Re: Swift Data rules out beamed theory


sean wrote:
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.

Yes, that's exactly what I said. My point is that
publishing anything else would be misleading
and dishonest.

Or in fact what they published was what they interpreted
of what they measured.

No, they saw a step reduction is the spectrum so
they told others via the GCN system so that they
could check it. That's what the GCN system is for.

And that data they published contradicts
another gcn.

No it doesn't, paraphrasing they said "we see a
step change, can you guys have a look and if
you get the same.". It turns out there was a flaw
in their calibration.

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.

What you are doing is behaving as if this was a
published journal result. It isn't, it's almost like
a private email between observatories saying
"hey guys, do you seee this too?"

There is a saying in Scotland that is appropriate:
"Fools and bairns shouldna' see half done work."

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?

There are no "findings" to reject, this is work in
progress.

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.

<snip more of the same>

... 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.

I am not "insinuating it is flawed data", the GCN
you are quoting includes the warning that the data
might be flawed. As it turned out, they found the
instrument calibration was wrong so the initial data
_was_ flawed.

Its not science
to ignore data that doesnt fit theory. Thats why beamed
theory is bad science.

It is not science to say a theory is wrong because
of flawed data, nor is it reasonable to say the theory
is wrong because, by the nature of the source, many
of the events do not have unambiguous distances
discernible from the spectra. To say the theory is
wrong you would need UNambiguous data which
contradicts the theory.

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.

Of course it is ...

As I have already cited this and other examples where the
redshift determinations are ambiguous.

Yes, but unfortunately there was a typo in my reply, it
should have read "Some are ambiguous while others.."

You obviously choose to ignore evidence from gcn.

No, the GCN is work in progress, not a final result.
You don't seem to understand the intention of the
GCN system.


<snip more>

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.

I'm not going to spend time hunting for your posts
but if you remind me of your web site URL, I'll have
a look. I believe the confusion came from you
sometimes saying `proportional to wavelength` and
sometimes `proportional to wavelength difference`.
If you have an equation giving the intensity as a
function of wavelength and the time since the event
started that should answer the question.

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.

Exactly. Hopefully you now understand the nature of GCN data.

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

Again note they are saying "A POSSIBLE solution". This
is _not_ a final result, it is a request for others to observe
these features to see if more data can be gathered.

So there you are . I cant use this gcn after all as proof of
ambiguity.

No, you can't. It fact you can't use GCNs as proof at
all, what you need is a final published spectrum which
has UNambiguous spectrum features that prove the
source is local. Real life data is seldom as clean as
the textbooks would suggest.

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??

That's what they said in the GCN.

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?

There is only a tentative identification of red shift from
a few lines. I would want to see higher resolution spectra
from more than one observatory before I would accept it
as an unambiguous determination of red shift. So far I
would say this was a case where it is as yet undetermined.

But this isnt the only example of ambiguity

Ambiguous means at least two possible values of z can
fit the data. So far we have only one identified.

and as usual
I have cited others to you which you pretend dont
exist in your usual unscientific maner.

I'm not going to waste my time going through lots
of these when you obviously don't understand the
nature of a GCN. Nor am I interested in how many
ambiguous spectra you can find, they don't prove
anything. Show me UNambiguoug proof that GRBs
are local.

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.

OK, that's better. Now take all the lines they have identified
and see if you can match them all to specific solar lines
Getting just a few to match is easy and could be done at
many red shifts This is one reason why spectra often are
ambiguous, there may simply be too few lines to give a
unique determination.

{later] having rwead farther down, you have made a good
attempt at that. How about copying it to your web site and
annotatiing the lines with your idea. You'll have to dig around
to find what the lines are.

And take the all
important Lyman 1215A interpretation the authors use.

It isn't "all important", yet again you are inventing nonsense.
Based on a tentative identification from the specific lines, they
not there may be a break feature at that point and are asking
other to check.

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.

As I say, see if you can identify the specific element lines,
precise values are important, but you are going about it
the right way this time.

George

.

Quantcast