Critical comments on publications by S. Hoffmann and N. Vogt on historical novae/supernovae and their candidates

Abstract

We critically discuss recent articles by S. Hoffmann and N. Vogt on historical novae and supernovae (SNe) as well as their list of `24 most promising events' `with rather high probability to be a nova' (Hoffmann et al. 2020). Their alleged positional accuracy of previously suggested historical nova/SN records is based on inhomogeneous datasets (Vogt et al. 2019), but then used for the nova search in Hoffmann et al. (2020). Their claim that previously only `point coordinates' for nova/SN candidates were published, is fabricated. Their estimate of expected nova detection rates is off by a factor of 10 due to miscalculation. They accept counterparts down to 4 to 7 mag at peak, which is against the consensus for the typical limit of naked-eye discovery. When they discuss previously suggested identifications of historical novae, which they all doubt, they do not present new facts (Hoffmann 2019). Their catalog of `24 most promising events' for novae (Hoffmann et al. 2020) neglects important recent literature (e.g. Pankenier et al. 2008 and Stephenson and Green 2009), the claimed methods are not followed, etc. At least half of their short-list candidates were and are to be considered comets. For many of the others, duration of more than one night and/or a precise position is missing and/or the sources were treated mistakenly. Two highlights, a fabricated SN AD 667/668 and a presumable recurrent nova in AD 891, are already rejected in detail in Neuhaeuser et al. (2021); in both cases, all evidence speaks in favor of comets. There remains only one reliable case, where close to one (possible) historically reported position, a nova shell was already found (AD 1437, Shara et al. 2017). Follow-up observations cannot be recommended.

arXiv commentarXiv admin note: This submission has been withdrawn by arXiv administrators due to inflammatory content and unprofessional language

References in corpus (18)

• Estimating distances from parallaxes. V: Geometric and photogeometric distances to 1.47 billion stars in Gaia Early Data Release 3
• Estimating distances from parallaxes IV: Distances to 1.33 billion stars in Gaia Data Release 2
• New Insights into Classical Novae
• Direct Confirmation of the Asymmetry of the Cas A Supernova with Light Echoes
• Observations of Galactic and Extragalactic Novae
• BK Lyncis: The Oldest Old Nova?... And a Bellwether for Cataclysmic-Variable Evolution
• Nova Scorpius 1437 A.D. is now a dwarf nova, age-dated by its proper motion
• Nuclear ashes and outflow in the eruptive star Nova Vul 1670
• AT Cnc: A Second Dwarf Nova with a Classical Nova Shell
• When does an old nova become a dwarf nova? Kinematics and age of the nova shell of the dwarf nova AT Cnc
• Discovery of an eclipsing dwarf nova in the ancient nova shell Te 11
• The star catalogues of Ptolemaios and Ulugh Beg: Machine-readable versions and comparison with the modern Hipparcos Catalogue
• Molecular gas toward supernova remnant Cassiopeia A
• Discovery of an old nova remnant in the Galactic globular cluster M 22
• Spectroscopy of V341 Arae: A Nearby Nova-like Variable inside a Bow-Shock Nebula
• Which information can we derive from historical Far Eastern guest stars for modern research on novae and cataclysmic variables?
• Cataclysmic variables as possible counterparts of ancient Far Eastern guest stars
• Counterparts of Far Eastern Guest Stars: Novae, supernovae, or something else?

Cited by in corpus (3)

• The Path from the Chinese and Japanese Observations of Supernova 1181 AD, to a Type Iax Supernova, to the Merger of CO and ONe White Dwarfs
• Introducing the Condor Array Telescope: III. The expansion and age of the shell of the dwarf nova Z Camelopardalis, and detection of a second, larger shell
• Sunspot Observations in 1684-1702: John Flamsteed and Philippe de La Hire