Re: swift grb data rules out beamed theory


"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
....
The fact is I never said redshifts of grbs couldnt
be measured. I said the following...

"Any apparent point like source is an illusion and this
may be shown by SWIFT by there being no observable or
confirmable z value....If SWIFT is able to take multiple
spectrum images of early optical bursts in the first few
hours post grb detection..."

Notice I specifically say *Swift* , in the context of
*spectra* of OT`s. Which I refer to several times in
the paragraphs following that quote. As far as I`m
aware Swift has yet to supply a spectral redshift in
Optical of any GRB. Have you access to information it
does? I doubt it.

Your claim is not quite true (e.g. GCN 3923). However, even if it
*were* true, it is irrelevant. Even though it's possible for Swift to
detect a burst, but some other observatory detects the fading
afterglow and determines its redshift, the redshift is still valid.

Craig tried to argue once, I believe, that implying
Lyman break gave Swift spectral redshift capabilities.
To start with thats NOT a spectral redshift, ...

That is false. See "photometric redshift."

... and
secondly he forgets that my theory
predicts that over time the intensity of brightness will
fade first for the shorter wavelengths.

Who cares? The Lyman break is constant over time (at least time as
measured on human timescale).


.....
And just in case you have a problem understanding that
I predicted no redshift from SWIFT specifically heres a
bit of an explanation to help you understand the
science behind my theory.

I have clearly argued in 2004, *before then*,.. and
after, that the usual approach of ground based
telescopes to measure redshift of grb`s (like power
law smoothing ) is an unnacceptable method of measuring
grbs as far as ascribing a grb a fixed distance.
The reason why I specifically made that claim that you
misquote from 2004 vis a vis redshifts was exactly
because I didnt accept at the time the validity of
ground based spectra of purported grb OT`s and I
felt the only way to supply any other countermanding
evidence to support my claim was to rely on upcoming
space based spectra from Swift. Unfortunately Swift
doesnt supply any in optical. I was hoping it would.

Your hopes are irrelevant. Swift is almost always able to identify
the position of the afterglow counterpart very precisely, via its
sensitive X-ray Telescope. There is no ambiguity when ground-based
observers identify the corresponding optical transient, or find its
redshift. So whether you "accept ... the validity of ground based
spectra of purported GRB OT's" or not is irrelevant. GRBs are indeed
very often at high redshift (Swift-detected GRBs especially so).


In fact I believe you *can* see examples in the grb
databases that show contradictions in redshifts for
the same bursts. Or redshift measurements that
contradict observed V-R magnitudes. Etc. For instance
grb 060218 has some contradictory redshift conclusions
from observed data-measured redshift of supposed host
galaxy. See gcn 4790 & 4792 & 4805. Even 4809 although
purporting to confirm an extragalactic source doesnt
quite get around to admitting that new lines , not
reflecting z=0.33 are showing up. They are unable to
explain these , so invoke an SN!

Really? So it has a supernova-like spectrum, has a supernova-like
light curve... pretty good evidence to call it a supernova! I note
that none of the GCNs you mention suggest anything other than z=0.033.

I also note that you are cherry-picking a particularly peculiar burst
(see my previous post). 99.5% of bursts are not like 060218, so it is
dubious to draw any general conclusions from it.


But note that with
gcn 4846 there is a sudden lack of interest in observing
this grb . Why? Is it because it doesnt make sense under
beamed theory ...

I call BS. In fact there have been many GCN observing reports since
#4846 (see GCNs 4847, 4853, 4863, 4866, 4898, 4899, and 4900). It's
quite likely that observers are focussing on writing their papers.
And in fact, several papers have already appeared on the preprint
servers (Sollerman et al, astro-ph/0603495; Modjaz et al
astro-ph/0603377). Your "conspiracy theory" is unfounded.

Thanks for continuing to provide unsubstantiated and erroneous claims!

CM

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: swift grb data rules out beamed theory
    ... confirmable z value....If SWIFT is able to take multiple ... Optical of any GRB. ... afterglow and determines its redshift, ... The ground based spectra isnt valid in my opinion. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: swift grb data rules out beamed theory
    ... published paper has confirmed earlier predictions of mine, ... confirmable z value....If SWIFT is able to take multiple ... Optical of any GRB. ... Lyman break gave Swift spectral redshift capabilities. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: GR THEORY IS NOT EVEN FALSE!
    ... "The closer to the event horizon the light signal is ... the greater is the redshift observed from far away. ... Note *infinite redshift horizon*. ... of view of observers at rest in the Schwarzschild geometry, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)