Re: Swift Data rules out beamed theory


George Dishman wrote:

But make no mistake.This post
here and others of mine outlining how redshift determination
is ambiguous, *is* valid research AND based on acceptable data.
Made under good and poor seeing conditions.That my
conclusions use the original gcn that was made under poor
seing conditions is an irrelevent criticism. Dont forget, now
its new redshift agrees with Kecks and Swift it *will* be used
by others as supporting data in future published papers. Despite
it being made under poor seeing conditions.

That's right, the determining factor is independent
verification. Two different observations giving the
same result means it is likely the cause is the
source being viewed and not an instrument malfunction
or obeservaing limitation.
That was a fast u -turn. A week ago that data wasnt good
enough to use in subsequent research because it was too poorly
observed. Now its OK because it now supports official dogma.
Pure revisism of the lowest sort.
Be careful, I think your idea is wrong but that isn't
what I said, I said your reason for dismissing the
data supporting the conventional theory was flawed
and I stand by that.
You have no evidence that you have supplied in these
posts to date which contradict my theory so your grounds
for disliking it are purely emotive and dogmatic.
... but you have no data that contradicts any of its
theoretical predictions. Unambiguously or not.

I have said several times, to avoid your idea being
falsified, you must look at those GRBs which have what
are considered to be unambiguous high red shifts. Those
are the ones that appear to rule out a local source.
You can cite all the examples of ambiguous red shift
you like and they don't count for anything. Consider
the logic before contradicting.
It is your argument which lacks logic here as
I have told you many times that even where the redshifts
are unambiguous they come from data that can be equally
and usualy better interpreted as local source.
In other words the data supports both theories. And
that means my idea is not falsified by the data you
cite above. The opposite is true. My ideas are verified
by the same data you cite above. You have yet to produce
any data that falsifies my theory.
No, the GCN is work in progress, not a final result.
You don't seem to understand the intention of the
GCN system.
I beg to differ. I understand it completely.

Not on current evidence.
Current evidence shows *you* dont understand gcn. After all
you think that a redshift interpretation is the same as data.
No good scientist since Galileo has ever thought
that theoretical speculation is fact.
In fact the very act of posting
a redshift interpretation seems to contradict the whole
spirit of gcn.

Again you demonstrate you don't understand what GCNs
are being used for. Posting a statement that a feature
which could be a Lyman break at some wavelength is
useful informat to tell other groups what types of
measurements might be suitable. They may use quite
different settings and even different instruments to
confirm a Lyman break compared to checking possible
unique lines. Those different methods may not all
be available at all observatories so including that
in the GCN is important.
My argument is that beamed theory is a flawed interpretation
of the data. If lets say for example it turns out Im right
and beamed was wrong. That would mean that many possible
additional succesful observations could have been made
had they not set their observations based on beamed theory.
At the very least they could ignore both mine and beamed
and just keep on looking assuming no particular redshift
Even then the success rate would be better.So my argument
is theoretical interpretation should not be allowed on gcn
because we have insufficient evidence that beamed theory
is correct. And the data shows it to be wrong in a lot
of places. As I have cited here many times and youve
ignored.
In fact the whole reason for starting this therad was to
show that one of my predictions was in fact correct
over beamed theory. I posted here for years the prediction
that the variable nature of decay rates was
real and should not be smoothed out by mathematical
chi squared formulas. You and others said this was
incorrect yet recently Stanek published a paper
that came to the same conclusions I had already
posted for years. Now astronomers are probably
changing their observing methods to account
for thsi variabilty. They could have done this years
ago had they ignored beamed theory and followed my
interpretation.

Right, so if you measure one spectral line at 1200nm,
the source could be 400nm at z=2 or 300nm at z=3, that
is ambiguous. On the other hand if you detect two lines
at 1177.99nm and 1179.19nm with the shorter wavelength
line having double the intensity of the other, then
you can have good confidence you are seeing the sodium
doublet at z=1.
Wrong here. Those same two spectral lines could also have
corresponding restframe lines from the sun, implying the
afterglow could *also* be not redshifted at all.And
judging from the spectra Ive seen the suns equivelent
line features in question would also match the two
lines from the afterglow better than any lab source lines.
And if you want examples look at my website theres one there.
Does the linewidth match the solar spectrum? The Lyman
break is a step change, not a line.
Look at the spectra yourself. Its online. There is no step change.
There is a broad feature and it matches the suns exactly.
The step change is imagined by yourself. I dont even think the
retracted gcn claims one now. The Keck one doesnt.

.. implying no redshift.
Unless of course you continue to exclude my research from the broad
community of researchers on the grounds that I dont support the
current fashionable theory.

I reject it because it is amateurish, you haven't
done anything like the amount of work needed. Take
each unambiguous spectrum and identify every line.
Where possible check the relative intensities of
line from the same species and put those results
on your website then you have something for people
to comment on. If you can do that, the possibility
of local contamination is something that would need
to be addressed.
As Ive said Ive already done this. And Ive no room at the moment
to put it at the site as theres already a spectra
comparison there thats just as good.But I could supply endless
amount of accepteble data as proof. My theory is better supported
by evidence than beamed theory is. The problem
is no one will look because its challenging the current
orthodoxy. Take you for instance. You havent really looked
at my website. Otherwise youd have seen the spectra
Ive got there already and noticed how so many lines and broad
features are duplicated accurately by the suns spectra.
That's the way it works, individual lines are shifted
by an unknown ammount (z) but sets of lines from the
same species must be shifted by the same amount hence
the ratio of line wavelengths is unchanged from the
lab value. The relative intensisties can also be close
though that can depend on other factors.
And this is what Ive done. Ive shown the intensities are
the same and range and width and location is the same.
What else is there that they offer . I do as well and
more than others as I also show the overall suns blackbody
features are duplicated in the grb afterglow.
There are numerous other lines not specified in sun
spectra that are duplicated in grb afterglows. Not
just the few ones I show that redshift interpreters show.
And I can show them or cite the wavelengths here if you want.
Wavelength and intensity ratios is what you should
be supplying. The ones you have done are good but
you need to go on and find them all to justify your
claim to have a better match.
Hold it a minute. Ive done the only 4 that they havedone.
They haveny supplied any intensity ranges nor specific
wavelength ratios. All theyve done is supply the
spectra online with little arrows showing possible
shifted lines. And those they show can fitted very well
to sun spectral features showing a much stronger
case for no redshifting of afterglow.
And dont forget I *do* supply an example at my website
of the grb and the comparison spectra. Thats better then
any other astronomer ever does. And the reason why
they dont is because their theoretical interpretion
is a lot more flimsy then they admit .
Sean

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Swift Data rules out beamed theory
    ... the spectra was before it was reinterpreted to support ... I said your reason for dismissing the ... redshift interpretations of the data were made under the ... How would an alternative interpretation provide ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Swift Data rules out beamed theory
    ... publishing anything else would be misleading ... here and others of mine outlining how redshift determination ... discernible from the spectra. ... feature absorbtion cited by the authors at about 4300A. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Swift Data rules out beamed theory
    ... redshift of many GRBs to be deterined. ... optical spectra. ... Im aware of the seeing conditions in that gcn. ... spectra only of a suspected host galaxy is studied. ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Swift grb satelitte
    ... possibilty that our galaxy is less than 13 billion years ... in mind when I say that there wont be a redshift observed ... As far as I`m aware any spectra to date has ... doesnt contradict my prediction or in the case of the one ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Einstein interpretation of gravitational redshift is misleading
    ... ON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE REDSHIFT IN A STATIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD ... whereas the energy and frequency of the propagating photon ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)