On 2 May, 17:33, sean wrote:
On 16 Nov 2004, 17:44, (sean) wrote:

full post initially available at...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/2eb8096b...
and reprited below after my post here...

To better illustrate the phenomena behind gammaraybursts, Ive put a
short quicktime simulation explaining how light from a distant stellar
source can be redshifted as we watch it over short timeframes of
seconds hours and days. At this url...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
To recap ....it shows the concept of my grb model which says that
light from a distant stellar source (in a non BB non GR/SR universe
model) has its light redshifted rapidly as we watch. So that initially
we see the spectra from the star very blue shifted into gamma. But as
our speed relative to the source changes this means that its spectra
gets redshifted rapidly into longer wavelengths. And an observor
looking in any particular frequency band, will thus see the spectra
only temporarily, as a burst like -increase and decrease- in the
observed magnitude, as the stars spectra is being redshifted through
that observors instruments frequency band.
Among many predictions this model has successfully predicted that
lightcurves filter bands other than gamma will also see the same multi
peaked rebrightenings as seen in gamma. And that there is no supernova
grb conection as beamed theory predicts.
Critics including one from the Nasa swift team itself claimed as far
back as 2001 that their was no proof of this rebrightening, that all
grb afterglows in all bands was well explained by smoothed power law
decays and that any evidence I used as proof that there was
rebrightenings (as posted atwww.gammarayburst.comsince 1999) was not
valid as any observed flucations were within observational error
margins of a smooth straight line power law decay.
See url below for some of their arguments since proved incorrect by
subsequent data...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/4b799ade...

Since then observational data has verified my models prediction and
contradicted beamed theories predictions and the fatuous unscientific
arguments put forward by academics like Markwardt, Hardcastle et al.
It is now accepted that all grb afterglows exhibit multiple
rebrightenings.
Seperately I also predicted in 1999 on google and my website that
there is no supernova grb connection and that the small amount of
spectral observations of a few grb afterglows showing a SN specral
evolution was a spurious misreading of data. My same critics as usual
argued against this and claimed all grbs were SN related and that I
had no proof to the contrary.
See url below for some of their incorrect scientific arguments since
proved incorrect by new observations...http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/2eb8096b...

I am happy to note that recent papers in Nature have highlited that at
least some of recently studied grb have no possible SN connection.
Contrary to beamed theory and therefore unexplainable by beamed
theory.As usual my critics were wrong and my models a priori
predictions were proved correct. Its about time Nasa started using my
model to exlain grbs, as the current use of beamed theory to explain
grb`s by its staff only prevents them from better understanding the
true nature of this phenomena.
As my model is based on a classical non BB non relativity model this
new data is also proof that the current standard model and relativity
is not only unable to exlain dark matter , galaxy rotation curves, MMX
and the sagnac experiment but GRB`s as well.
Further proof that a classical wave only model can explain all obsered
phenomena including GRB`s, sagnac , MMX etc.
To show how a classical wave only model of light is able to explain
the Michaelson Morley and Sagnac experiments while SR cannot please
see supplied simulations at...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
which show that the same classical wave only model that I use to
explain grb`s *can also* explain the sagnac effect. Note that under
scrutiny SR cannot explain both MM and sagnac. Go to the sci.astro
thread `aether or whatever` for a full accompanying explanation as to
why relativity is unable to explain the sagnac and MM experiments.
Seanwww.gammarayburst.com

It is worth noting how the swift team and other cxontributors to the
gcn network supply posts which contradict themselves and show that
beamed theory and SR and the standard model cannot explain GRB`s.
Note gcn6389 where a redshift of 3.5 is `observed` . THen in gcn 6392
the incompetent swift team calculate a redshift of 5. As if it were
a meaningful calculation as most objects obserevd by swift and any
astronomer is usually 5.
To compound the general incompetence of the observers posting to gcn
comes gcn 6398.
Here they calculate that the redshift is 2.3.
This clearly contradicts the earlier lower limit set in gcn 6389 of
3.5.
Yet to pretend that there is no problem within the communitys
miserable attempts at applying red****s to grbs to uphold the flawed
beamed theory. GCN 6398 erases any mention of the fact that the
redshift had to be less than 3.5 (gcn 6389) and only mentions swifts
rather incompetent attempt at redshift of ANYTHING less than 5 as
being acceptable and claims that their redshift calculation of 2.3
somehow confirms previous estimates and observations. This is a good
example of how researchers and astrophysists continually falsify or
fiddle information to uphold the standard model.

Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
for more info on see...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb