Re: Swift grb satelitte

Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:<onll7pk9ry.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>...
>Do you have any examples where data was *REQUIRED* to be released but
>was not?

I required them to be released.

>It was *you* that claimed that GRB time delays
>are proportional to wavelength, and *you* that claimed they were also
>proportional to the *difference* in wavelength. These are
>contradictory claims,

You have still yet to show how these two are different. For instance
which of the two does *not* mean that the delay increases
proportional to the increase in wavelength?

>> I find this conclusion of gcn 2916 odd. How is it that a...
>> " drop-off with decreasing wavelength is gradual" as it says
>> in the post, equate with a low redshift grb?

>Three words: Lyman alpha forest.

The Lyman break is a sharp break whereas there is a
gradual drop off with decreasing wavelength noted in the gcn.
Wouldnt there be an abrubt drop off at a certain point in the
observed wavelengths if it were due to the Lyman alpha forest?

>Again, you conveniently deleted an important part of my post,
>which regarded *formal* *statistical* *tests*. The kind of
>tests which have a null hypothesis, a statistical test, and
>confidence limits on parameters. And of course, proper
>treatment of error bars and upper limits. And the point is
>that right now you are using a trial-and-error approach which:
>(a) ignores many possible combinations of valid parameters
>which may not be so flattering to you; (b) ignores
>uncertainties on measurements; and (c) ignores possible
>systematic biases.

Which parameters am I ignoring? You have to be more specific.
Regarding uncertainties in measurements I think you make the
mistake you did when you asked for a chi^2 fit to test my model.
You cant smooth out the variabilities in the lightcurves as if
grb`s were explosions with decay afterglows. The detail that
you are trying to wipe out by smoothing out uncertainties and
applying chi ^2 fits, is in fact the most important information
the data has to offer. This is why beamed theory fails to
explain most grb observations.
And regarding systematic biases once again you will have to be
more specific. Biases in what systems? The observations?
You either dont understand my model or if you do you pretend
you dont because I think the fact is that this requests is
irrelevent to this dicussion
For instance if you pretend to understand my model then tell
me what systematic biases are you referring to? And how do these
supposed biases affect the predictions I have made?



>I meant, "all possible combinations of PROPORTIONALITY PARAMETERS."
>See above for comments on confidence limits.

Show me how `proportionality parameters` invalidate my model
and for that matter show me how your `confidence limits` can be
applied to do the same
Once again you deal in abstracts or irrelevent requests.

If you want to make a point that is valid, once again you`ll have
to be more specific as to what you refer to in my model
vis a vis proportion and confidence. Remember
grbs arent explosions but optical illusions not unlike
sonic booms. Like sonic booms grbs are NOT explosions.
They are optical illusions that occur only
at the point of observation which is why they cannot
be localized by `time of arrival`.

>What does your model "explain?" It contains no physics.
>It contains no useful information about GRBs. Meanwhile,
>other works *do* contain physics, and thus they have the
>advantage, because they are constrained by reality, whereas
>you are not.

This is a ridiculous statement. My model explains grb`s.
Correctly and backed up with verification by observation
unlike beamed theory. And yes,of course it contains physics.
It is the physics of wave propogation of emr . This has been
around for centuries and is one of the oldest, best studied
fields in physics.
In fact it is solely the physics of wave propogation of emr
unlike your physics which contains magic and unproven
speculations like black holes singularities etc. And not to
forget that the specific physics of beamed grbs has so far
failed to explain the majority of bursts.Unlike my model ,
based on wave propogation of emr which so far far can explain
all known grb observations. I notice that so far you have
failed to come up with even one example of any grb observation
that cannot be explained by my model.

>I note that you did not actually read astro-ph/0503508 or
>astro-ph/0503521, which both show *observed* prompt optical
>emission for GRBs 990123 and 041219a.

Your two papers speculate that prompt optical emmision may
have occured but the fact is that there is no observation
that was made in optical at the time of trigger in gamma.
Neither grb was observed before or at the same time as the
burst was first observed in gamma. 041219a for instance was
only observed *after* the first trigger
in gamma . My model doesnt preclude any wavelength being
observed while still observable in a shorter wavelength. It
only precludes any wavelength peaking at the same time as
any other shorter (or longer)
wavelength. Your argument here is a non starter.

>Let's get one thing straight. Electromagnetic radiation,
>up and down the spectrum, behaves in fundamentally the
>same way. Most importantly, it all travels at the speed
>of light, c. Thus, if radio waves from pulsars; microwaves
>from AGN and GPS satellites; X-rays from pulsars,
>gamma-rays from soft gamma repeaters and pulsars, all
>behave in the same way, then you have a serious problem
>explaining how GRBs are magically special and don't behave
>like other electromagnetic phenomena. Here again, the
>lack of any physics in your "model" makes
>it virtually useless at "explaining" anything.

My model explains every known observation of grbs and in fact
predicted most of them , many of those predictions are
recorded here on the web and in fact on this thread.
I dont use magic , your theory does. Dont forget QT is the
`spooky theory` with the magical wave particle duality that
cannot be explained.
Look at the magic of Schroedingers cat.
And my model is based on the argument that GR and the BB are
invalid theories so Im not about to then try and prove that
they are valid or incorporate them into my model. What I am
doing instead is showing how in a infinite non expanding model
where c is variable one can model the way emr behaves that can
explain grbs as the light from a very distant source that is
being rapidly redshifted over short periods of time. The
predictions one gets from this model are verified by the
observations. At no time have I ever said that pulsars gps
satellites etc are also stellar sources from maybe 30 billion
light years distance being rapidly redshifted. When have I ever
made that claim? Obviously if they are not the same phenomena
as grbs they will not have the same observed behaviour as grbs.
Thats why pulsars can be located by IPN and grbs cant. Its
becuase pulsars are NOT moving at speeds away from Earth at
speeds of more than c. GRBs sources on the other hand are.
And if my model is wrong according to you then why is it that
you have yet to show one example of its predictions that
isnt contradicted by observations?

>GCN 3123: provides a "photometric redshift," which (a) is consistent
>with the lower limit of GCN 3122, and (b) is probably quite uncertain
>itself due to uncertain extinction and early calibration status of the
>Swift UVOT instrument.

3123 isnt consistent with the lower limits of 3122.The redshift
in 3123 is at least 2.17 and the redshift in 3122 is 1.44.

>> You conveniently ignore the many times in previous posts where I say
>> that ground based spectra invariably have contamination from intervening
>> or nearby galaxies stars etc.
>Of course, this claim is unsubstantiated. Which stars and galaxies?
>In fact, many ground based observatories have much *higher* spatial
>and spectral resolution than Swift does, and *comparable* resolution
>to the Hubble space telescope. Thus spectra and images taken by
>ground based instruments can be as good as, or better than, spectra
>and images taken by Swift or Hubble. If you had looked at any ground
>based images you would have found that is in fact uncommon to have a
>contaminating (i.e. overlapping) galaxy or star.

Redshifts from ground based spectra are always made post burst after
the optical peak and at mag similar to the so called host galaxy
Show me a ground based spectra with a clear redshift taken at the
same time as the peak in optical ie 15-16 mag as SWIFT should
be able to do and then maybe I will reconsider.
You ignore the fact that I always claimed that SWIFT spectra
would reveal no redshift. And I base that on the assumption that
SWIFT spectra are made at peak optical or xrt at 15-16 mag
so as to be clearly distinguishable from background contamination
from so called `host galaxies` which are invariably 21 mag or fainter.

>I note that you don't substantiate how the atmosphere would
>"contaminate" a spectrum, as regards to redshift determination.

I admit Im not an expert on how atmosphere affects observations
but I assume that if the atmosphere is a gas. And if far less
dense gases like intervening cosmological gas clouds can produce
lines then why couldnt the earths atmosphere, being far more dense,
do the same and to a greater degree ? You have even said that
earths atmosphere restricts SWIFTs viewing capabilties. If the
atmosphere made no difference then SWIFT wouldnt be affected.
For instance ,if the atmosphere doesnt affect observations then
why bother with Hubble?

>Of course, this is erroneous. First of all, observations presented in
>papers are not "smoothing fits," but rather the actually observed
>magnitudes over the exposure time.

It should be obvious that I meant the observations were fitted
to smoothed decay rates, not that the observations themselves
were each individually smoothed.I refer to numerous graphs
on Jochen G website where all the observations of one
afterglow are plotted on a graph with a single straight
line decay fitted to the observations. Its so clear to
see from the better sampled grbs that the decay slope
of the afterglow is multipeaked and not a straight line decay.

>Second of all, even a cursory look at real GRB afterglow light curves
>would show that they *are* well sampled from ground based telescopes,
>and they do *not* show multi-peaked profiles. A review such as Berger
>et al. (astro-ph/0502468) shows this beautifully.

Look at fig 5 from your cited paper and there
are at least 5 different lightcurves from the many on the graph
that show at least several rebrightenings each. And those are
long exposure datapoints that are spaced out by hours and days
apart. The exposures themselves average out fluctuations during
the exposure to one set value and the lack of other data
between observations disguises numerous possible rebrightenings.
How can you even pretend that where there is no data between
exposures that the decay rate is a straight
line between two adjacent datapoints when in many cases the
decay rate between any three exposures is variable.

> Most obviously, all
>GRB afterglows are predominantly *decaying* profiles, whereas GRB
>profiles are peaked profiles. No amount of resampling will change a
>decaying profile into a peaked one. Thus, your supposition is
>erroneous.

I`ve worked alot in photography and I know that if I
had a light source that over a period of lets say 10 minutes faded
from very bright A to nothing B but during the decay was variable
like this..
A X Y Z
..
. .
. .
. . . .
. . . . .
. . . B
If I then took three exposures one (X)between 0-1 minutes the
second (Y)between 4-5 minutes and the third (Z) betweeen 7-8
minutes
I would probably get this decay lightcurve...
A X Y Z

.
.
.
B

As you can see, contrary to your above claim ,resampling, ie
different bin times at different sampling rates, *can* change
the decay profile from multipeaked into a flatline decay slope.

>My mistake. I meant GCN 298, which has a true IPN error box,
>independent of other techniques [, plus a hybrid IPN+RXTE box.]

I dont quite understand you here. It is clearly a IPN Hybrid in
that it is an IPN overlap of an existing Batse box and yet you
seem to be pretending that it is a time of arrival only. It isnt.
Look at gcn 290 which was the first gcn made for 990506 and the
first of several IPN localizations released. And it (290) was
made AFTER the BATSE box was known. How could it be a time of
arrival only localization if BATSE supplied a error box before
the IPN was calculated? Not only that both 290 and 298 clearly
state that BATSE had made a localization prior to IPN.

>Please read what I said. The GRBs listed had IPN error boxes
>*INDEPENDENT OF ANY OTHER TECHNIQUE* (i.e. not hybrids). Thus your
>critique is irrelevant.

And as far as Im aware there *are* error boxes supplied by Konus
for all all of these above. It seems to say so in the Konus
website. And they were made and available *before* IPN calculated
its annulus And finally IPN was aware of these error boxes before
they calculated their annulus. I have even read something to this
effect written in one of the Laros papers or the IPN website.

>I note that you continue to make an unsubstantiated claim that somehow
>the IPN analysis "fit[s] [or] manipulate[s] their annulus to these
>boxes." In the past you have complained that the raw IPN data was not
>provided. Both of these claims are erroneous. In fact, the data
>*have been* provided, in the form of two papers by Laros et
>al. (citations previously given), which you continue to ignore. And
>in fact, the IPN analysis is a very simple application of
>triangulation which does not involve fitting or manipulating positions
>at all.

I note you continue to fail to supply the numbers of the 21 grbs
which you claim to be IPN succeses. If you were to divulge these
I would be able to show you that a statistical anlalysis would
show that there is a clear correllation between the amount of
original error box IPN covers with its success rate.
And I checked those dates you give for Laros. 97 does not seem
to have a Laros paper I can find. Only 98 is available and it
seems to only cover 90-93 in grb data. And as far as I am aware
no OT was ever made of a grb till after these dates so how can
this paper supply time of arrival locations that can be verified
seperately by Optical or radio observations?
I also would like to say that the data isnt sufficient for me
to use from it anyways. There doesnt seem to be any obvious way
for me to check the physical locations in 3-d of the seperate
satelites so that
I can work out the IPN location relative to the location of the
satelites. It would have to have some sort of x y z coordinates
and they would have to be the same system as the localization
coordinates.

Regarding the Laros spectral hardness paper of 99. Am I right in
understanding that figure 9 astro-ph/9910204 vl 12 Oct 1999
shows that the observed peak flux is seen to peak in longer
wavelengths at later times and at a rate which is exponential?
That exponential rate would be what I call a rate proportional
to wavelength.

>Irrelevant. I was not talking about any "hybrid." The fact that the
>IPN *annulus* overlaps with the R-band counterpart discovered later is
>highly significant. The width of this annulus was 5 arcminutes!
>That's 0.05 percent of the sky, or one chance in 1800 of getting it
>right by chance! That's because it's not just luck, it's skill.

This is an irrelevent point. You pretend that the overlap box was
provided exclusivley by IPN and being less than 0.5 % of the sky
that was a remarkable acheivement.
Presumably we talk about 030429 and it had a HETE error circle of
2 arcminutes in radius . It was already known that the OT would
be within that error box and not the whole sky. All IPN had to do
was make sure
that their annulus overlapped part of that box , which wasnt too
difficult to fix. And it does so by about 30 % I believe. So they
had a 30% chance of finding an OT in that overlap. And for this
grb their luck paid off. 30% is a 1 in 3 chance of success. And
as I say the success rate of IPN depends on the overlap percentage.
On average the larger the error box overlap percentage the better
the success rate of finding an OT within the IPN overlap. The
data shows this.

>This is an unsubstantiated claim. Don't you think that for a
>counterpart search to be successful, there has to be an actual search
>first? Here again is evidence of your bias. The number of searches
>of IPN boxes was 21, and of those 8 had localized counterparts, hence
>38% +/- 13%.

Its only good if you can supply the actual grb numbers so I can
see if the success rate is tied to overlap percentage. But I can
gaurantee that if I were to check your 21 it would work out that
they had a larger area of coverage of the HETE box than those
that failed.
Why so reluctant to supply these numbers you claim are so vital
as proof?
Sean
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Swift grb satelitte
    ... > And how could a "delay proportional to the increase in wavelength ... > can be applied to all grbs. ... would be giving proportionality parameters, ... from IPN analysis alone, ignoring any other solutions. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Swift grb satelitte
    ... are proportional to wavelength, and *you* that claimed they were also ... "all possible combinations of PROPORTIONALITY PARAMETERS." ... >>> can be applied to all grbs. ... > I find this conclusion of gcn 2916 odd. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Swift grb satelitte
    ... > from IPN analysis alone, ... IPN Hybrid localizations available on gcn. ... IPN just has to fit their annulus to these boxes to garauntee some ... gaurantee that any selection of grbs will show the same conclusions. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Swift grb satelitte
    ... You dont recognize the fact that delay proportional ... to wavelength means;.. ... >> Of course I am making predictions. ... >> can be applied to all grbs. ...
    (sci.astro)