Re: Latest Swift data rules out beamed theory
- From: Craig Markwardt <craigmnet@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Apr 2008 17:01:06 -0400
sean <jaymoseley@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On 12 Sep 2007, 08:33, Craig Markwardt
<craigm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The following link is to the last post in thread I am responding to.
Unfortunately I`m unable to continue posting to that thread so this is
a new one to continue the discussion.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci.astro/browse_frm/thread/9931477290f0771d/426902db00951955?hl=en&lnk=st&q=#426902db00951955
Regarding GRB 050904, the high redshift burst,This is a circular argument we are having vis a vis Tarot. It was in
bvri
and there was no other simultaneous bvr observation to the same limits
to compare with. Which means that you cannot prove that tarot was in
any
one or all of the bvri filter. We can only both assume what range
tarot
actually saw. Why you insist that the theoretical assumption that it
was
only in I should be considered substantive proof is illogical.
[***] The problem is that *you* are claiming that the GRB afterglow
was detected in the optical band. The burden is on *you* to
substantiate your claim. However, the "proof" you are offering is in
fact an observation that covers both infrared and optical. Therefore,
the evidence you offer is ambiguous, and cannot be used as an argument
for or against optical emission.
....* you refer to only three data points as "optical" (the early TAROTI dont need to substantiate data . The bvri detection
measurements); however, as you yourself point out, these are taken
with an "open" filter that includes optical *AND* infrared. The
true emission wavelength of the object is totally ambiguous. Thus,
claim that they are "optical" measurements is unsubstantiated.
Since *you* are claiming they are optical, it is *your* burden to
substantiate that claim, not mine to disprove it.
is the data. It is the substantiation. If the Tarot filter
had been in I only,.. THEN I would have to have supplied seperate
substantiation to prove that it had also been detected in bvr.
But you failed to substantiate your claim that the TAROT data were
*optical* measurements. See the point marked [***] above.
* the GCN you cite, GCN #3917, does not claim any "optical"It claims an R band detection and r band is in optical. But yes that
detections in those words. The magnitude measurements are based on
R-band comparison stars, but does not mean the object itself was
detected in the R-band, since the TAROT open filter system has no
capability to make that distinction.
was only an interpretation of an open optical filter reading. He
could have easily calculated it at any wavelength in the filter
range be it v or r or I. Which is consistent with my point that it
is incorrect and unsubstantiatable to claim, as you do that a data
point observed in bvrI cannot have been observed in b,v or r.
I did not claim that. I claimed that the TAROT data is ambiguous.
See the point marked [***] above.
* furthermore, every optical (true V-band) observation has yieldedYou imagine that haislip et al observed the OT simultaneous to the
very deep upper limits (Haislip et al). Thus, for true V-band only
observations, there has never been a detection. Which is utterly
consistent with the Lyman break of a high-redshift object.
3917
tarot observations in bvr to the same limiting mag as tarot.
Where is this imaginary gcn ?.
It doesnt exist. ...
If you had bothered to look the reference I provided
(astro-ph/0509660), you would have seen it was not a GCN Circular.
... As far as I can tell Haislip first observed at about....
3 hours
after trigger. Notice the tarot measurements I refer to finish at 480
seconds
after trigger.
[sec after GRB]
start end magnitude
86 144 R>18.1 +/- 0.3 (no detected)
150 253 R=18.5 +/- 0.3
312 370 R=18.7 +/- 0.3
376 479 R=19.1 +/- 0.4
Your comments are irrelevant. The Haislip et al paper presents true
R-band observations from BOOTES starting 2.1 minutes after the GRB
trigger and extending out to two hours, i.e. over the same time
interval you discuss above. And yet these R-*ONLY*-band observations
do not detect the afterglow. The magnitude upper limits are R>18.2 at
T+2.8 min, and R>20 at T+60 minutes. The point being, similar
observations, similar sensitivity, at a similar time after the burst,
but in R-band only, do not detect this afterglow. The conclusion is
obvious: the afterglow emission was *never* present in optical, even
at early times.
In that case you erroneously name the tarot open filter measurementsYour "plot" is erroneous for several reasons.
1. No observer claims to have a V-band detection at 200 seconds. ForYour wrong as usual craig and you back it up with false claims as
that matter, there are no claimed V-band detections, period.
(Upper limits are not detections, and a "clear" filter
measurement (such as TAROT) can never be plotted as a V-band
measurement. ) Thus, your green trace is erroneous,
unsubstantiated, and irrelevant.
usual
Notice that the source graph from the paper qualifies that the green
data point is less than 24 mag on a chart seperate from their graph.
I do exactly the same. I put v at 24 and in my last accomapanying post
I clarify that the V datapoint at day one on my graph isnt 24 mzag but
<24 mag!!!
You erroneously labeled the TAROT "open" filter measurements
(equivalent to BVRI) as a V-band measurement.
as
I band.
Huh? Since my words are directly above, and do not say that, it's
clear that your claim is incorrect on its face.
....
You connected that erroneously labeled point to the V > 24 upperAnd you and klotz et al etc erroneously label the point I in a
limit, in a misleading attempt to suggest a trend, when in fact, there
is no such V-band detection at early times. Nor is it possible to
make a "trend" with only upper limits.
misleading
attempt to suggest a trend. ...
Since *you* presented a plot as evidence, and I did not, I could not
have labeled anything. The point still stands: you connected the
dots, trying to indicate a trend that did not exist. That's because
you can't make a trend with only upper limits!
....
Wrong here . *You* are attempting to mislead by suggesting that2. Your "I" trace is erroneous. It mixes two different style I-bandIn fact my blue I band curve isnt erroneous. Thats your mistake. It
filters. As described in Tagliaferri et al,
Note that the CAFOS and FORS2 I-band filters (which we called
I1 and I2) are different (their central wavelengths being 8500
AA and 7680 AA, respectively). Since the Lyman alpha break
falls within this band dropout is occuring inside this band,
this leads to a significant magnitude difference.
consists
of only I band observation datapoints doesnt it? ,
And incidentally both are also denoted as blue in the papers graph
that
you accept as correct.
The difference is that you attempted to plot them as the same symbol,
the same color and with connecting lines in a misleading attempt to
imply a trend. In fact, since the effective wavelengths of each "I"
filter is quite different, and the spectrum of the source changes
rapidly in that wavelength range, so it is utterly misleading of you
to draw such a trend.
several
different detections in various I band flter ranges are in fact
not all I band detections.
You are in error. In fact, as quoted above *directly from the paper*,
there are two different bands labeled "I", called I1 and I2. The
authors of the paper distinguished this carefully. *You* on the other
hand did not. The point is that these bands are calibrated
differently, so you cannot simply connect them with a line on the
plot, and you especially cannot make intelligible claims about the
trends of such mixed data.
....
....Nonetheless, it is still scientifically correct for me to show on aThe fact is when I made my graph using their datapoints I couldnt
find any info on what wavelength ranges I1 and 2 covered. So assuming
they were both I band , which they are, I put them down as blue
datapoints
In fact, if you had bothered to read the text of the paper,
immediately next to the table, you would have found the description of
"I1" and "I2" filters.
graph that I1 and I2 are both I band and both inbetween v and z
in the spectrum
The only reason I show any I band data is to illustrate how
all I band data decays faster than z. Which is what it does.
.... and that is why you are incorrect. Since the the two kinds of "I"
band observations are actually calibrated differently, it is
inappropriate to draw a trend line. You are effectively trying to
draw a trend line comparing apples to oranges.
The angle of the trend line is relevent. ...4. Changing from logarithmic to linear axes by itself does not
substantiate any evidence of "fake data," since the data and plot
axes were clearly labeled. Thus your claim is unsubstantiated.
It certainly makes a decay of 1 mag between hour 1 and 2 appear the
same
`angle` of decay as a decay of 1 mag between day 1 and 2.Which is
misleading.
The "angle" of the trend lines is irrelevant. The plots were
sufficiently labeled so that any skilled practicioner could have
understood them. Your "angles" are in fact misleading because *you*
attempted to plot connecting lines between points with different
filters (and you also connected lines to upper limits, which is
erroneous).
Changing from logarithmic to linear does not change the data values,
or their rates of change, only their cosmetic appearance. As I noted,
any skilled practitioner would understand this. Apparently you do not.
....
As Ive already pointed out. Your prefered method is not rigorous> > sean <jaymose...@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > > On 22 Jul, 07:41, Craig Markwardt
> > > <craigm...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ...
> > > > You are in error. Because measurements are noisy (have a random
> > > > component), it is absolutely *necessary* to use statistical and
> > > > probability methods to prove (or disprove) that any reported
> > > > variations are more than could be expected by random chance. Whether
> > > > or not one uses "my" personal statistical methods is irrlevant. The
> > > > point is that *some kind* of formal and rigorous method must be used.
> > > > You have not done this, so your conclusions are irrelevant.
> > > Contrary to your erroneous claims I have made far more
> > > rigorous testing then you or others have attempted.
> > That is news. And what were the formal statistical methods used?
> Well if you`d like a method name then how about.. "Statistical
> comparison between data sets from different observed wavelengths"
I note that this is not a formal statistical method. Thus your claimIts funny that you can claim a method that uses most of the data as
of "rigorous testing" is unsubstantiated.
observed is somehow less rigorous then your own preferred method of
ignoring most of the data. This is an erroneous claim YOU make.
The rigor is not in *how much* data you use, but *what procedure* is
used to compare them. You did not use a rigorous statistical
procedure, so your "results" are irrelevant.
precisely because it has to ignore most of the data to make succesful
predictions.
I note your lack of response to the actual issue of rigor.
And so far you have failed to provide an explanation with
substantiation as
to why exactly my method, which uses all the data, is somehow less
rigorous then your method which ignores most of the data.
Actually I did. Please see above. [ i.e. "measurements are noisy." ]
Wrong again . At every step you mislead by falsely atributing> > In addition, Haislip et al (astro-ph/0509660) show that there are
> > twelve non-detections in the visible (Fig 2). Also, Tagliaferri et al
> > (astro-ph/0509766) show the non-detection in V and R (Fig 3).
> > Meanwhile there are solid detections in the infrared.
> Do a linear plot of all the wavelengths and youll see that <24 mag
> in optical at day one is an acceptable decay rate from 18.2 at 200
> secs.
Since your "linear plot" is erroneous in this respect -- as describedWrong again as usual.
above, there are no reported V-band detections at *any* time -- your
discussion is irrelevant.
I never said there was a v band detection at the day 1 that you refer
to.
Actually, you did, in your "linear plot." It clearly labeled the
early-time data as "V". And you did it to suit your desire to show a
certain misleading decay trend.
statements to
me.I never said that the v band point on the graph was a detection.
There are two problems. First, you drew a trend line that included
points that were actually upper limits and not detections. It's
impossible to show a reliable trend with upper limits. Second, you
labeled the BVRI point as "V", when in fact it was not.
To be clear, I'm *not* criticizing you for putting an upper limit
point on the plot. I'm criticizing the use of misleading trend lines,
and the mis-labeling of the bandpass.
Really? And do you *know* it was an I band detection? when you> > Your fixation on TAROT is irrelevant. If the TAROT observations were
> > done with the *clear* filter (i.e. *no* filter), then they were using
> > the unfiltered raw response of the CCD, which covers *all* of the
> > bands B, V, R and I, lumped together. I.e. it is a primarily optical
> > telescope with some infrared response. It is no surprise that an
> > infrared-only emitter would be detected in such a set-up.
> > Furthermore, the TAROT automated procedure involves using R-magnitude
> > calibration stars [*], but that does *not* mean that the afterglow
> > emitted in the R-band.
> Your fixation on tarot is the irrelevent one. If you admit that
> it was a clear (BVRI) filter detection then you have to admit
> that the detection could have been anywhere within those parameters
> Which means that you cannot rule out a B,V or R band detection
> from tarot any more than you can rule in a I band only detection
> from the same BVRI range data.
You are in error. If you had bothered to look at the Haislip et alYou are so wrong here. There was an optical detection by tarot. ...
paper (Fig 2), you would see *twelve* non-detections in the visible
band; plus another non-detection in V by Tagliaferri; plus the step
cut-off in the spectrum of Kawai/Totani. In short, *every*
observation including TAROT is consistent with no optical emission at
any time. Your reliance on a single -- open-filter -- observatatory
is irrelevant since it provides no constraint on the wavelength of
emission. Again, *you* are making the claim, it is up to *you* to
substantiate it, and you failed.
Really? And how do you *know* it was an optical detection, when you
also know that the TAROT observation was performed with an instrument
sensitive in both optical *and* infrared? Your claim is utterly
unsubstantiated.
also know that the tarot observation was performed with an instrument
that is sensitive in both optical *and* infrared?
Your claim is utterly unsubstantiated.
There is a difference. See point [***] above.
Meanwhile, *every single* actual observation in an optical-only filter
obtained only upper limits. And some of them were extremely sensitive
upper limits (Haislip et al).
This point still stands.
You cannot prove that the features below 880nm are definitively noise....> > > > > > Your simulation is irrelevant. *You* claimed you would be able to
> > > > > > match the afterglow spectrum to a star-like spectrum. However, there
> > > > > > is *no* star which could have the sharp cut-off feature that is
> > > > > > observed, nor any star which has the spectral absorption features
> > > > > > revealed by Kawai and/or Totani.
> Otherwise
> there couldnt be absorbtion lines seen below 800nm in Kawai.
> You cant have absorbtion lines with no flux observed.
Your claim about the Kawai spectrum is erroneous and unsubstantiated.You make two mistakes here. Firstly,.. if there is no emmision below
In fact, the Lyman alpha break comes at ~880 nm, and everything
shortward of that wavelength is totally absorbed.
the supposed L break then why are there absorbtion lines in the data?
Um, the spectrum is totally consistent with the published noise level
shortward of 880 nm. Any "absorption lines" found by you there are
surely bogus.
You can only assume they are noise. And you can only do this by
ignoring
some of the other substantive data (Tarots bvri detection.)
Thats bogus science on your part.
Huh? You are incorrect:
1. We can guage whether something is noise or not, by comparing to
the experimental uncertainties ("the error bars"). Shortward of
880 nm, the data are *consistent with zero*, within the
uncertainties.
2. Also, since the TAROT BVRI data lump a huge bandpass, B-V-R-I,
into a single number they provide no constraint whatsoever on the
high resolution spectrum, so your claim is irrelevant.
[ on the other hand, the other results presented by Haislip et al.
*do* cover individual narrow bands, which *are* consistent with
the Kawai spectrum. ]
It may be consistent with beamed theory. But the observed emmisionAnd secondly whetever one calls the data below 8800 its not
proof there is no emmision there. Its only proof that to a limiting
mag there is no emmision. Its like me looking up at the night sky
seeing no galaxies and saying... I see no galaxies. There must be no
galaxies out there.
That is true but irrelevant. The relevant facts are that the
continuum spectrum is utterly consistent with a typical flat spectrum
with a Lyman break corresponding to z = 6.29, and the other prominent
absorption lines are also consistent with that same redshift.
below
880nm is also utterly consistent with a model that predicts that when
the blackbody curve of a distant stellar source is redshifted from
330 -880nm and more then there will be a droppoff in flux in optical
wavelengths as observed.
My model predicts this. Go to this url...
A "youtube" model is not that convincing. Sure, you can make
something that looks interesting by arbitrarily reassigning the
wavelength axis to be "time" instead, but there is no physics in doing
this.
... Further substantiation for this can be seen in the other OT
data.
One can see clearly rom the trend in vizjhk filters that at day 3
wavelengths blueward of 880nm were most probably below Kawais
detection
threshold. (ie <24 mag, although as far as Im aware kawai hasnt
specified his limit. But most likely its in the 24 mag range
which my graph cited elswhere shows will not pick up emmision
below ~880nm)
To be clear, *no* observation ever detected optical-only emission from
this GRB afterglow (Haislip et al). That is consistent with Kawai's
spectrum. I have no idea what else you are getting at.
As for the absorbtion lines. It may be true that one can easily
find absorbtion lines from the numerous elements that can be made to
fit a redshift of 6.3. But it is also true that the observed
absorbtion
lines in Kawai are also utterly consistent with my model . In that
these
lines can be as easily fit to restframe lines in the solar wind.
The matches I have already highlited in previous posts.
You are still missing the point. You cherry-picked a few lines out of
thousands from your "solar wind" spectrum. And you didn't pick the
brightest lines, just any old lines. In statistics, that is called a
problem of "number of trials," meaning that if you try enough times,
you will find a match. [ which is true in this case because the
stellar line catalog you referenced has lines at nearly every
wavelength. ]
On the other hand, the Kawai paper found specific *strong* lines of
*abundant* atomic species, the same particular lines that have been
seen before in quasar absorption spectra. Do you see the difference?
In the Kawai case, certain lines were expected based on the atomic
physics and known properties of the intergalactic medium, and indeed
detected those lines. *And* the redshifts of all of those lines were
consistent with the Ly alpha break. Meanwhile, you just grabbed a few
identifications out of thousands that suited you.
In that case in cannot be used by you to support the claim of `no `> > [ Or rather, the whole visible range was absorbed by the Lyman alpha
> > forest, which is a cluster tightly packed absorption lines which
> > blocks the source. ]
> > > And how is it that tarot did observe an optical flash in R if
> > > there was no emmision between 400-700?
> > It did not observe an optical flash in R, only quoted an equivalent
> > R-magnitude intensity compared to other R-magnitude stars [see above].
> > Since they used an open/clear filter, which covers optical *and*
> > infrared, the TAROT observers could not know whether they saw an
> > optical or infrared source.
> Nor could they know that it wasnt an optical flash.
> In other words if they saw a flash in a filter that had a range
> from BVRI. Then they cant say whether it was a flash in B V R or I
> Or any combination of the above. THey can only make theoretical
> assumptions. And assumptions arent facts.
In other words, the TAROT data is totally inconclusive. Therefore,Wrong again. You are suggesting that because it is inconclusive it
your reliance upon it is unsubstantiated. Meanwhile, there are 14
other measurements which show absolutely zero optical (V-band)
emission (see above).
is false. ...
I did not claim the data was false. What I claimed was that it was
*inconclusive* (optical vs. infrared), so it cannot be used to support
the claim of optical emission.
optical emmision.
True, but I never made that claim based on TAROT data. See point [***] above.
Furthermore, I refer you to the BOOTES R-band observations (Haislip et
al; Jelinek et al); which did not detect any afterglow (these
observations are actually in the "optical" R-band.
Returning to some relevant discussion:
[ Markwardt: ]
: However, if you had bothered to look at the actual observations, no
: such behavior is present. Both the Haislip et al (Fig 2) and
: Tagliaferri et al (Fig 3) papers show that infrared emission was
: detected at the earliest times. This time-resolved spectroscopy shows
: that the afterglow was absolutely *not* a "hump that is redshifting as
: we watch," but rather smoothly fading in all bands. The longward
: infrared wavelengths were detected at the *earliest* times (<2.4
: hours), and continued to be detected for ~8 days (Tagliaferri et al
: Fig 2). On the other hand, visible light was *never* detected
: (Haislip et al Fig 2). In short, your supposition is entirely
: unsubstantiated by the data.
While you continue to harp about the optical emission (erroneously),
it is still true that your "hump" theory doesn't work for the infrared
emission either.
....
This is untrue. Obviously you have checked nothing.> > Of the strong absorption features found by Kawai, *None* of these
> > lines is strongly detected in the spectrum of the sun at the measured
> > wavelength (9040-9737 Angstrom). [refs 1 & 2] The solar spectrum you
> > found -- which you did not cite -- must be pretty bogus.
...
>http://bass2000.obspm.fr/solar_spect.php
And this catalog also does not show any lines at those detected byYou are blind. Measure the exact midpoint of any of kawias lines
Kawai et al. Sounds like you still cannot substantiate your claim.
and go to the corresponding point in the solar spectra as cited abovve
and you will see corresponding solar lines.
Huh? In fact, I checked each of the lines from Kawai's Table 1, and
*none* of them matched the solar spectrum you linked to. I suspect you
were "eyeballing" the Kawai plot to determine the positions of the
lines, but that would be a dubious procedure.
It may be true that some of the solar matches are not as strong as
indicated
in kawai but they are there and matches are clearly observable in the
solar
spectra.
Try 8825 in the solar spectrum.
Apparently you are having reading difficulty. As I said, none of the
lines in *Kawai's* table have strong stellar counterparts.
Now you are picking some other "lines" at other wavelengths. But then
we have to stop and ask ourselves: how good a match is it, if your
claimed strong lines might show up as weak features Kawai's spectrum,
and yet, Kawai's strong features do not show up as strong features in
the stellar spectrum? The answer is --- it's not a very good match.
Try kawais O1 doublet at 9490 and 9495-9. Check the solar spectrum ...
What's your point? Kawai's tabulated feature is at 9499.1 +/- 0.9 AA.
There are no stellar features within the range 9498.2 to 9500.0 AA, so
your point is moot.
Your "Youtube" matchup is cute, but that's about it. You can't avoid
the problem that your claimed features are actually at 9497.5 and
9501.0 and not the actual measured value of 9499.1 AA.
Why should I have to `prove` that observed data is real?> Between 9000-1000nm there are many strong lines. ...
Well, that's partly the point -- there are so many hundreds andNote you say `most likely` noise. Its still hypothetical. THey could
thousands of lines, it's pretty easy to just pick and choose a few.
It's also easy to pick and choose noisy wiggles in the Kawai/Totani
spectrum and declare them to be lines. *HOWEVER*, those wiggles are
about the same as the 1-sigma error bars (see Totani Fig 1 lower panel
for example). Thus, the dips you declared to be lines are most likely
just noise. Thus, there is little substance behind your claimed
identifications.
just as
well not be noise. You have no proof, only probabilty, which is not
proof
Again, your claims are unsubstantiated. The burden would be upon
*you* to "prove" that the lines you claimed were "real," and you did
not.
Please don't be silly. The data speak for themselves, but your
*interpretation* does not. I.e. your claim of a detected line should
be substantiated and subjected to rigorous tests. You did not.
....
And even then looking at the data theres no rational basis for
declaring
some lines noise and others not.(mathematically or otherwise)
For instance,.. theres nothing in the data that says that a line at
9420
(not one of kawais 5) is any more or less noise than a line at
9040 (kawais c-IV).
It's a fair point that there may be other absorption features present.
However, Kawai conservatively identified the strongest features.
> In fact Kawai is the one who has more chance of coincidence. He can go
> through a library of hundreds of lines of restframe elements ,
> redshift them
> to approximate values around z=6.2 and see if there are any
> coincidental
> matches. His c-IV could eaily be S-I at a slightly different redshift.
Not really. The Lyman alpha break unambiguously sets the redshift atWhat is it about 8850 A that makes it the Lyman alpha
z=6.295. Almost all the other lines are consistent with that
redshift. The agreement is quite remarkable.
break. Why not 8830 or 8910?
If you accept the Lyman alpha "break" lies between 8830 AA and 8910
AA, then you must accept that the redshift is between 6.27 and 6.34.
However, a fit to the redward wing of the absorption line yields
a more precise line center, hence z=6.29.
I note no response.
Well thats interesting and may help answer my earlier question asAnyways they would be remarkable if they were the only 5 elements
that when redshifted ended up in the 8900- 10000 A range as
seen in the 5 kawai lines. But they arent. ...
Actually, the number of *strong lines* of *abundant atomic species* is
actually very short (about 7-10 candidate lines; ref. NIST Basic
Atomic Spectroscopic Data website). It is also worth noting that
these are very commonly known lines in quasar absorption spectra
already.
to what lines in particular FeII refers to as there are many as the
NIST
website yourefered me to illustrates.
Ill check out abundant atomic species and quasar absorbtion spectra.
While Kawai et al. identified four lines, a closer look suggested theyAs I mention above Im not certain here what lines in particular you
could have confirmed another 3 or so from the NIST list, if they had
been daring. But there is no reason to be daring.
mean.
Do you mean for instance any persistent line in Fe ? ...
Since there are no strong lines of Iron in the 8900 - 10000 AA range
that *you* originally specified (rest frame 1220 - 1370 AA), the answer
is no.
....
Let me remind you Kawai has cherry picked his lines.What about all theAnd finally this still ignores the plain fact that one can make
more matches , more accurately than kawai to restframe
solar elements. Hence you cannnot argue that there are
no corresponding lines in the restframe solar spectra
to those 5 and others in kawais spectra. Which is the whole
point of this debate here.
I'm all in favor of looking at the "whole point." Let's summarize.
Is it possible for you to cherry-pick some solar line features that
have the same wavelength as the Kawai GRB 050904 features? Sure it is,
BUT...
other abundant species expected?He can only list 5 out of many more?
Why cant he show lines for FE2 Mg2 Mg1 Ca1 Na1 Mn2? Im sure theres
many more he cant match.
I note that you did not respond the criticism about *your*
cherry-picking. Furthermore, as noted above, in the wavelength range,
strong lines of the species you refer to, do not appear.
Did you give any reason based on the physics to pick those featuresYou have lost me here.. What features are you refering to?
over the other thousands of featuress? No, you did not.
I mean, stellar spectra have thousands of line-like features. You
picked a few that suited you, but for no physical reasons.
Does the Kawai et al. spectrum look like a stellar spectrum? No itMaybe thats because Kawais spectra covers 860-100nm . THats the
does not.
equivelent
of only 50nm of the solar spectrum redshifted by 2. which isnt enough
for
anyone to say it looks or doesnt look like a full stellar spectra.
That's your problem.
What
it does look like though is the falloff on the blueward side of any
stellar spectra usually seen between 2-400nm.
Ive done two examples (for illustration purposes
only)and put them up at...
Again, your "youtube" pictures are cute, but beyond "illustration"
they are of little value. You have conveniently translated and
stretched the spectrum in *both* directions, wavelength *and*
intensity. The result has little meaning. For example, the stellar
spectrum actually goes *below zero* when it is stretched onto the
Kawai spectrum, which is a physical impossibility.
One is to a Gtype star and the other is to the solar spectra.
Both have been stretched by 2X to simulate what 450-500nm would
look like stretched to 900-1000nm. Obviously these are for
illustration
purposes only as I dont also have the data and software capabilities
to to more accurate comparisons. Im also not sure how one replots from
Kawais -1,0,+1 vertical axis to the 0,1 2 3 4 etc stellar spectra
vertical axis. Im also assuming that at day 3 blueward of 880
is below limiting mag in kawai. Which could explain why there are
no obvious emmision features in the kawai region <880. What you call
noise.
As noted above, your stretching is physically impossible, since it
produces negative emission shortward of 800 nm.
Does the GRB 050904 absorption line pattern *as a whole* match aBut it does as a whole. Most of the lines in Kawai have matching lines
stellar absorption line pattern *as a whole*? No, it does not.
in the solar spectra. Thats as good as Kawai saying some of the
lines in the OT can be matched to redshifted bundant lines.
But ;let me turn this question back to you. Can the lines Kawai
sees be matched to all other grb OTs? No. Each grb seems to have a
different set of lines for each grb. Theres little consistency. So
the point here is we both have matches but whereas Im getting
100% consistency for my predictions . Beamed theory isnt
I disagree. See above. Furthermore, the identification of lines
depends on the redshift and the wavelength band of the observatory, so
yes, they will be different on a case by case basis.
Are there known strong lines of abundant species that match the KawaiYou claim there are no strong lines at for instance... 990-950nm
features? No.
in the sun spectra.
In that case why does the solar spectra have a strong absorbtion
system
at that same wavelength?
It's not clear what "990-950 nm" means, since it's written backward.
And, I note that you sometimes claim a redshift of "2" and other
times, no redshift at all. I'm sure it's pretty convenient to you to
flip between possibilities.
But also as noted, the stellar lines you refer to do not exactly match
the Kawai line wavelengths. I'm talking about the actual line
centers, not your "eyeball" match-up.
Meanwhile..
Is the Kawai spectrum consistent with a flat continuum with a Lyman
alpha "break" corresponding to z=6.295? Yes.
Are there absorption features corresponding to known strong lines of
abundant species at the same redshift? Yes.
Unfortunately you seem to be able to find only 5 out of how many?
Probably much more. ...
Umm, no. The strongest lines from the most abundant species. The top
ten species, in order of total abundance are H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Fe,
Mg, Si and S, ignoring the ionization state. Kawai detected almost
all of the strong lines of the must abundant elements in the
interstellar medium.
... And yes you may also be able to point at the
droppoff at 880 as a Lyman break at high redshift. The point here
though
is that you can also place these same absorbtion features ,and others
that Kawai cant as matched to restframe solar spectral features. And
by inference, the solarwind. And the Lyman break can also be explained
as a droppoff in flux seen in a redshifted stellar spectra between
3-500nm redshifted to 6-1000nm.
You are incorrect. Such a placement would be unphysical, as noted
above.
....
I note that you continue to make unsubstantiated erroneous and
unphysical claims.
CM
.
- References:
- Latest Swift data rules out beamed theory
- From: sean
- Latest Swift data rules out beamed theory
- Prev by Date: ORBITAL;MOTION
- Next by Date: Re: SAN Antonio Sect case of 400 children taken from parents - Europeans disagree that children can be separated from parents, even if parents are sect
- Previous by thread: Latest Swift data rules out beamed theory
- Next by thread: Re: I am Gandhi's wife
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
