Re: Swift Data rules out beamed theory
- From: "sean" <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 4 Jun 2006 02:58:45 -0700
a week ago I said the data had beenI never said its black and white. In fact if you look
posted with a warning that it was suspect due
to poor seeing conditions. It turned out the data
was flawed for a different reason, but my point
that they are expected to publish and it was
responsible to give the warning remains valid.
Now its OK because it now supports official dogma.Real life Sean, you seem to think all data
Pure revisism of the lowest sort.
is perfect or unusable. In reality it almost
always lies between those extremes.
at my last few posts I can be quoted as saying there
are many degrees of quality of seeing in observations.
It is you who says they are either usable
as is the spectra in question now, or unuseable as
the spectra was before it was reinterpreted to support
beamed theory.
Ok if you admit having no evidence then that can onlyThat's right Sean, that's what I just said.Be careful, I think your idea is wrong but that isn'tYou have no evidence that you have supplied in these
what I said, I said your reason for dismissing the
data supporting the conventional theory was flawed
and I stand by that.
posts to date which contradict my theory
mean you have no grounds for saying my ideas are wrong.
The reason why they thought they were distant was thatso your groundsNo, the reason I think GRBs are distant is that
for disliking it are purely emotive and dogmatic.
many people felt, when they were first discovered,
that they must be local. Distant sources implied
enormous energies which seemed impossible
under conventional physics but their extreme
range is now accepted because many years of
observational results have ruled out local sources.
You are right, I haven't presented any of that in
these posts, but I never set out to do that.
the observed distribution was evenly spread across
the sky. THen they asssumed they must be
extra galactic in origin . At that point redshift
measurements came into play with batse I believe supplying
the first opportunity to give localizations of bursts promptly.
THen eventually they succeeded in catching the first
afterglows in optical at which point the earliest
spectra using ground based telescopes came through and
redshift interpretations of the data were made under the
assumption that none of the lines could be local or
non redshifted. And thus you have the situation where
at no time since has any spectra been checked by theorists
for locality or non rdshifted interpretations
simply because it was assumed right from the very first
spectra that theoretically, bursts couldnt be local
because they were Isotropic in distribution. And if
they were isotropic in distribution they couldnt be
due to explosions because for one thing they were coming
from empty parts of our galactic bubble and the standard
model doesnt allow for bursts of light to be explained by
anything other than by explosion. Mainly because lightspeed
c is supposed not to be dependent on the observor.
Had GR not been dogmatically colouring theorists minds
they would have easily come up with the interpretation
I made in the early 90`s which was that if GR can be
violated then light could be acting in this manner
if its speed were able to change relative to the viewer
while we watched. In other words I deduced that grbs
could be optical illusions (and fit all the data available
in the early 90`s and subsequently fit all the data
as I show it still does more than a decade later) provided
one accepted that GR can be violated.
Another example of where flawed theory leads research down
the wrong path and subsequent observations are
restricted in value because they are not set up to
look at where in fact they really are.
I never said it was. I said it was contradicted byIve already looked thoroughly. much more than you
those results that are UNambiguous. You need
to forget about GCN reports and look at the
published papers from some years ago that
caused peple to discard the local source idea.
I'll leave you to do your own research, that how
science works. _You_ have to find those papers
and then show that your theory matches the
observations.
have, both in gcn and papers. And I can assure
you there is no data or evidence that contradicts
my theory. Then and now. If you dont agree,
well thats your problem but the usuall procedure
if you dont agree is to supply the evidence.
Yes and thats what Im saying. Are you agreeing with meMy argument is that beamed theory is a flawed interpretationAnd I a pointing out that the GCN system is a
of the data.
way fo coordinating observations to get the
maximum useful information from a scarce
resource.
now that gcn is only for disseminating observations and
not for disseminating theoretical speculation?
I dont understand you here. Did I ever say that an alternativeIf lets say for example it turns out Im rightHow would an alternative interpretation provide
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.
more telescope time?
theory would somehow allow more time on telescopes to be
given to grb studies ? No. I said the existing time would
have been spent more effectively looking at different aspects
of afterglows
Not in some wavelengths that are considered belowAt the very least they could ignore both mine and beamedLooking for what? They are all tracked as long as they
and just keep on looking assuming no particular redshift
are detectable.
the Lyman threshold. I say theres still an afterglow
there that you say isnt because of the L-break interpretation.
Thats lost data due to incorrect theoretical interpretation.
I didn't, Craig did. What I said when you asked wasIf you look at a power law applied to a set of
that nowhere that you cited did anyone use the
technque for smoothing, what they were doing was
fitting a power law to the data. Yu didn't seem to
understand the difference.
erratic data it smooths it out . Thats a descriptive
term I use only. I believe even Stanek uses `smoothing`
with reference to power law application. If you think
I dont know the difference then by association you imply
Stanek doesnt either. I think its Stanek and I who
know what we talk about and you who doesnt.
Anyways I would tread very carefully
here if I were you as the latest gcn evidence (060526)
confirms my age old prediction that afterglows lightcurves
cannot be conformed (smoothed) to power law restrictions.Up till
now You and Craig have said that the flucuations
may be in the data but none of it didnt fit within error margins
in power law fitting. I think youll find that 060526
especially being so well sampled so early has now supplied
evidence backing my argument and falsifying yours and Craigs.
Its also worth pointing out that the gamma 2nd peak for060526
peaks a bit before the x and the R curve about 16 hours
later approx. This falls in line with my proportional
to wavelength prediction. The 2nd observed peak follows
a trend that sees the peak delayed later in longer wavelengths
proportional to wavelength, or to the difference , whatever you
prefer.
Dont forget that the solar spectrum would also have theThey would then have wavelengths of 588.9950nm andRight, so if you measure one spectral line at 1200nm,Wrong here. Those same two spectral lines could also have
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.
corresponding restframe lines from the sun,
589.5924nm. The ratio 1177.99/1179.19 identifies the
pair as the sodium doublet, the ratio 1177.99/588.995
is z+1.
lines at 589.592 and 588.995 at the same flux levels
as the supposed sodium doublet. That is if there *is*
an existing spectra of a grb that contains the sodium doublet
at z+1. I gather that in fact this is only a theoretical
example that you cite. Seeing as the spectra we argue
about only goes up to 500.
Orthodox science said such energies were impossible,Such energies were considered impossible if the bursts
beamed theory arose because the observations ruled
out local sources, so you are actually trying to revert to
the orthodox.
were high redshift in origin. However as I can show that
spectral interpretation also allows them to be local
in origin then it isnt neccesary to say they are such energies.
In fact they are so weak as to not be visible to the naked
eye even though they occur only at the eye, so
to speak. No such energies needed.
Once again you have a credibilty problem as so farOtherwise youd have seen the spectraYes, I saw you had a reasonable number and I
Ive got there already and noticed how so many lines and broad
features are duplicated accurately by the suns spectra.
suggested ways you could take that forward. Like
many others round here, you seem to think a few
successes means something when it doesn't, what
matters is eliminating those observations that
falsify your view, and you won't do that by looking
at GCNs, you need to look at the older published
data which forced astronomers to abandon
conventional wisdom and resort to beamed ideas.
there is *no* evidence that falsifies my theory.
And every available spectra online matches the suns.
Whereas some give ambiguous high redshift interpretations
or contradict other observations.
You change the subject here. We were discussingNot GCNs, previous publications from years ago. TheWavelength and intensity ratios is what you shouldHold it a minute. Ive done the only 4 that they havedone.
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.
SWIFT mission was launched long after local sources
were ruled out and it is the data that forced that
conclusion that you need to be revising.
how a redshift interpretation is done. And I showed above
how mine are as or usually more rigorousthen high redshift
interpretations.
And as far as local sources being ruled out long ago
thats all part of where beamed theory has
misled people. They were ruled out because the Standard
model couldnt explain the phenomena. In fact it still cant
explain a lot of grb observations. As in some of the
examples Ive cited through these posts.
But dont forget that they can still be explained as local
sources by my theory. I did so in the early nineties
when they werent too sure if theye were local and I still
do so now. So far no single observation has yet
contradicted any of my predictions going back to the early
nineties. THats a better track record by far than beamed theory.
In fact beamed theory came much later than mine. I havent
had to change any part of my theory to explain grbs
since 93`. Youve had to scrap one explanation and make another.
And that doesnt work very well either.
So you agree now with me that all redshift interpretationsThey havent supplied any intensity ranges nor specificThat's right, when will you realise it is all tentative
wavelength ratios. All theyve done is supply the
spectra online with little arrows showing possible
shifted lines.
data subject to lots more work before it can be
published?
supplied by gcn are only tentative ? Why then should mine
be more complex and rigourous than the rest?
(even though they are)
Dont say because they refine them later because they usually
dont.
Sean www.gammarayburst.com
.
- Prev by Date: Re: PING CHICKEN LITTLES: Re: Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 Shows That Breaking Up Is Not So Hard To Do
- Next by Date: American dictatorial authoritarianism
- Previous by thread: Re: PING CHICKEN LITTLES: Re: Comet 73P/Schwassmann-Wachmann 3 Shows That Breaking Up Is Not So Hard To Do
- Next by thread: American dictatorial authoritarianism
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
