Re: Swift Data rules out beamed theory


George Dishman wrote:
"sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1148036676.322202.287090@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Because it is what they observed. They are scientists,
they make measurements and the publish what they get.
If they published something other than what they
measured, you would (rightly) acuse them of faking
their data. If they didn't publish, there would be
questions as to why they used up valuable telescope
time and produced nothing.
Whats your point here. You just basically said they published what
they measured. Or in fact what they published was what they interpreted
of what they measured. And that data they published contradicts
another gcn.
All I ve done is cite what they published. Somehow you
seem to be unable to accept it as valid evidence, yet you
then say its acepptable because they published it. Make up
your mind.

Then they would be treated as frauds. If a break
is evident in the data, then they should publish
it. The whole reason for publishing is so that
others can check. That is exactly what happened.
In that case why do you reject their findings as unnacceptable?

No, it is called doing their job correctly. You
don't seem to understand how this works. The point
of the SWIFT project and GCN system is that it gets
very sketchy data on transient events distributed
very rapidyl, these aren't formal papers that have
been checked for months and published in a journal.
If they did their job correctly then their redshift
interpretation is acceptable as data for analysis
And as it happens that in analysis it can be seen
to contradict other data.

`Treated with care` doesnt mean discard, if the data
doesnt fit your argument. You argument is emotive and
not rational. The gcn clearly states the Lyman break
is seen at 4800A.

No it doesn't, it says there is a break in their
spectrum and at 4800A and that _IF_ it is a Lyman
break then it implies a certain red shift. I know
you would like it to say something else but we can
all read it for ourselves.
Thats what I was saying they were publishing.
And in fact it is you who wishes they were saying some
thing else seeing as its you who cant accept their findings
not me.

Let me see, regardless of seeing conditions you have
one spectra that says z,2.5 and one that says z~2.7-2.9.
Thats called ambiguity isnt it?

No, it's called you inventing conclusions to suit
your own ends.
Another petty fabrication on your part to disguise the fact
that it is you who invents the conclusion that their data
is unnacceptable. All I did was use their conclusion and
quote it here, direct from their
gcn.
They certainly contradict
each other. If the seeing conditions were too poor Im
sure the gcn would not have been posted.

Too poor perhaps, but it's a judgement as what is
good enough. They published with a warning which
was the responsible way to handle it. You choose
to ignore that warning.
Im not ignoring their warning. I posted it as part
of my argument. It is you who tries to ignore
*all* their observations. And above you even admit it
by insinuating it is flawed data. Its not science
to ignore data that doesnt fit theory. Thats why beamed
theory is bad science.

Yes it *is* contrary to your arguments. You claimed that there was
no ambiguity in redshift determination.

I have said that some red shifts can be determined
unambiguously. Some are unambiguously while others
cannot be determined at all.
And this is of course not supported by the evidence.
As I have already cited this and other examples where the
redshift determinations are ambiguous.
You obviously choose to ignore evidence from gcn.

Ive now cited at least 2 and can find more if neccesary.
And dont forget I can also use these
same spectra to show that the grb is indeed local by comparing the
profile and spikes favourably to a solar spectra. In fact there is an
example at my website. So at the very least one has to accept that
spectra of grb
afterglows can be used to support both my theory and beamed theory.

No, I am waiting for you to take all the data on all
the GRBs that have red shifts that are considered
unambiguous and show that your theory can explain
the specific measurements.
I already have. All the available spectra online can be also
shown to be from a local source as they all match the solar
spectra. As my theory predicts. That is IF the spectra is
uncontamimated by other sources in FOV , and excludes any
spectra where the gcn clearly states it is of a suspected
host galaxy.

As I have said before it is true the same data supports both
theories (actually in some cases it doesnt support beamed
theory of course).
The crunch comes for you as I could then ask you to take all
the data of all grb observations and show that your theory can
explain all the specific measurements. You cant do that as I have
already studied it and there is much data that cannot be
explained by beamed theory. Yet so far there is no data that
that cannot be explained by my theory. And you have yet to supply
evidence to the contrary. Of course you cant do that either.
Hence I made the prediction that a Swift spectra would support my theory
better and settle the debate. Unfortunately Swift does not supply optical
spectra as I had originally hoped.

I agree it would be nice to have the UVOT grism
data but you still have to explain the terrestrial
data obtained in good seeing conditions.
I already have above and previously and will do so here
at the end of my post in more detail.
The spectra also can be used to show local
origins of bursts as well and probably better then
as high redshift.
Dont forget also that many of these spectra are actually
not of the afterglow but of the nearest suspected
host galaxy. Or of the afterglow heavily contaminated by
a galaxy in the FOV. In those cases of course I dont
pretend to suggest that a spectra derived in part or wholey
from a galaxy source is local. Obviously not. In these cases
I argue that the spectra is wholely or partly due
to a galaxy that has contaminated the afterglow or been
selected for study as a possible host.

I can show that they (spectra) are ambiguous and I can show that they
can be used to show that the grb is local at my website. Furthermore I
can use the ALL swift UVOT
observations to confirm an earlier prediction that the afterglow would
peak and decay later in longer wavelengths.

I'll leave Craig to answer that if h's around.
Last I saw he was trying to get you to state
clearly the equation for that but it was a year
or more ago so you may have done so since.
Im not sure exactly what Craig wants as he seems unable to
understand the term `proportional to wavelength`.
But that is the formula you want I believe.
Ive stated this mathematical relationship numerous times
to you and others and at my website and here on
this thread. I dont think you need to check elsewhere
That is the formula. And if you dont understand
go to the first post of my thread `swift data rules out beamed`
theory that I started and whose url I quoted
numerous times a few months ago here on this thread.
Youll find the formula there.
And if you cant be bothered to do that then youll
have to join Craig and argue against my theory despite
not actually knowing what the theory says or what its formulae
are. Whats the saying? You can bring a horse to water but you
cant make it drink.

Any ways it is worth mentioning here that in fact today there
was a gcn retraction of 5131!
Heres the important bit...

Following further analysis of the optical spectra of GRB 060512
(Cummings et al., GCN 5117) taken with TNG+DOLoRes (Piranomonte et al.,
GCN 5145) and VLT+FORS1 (Starling et al., GCN 5131), we issue a
retraction of the redshift range estimated in GCN 5131, which arose
from an error in the preliminary flux calibration.

In both the TNG and the VLT spectra we see no break in the continuum
emission and no obvious features in either absorption or emission.

A possible solution might be z~2.1, based only, however, on a low
significance, broad feature in absorption seen at the bluemost limit
of the TNG spectrum which, if identified as Lyman-alpha 1215A, implies
this redshift. A plot of the TNG spectrum can be found here:
http://www.sissa.it/~malesani/GRB/060512/spec_TNG.gif


So there you are . I cant use this gcn after all as proof of
ambiguity.
But can you ? Didnt say above that it was "too poor perhaps"
as well as insinuate in general that it wasnt acceptable
data due to pooer seeing conditions??
Maybe you can now do a U turn and accept the poor seeing
conditions and say how this is a good example of where 2
spectra agree with each other?
But this isnt the only example of ambiguity and as usual
I have cited others to you which you pretend dont
exist in your usual unscientific maner. They are seen in
600218 and 060206 and in fact Stanek himself calls into
question some of the redshiift determinations not me.
But I havent yet finished with 060512 despite the retraction
because what it does do is offer me the chance to access
a spectra online and show you how spectra of grb afterglows
in fact can be explained by a local source theory as I do.

Ive downloaded this spectra and found that it does
give a good comparison to solar spectra. For instance if you
look at the interpretation of lines by the authors youll see
that they can get a z=2.1 or thereabouts. Yet the same lines
highlited as their evidence can also be equally supportive
of a `local` source explanation. Take the double Silicon
feature absorbtion cited by the authors at about 4300A.
It also can be seen clearly as the G band feature from the
solar spectra. In other words that feature supports both
high redshift and local eqyually as well. And take the all
important Lyman 1215A interpretation the authors use.
I can see that equally as clearly as a local source in the
broad absorbtion like feature in the solar spectrum centered
at about 3750A
As for their other evidence, the ClV feature at about 4800A
is also clearly there in the Solar spectra although my
reference doesnt clarify what element that is but its just
to the left of F on the solar spectra.
Incidentally the solar `local` F absorbtion feature is seen
in the 060512 spectra as a absorbtion feature at 4900A.
Also the H absorbtion feature seen in solar spectra can also
be clearly seen in the 060512 spectra .
And finally aside from the finer features of grb spectra
that can be matched as well or better to a local source
explanation one must look to the broad blackbody profile.
Here again a close match can be found to a local source
solar blackbody spectra. Further strengthening the argument
for a local source for grb. This isnt to say that one can,
if desperate, find features that can be interpreted as
high redshift (even then they conflict as one can see
that the new retraction gives a 2.1 against the other 2.5).
I must point out to you that as I have outlined above
ALL the absorbtion features cited for a high redshift
interpretation can be all explained equally as
well as local source absorbtion features.

Sean

.

Quantcast