a range of a couple of magnitudes, but this still covers a variety of light curve widths. More importantly, there is no correlation between lightcurve width and redshift beyond that expected from Malmquist bias (the tendency to see only the brightest objects in any class at the greatest distances). The correlation … appears only when brightness is inferred using assumptions about the redshift-distance relation. In fact, it is precisely because the supernovae do not follow the expected behaviour that forces BB proponents to infer that the universe’s expansion is now accelerating.”

Jerry Jensen’s 2004 paper “Supernovae Light Curves: An Argument for a New Distance Modulus” provides an equally convincing argument that the SNe data contain no evidence of time dilation. (Jerry W Jensen Supernovae Light Curves: An Argument for a New Distance Modulus arxiv.org: astro-ph/0404207). This is crucial, because if 1A SNe have no time dilation, that removes the implication that they are moving away from us (or that the volume of space is increasing), and we may therefore with confidence deduce that the universe is not expanding.

Another angle on the alleged relationship between SN light curves and expansion is taken by Australian physicist David Crawford, author of a model called Curvature Cosmology. Early in 2009, Dr Crawford published a paper under the banner Observations on type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe. A strong case can be made, he argues, for a “static universe where the supernovae light-curve-width dependence on redshift is due to selection effects. The analysis is based on the principle that it is the total energy (the fluence) and not the peak magnitude that is the best ‘standard candle’ for type 1a supernovae.” (David F Crawford Observations on type 1a supernovae are consistent with a static universe arXiv: astro-ph/0901/4172).

The death knell for the use of SNe as verification of an expanding Universe was well and truly rung at the 1^st Crisis in Cosmology Conference (CCC1 in 2005 by electrical engineer and mathematician Tom Andrews His paper on supernova light curves was called Falsification of the Expanding Universe Model and Derivation of the Hubble Redshift and the Metric in a Static Universe, and as you can imagine, the title alone was enough to get my juices going.

The compelling elegance of Tom Andrews’ approach is its simplicity. He invokes another class of standard candle, namely Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs), and compares the light signatures with contemporary type 1A supernovae. If the anomalous dimming is caused by Big Bang’s postulated expanding space, then the effect should be seen in the light curves of all standard candles, not just 1A SNe (T.B. Andrews Falsification of the Expanding Universe Model and Derivation of the Hubble Redshift and the Metric in a Static Universe, American Institute of Physics Conference Proceedings Vol. 822, 2006).

Although they have the same hypothetical cause, curve broadening and time dilation are different expressions in mathematical analysis. Using two independent sets of data for expansion with a third set (compiled by mainstream analyst Goldhaber) as a basis for examining time dilation, Andrews shows that the broadening effect in galaxy light is consistent with neither the expanding universe model nor the notion of time dilation, and in fact directly supports a static (non-expanding) universe model.

In 2009, Tom Andrews put his latest results on the alternative archive viXra. The paper is entitled Discovery of a New Dimming Effect Specific to Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts, and more sensitive readers are cautioned that it contains explicit information extremely disturbing for those clinging to the idea of an expanding cosmos. This 42-page thesis is a comprehensive falsification of the use of SNe data to verify time dilation and expansion. Tom invokes in addition light curves from Brightest Cluster Galaxies (BCGs) and Gamma Ray Bursts (GRBs) to show that luminosity remains constant during the transient event, thus eliminating both increasing volume of intervening space and stretching of time. Here are some selected quotes (I added emphasis):

“Because type Ia supernovae (SNe) are anomalously dimmed with respect to a flat Friedman Expanding Universe model, it was a surprise to find that the brightest cluster galaxies (BCGs) are not anomalously dimmed. Recently, I found that gamma-ray bursts (GRBs) are also anomalously dimmed… Since the light from the SNe, GRBs and BCGs traverses the same space, the current hypothesis of an accelerated expansion of the universe to explain the anomalous dimming of SNe is disproved. The cause of the anomalous dimming must be specific to the SNe and GRBs… Finally, the light curve broadening effect can be used to determine if the universe is expanding or static. In the expanding universe model, a light curve broadening effect is predicted due to time-dilation for the SNe, GRBs and BCGs. Consequently, if the universe is expanding, two light curve broadening effects should occur for the SNe and GRBs. However, if the universe is static, only one light curve broadening effect will occur for the SNe and GRBs. Fortunately, Goldhaber has measured the widths of SN light curves and conclusively showed that only one light curve broadening effect occurs. Consequently, the expanding universe model is logically falsified.”  (Thomas B. Andrews Discovery of a New Dimming Effect Specific to Supernovae and Gamma-Ray Bursts viXra:0909.0009).

Tom Andrews has fired a devastating broadside into the bosom of the expanding universe hypothesis. The stark simplicity of his argument simply crucifies the splinter group that came up with the idea that the Universe is undergoing an inflation renaissance. He has turned their idea on its head, and used the principles of observational science to thoroughly trounce it.

But there is more to it than that, I dare say. Once again in this tale we find that if reinforcement of prejudice is sought passionately enough, evidence will be found, even where it did not remotely exist. This is the great travesty of modern cosmology.