sean writes:

On 11 May, 08:50, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:

...

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.

It is worth noting that your comments are erroneous. Specifically...

Note gcn6389 where a redshift of 3.5 is `observed` .

You are in error. In fact, the authors say, "the red color might
suggest a redshift of z 3.5." So they (a) never said "observed";
(b) used very tentative language implying low confidence, because (c)
it's not a spectral redshift but a photometric one taken several hours
after the burst.

I note no response to your mis-quotation of GCN #6389.

... 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.

Your comment is irrelevant. Whether or not most objects observed by
Swift have a redshift of 5, the rare ones that *do* have a redshift 5 are very interesting for many reasons. Thus it is relevant to

know the approximate redshift of a given burst, regardless of the ones
that have come before.

I note no response.

....
I note your irrelevant and unsubstantiated ad hominem attack on the
Swift team.

To compound the general incompetence of the observers posting to gcn
comes gcn 6398.
Here they calculate that the redshift is 2.3.

...

True, but the measurement reported by Jakobsen et al (GCN #6398) is by
a different and much more reliable technique (i.e. a high resolution
spectrum).

I note your continued ad-hominem attacks without any substantiation.

Do you get the differences in the levels of confidence in the
following statements?
* "the red color might suggest a redshift of z 3.5." #6389
* "the UVOT ... indicates a redshift of less than 5." #6392
* "a firm upper limit of z 2.3 can be placed on the redshift" #6398
Because if you can't, it might be a good time to take a refresher
course on the English language.

It seems that little has changed: you continue to make
unsubstantiated, erroneous, and irrelevant claims, and now you appear
to be adding ad hominem attacks as well. Congratulations on your
consistency.

CM

First of all one only has to look backat any of your posts in the last
few years to see
good examples of unjustified ad hominem attacks made by yourself. If
anything my post above is the exception. Whereas your filth is the
rule. ...

I note you did not substantiate your claim of "filth."

... Not least because as my earlier post on this thread shows..In
many cases in the past you claimed that my predictions were incorrect
and were without proof (and you usually include a ad hominem attack
or two). In fact the supernova-grb connection and multi peaked
lightcurve predictions for all observed wavelengths I made years ago
that you claimed were untrue unsupported by evidence and without any
physics have since then been verified by not least of all, Swift
itself.

You need to be careful before you glorify yourself. Your *actual*
claim was originally that light curves at different wavelengths were
stretched replicas of each other[*]. Simply seeing flares in X-rays
is *not* a confirmation of your "prediction" unless one can prove that
the X-ray light curve is a stretched version of the gamma-ray light
curve.
[*] "sean" Usenet post Nov 2001



... In case the meaning of this eludes your simple mind .. as far
back as 2000 you said I was wrong to claim that all grbs did not have
a supernova connection and that all lightcurves would show variability
and late time flares . In fact I was right. ...

You should check your facts, since your claims are erroneous. First,
you yourself didn't start posting until 2001 (see Usenet thread
above). Second, I simply have never posted anything about supernovae
related to gamma-ray bursts until 2006. So please, try to withhold
your persecution complex.

What I actually said then, and still hold to now is:

Markwardt writes on 07 Nov 2001:
: Also, as has been pointed out, trying to infer that something is a
: "peak" when the data are as noisy and as sparse as they are, is in my
: view a dubious practice. Simply "connecting the dots" will lead to *a
: possible* solution, but ultimately a very *low probability* one a
: priori.
:
: A more appropriate approach would be to start with a featureless model
: of the decline (say, a power law), then add a gaussian or some other
: simple parameterization of the putative peak. By computing the
: F-statistic, one can then find out how significant the additional peak
: is, statistically speaking, compared to the overall decline. If it's
: signficant at the 95% level, then it may be worth considering
: further.

To summarize: before you make extravagant claims, you should be able
to substantiate them with extravagant evidence. In the original
gamma-ray burst that you referred to long ago (GRB 970508), you made a
practice of picking out some statistical fluctuations and calling them
"flares." Both Martin Hardcastle and I called you on that dubious
practice.

After the launch of Swift, the situation is very different. Data from
very early times after the burst are now available, whereas they were
not before. The X-ray light curves *do* show flares, there is no
question. In other words, it is not possible to fit a smooth decay
with satisfactory goodness of fit (chi-square for example). The
present data *demand* more complicated time behavior models (in the
sense that simpler models can be statistically rejected), whereas the
older observations did not demand it.

If you actually *read* my original post, it says exactly that: don't
add extra features unless simpler models are rejected by the data
statistically. Your original "flares" in 970508 were not really
statistically significant.

Getting back to your original theory...

It is clear that the X-ray flares seen by Swift *ARE NOT*
time-stretched replicas of the gamma-ray light curves.

In fact, the gamma-ray and X-ray light curves match up quite precisely
with no stretching, as shown by O'Brien et al (2006). Some of the
late-time flares seen in the X-rays are also clearly detected in
gamma-rays at the same time.

Furthermore, I have pointed out in the past that some bursts like GRB
041219A have contemporaneous optical observations which show that
there is prompt optical emission with "zero" delay ( = no stretching;
ref my post on 24 Apr 2005).

Thus, the detection of late-time X-ray flares by Swift and prompt
optical emission does not support your "theory." In fact, since
*neither* the late time flares nor the prompt optical emission are
stretched replicas of the prompt gamma-ray burst emission, they would
tend to reject your "theory."

References
O'Brien, P. et al. 2006, New J.Phys. 8 121 (astro-ph/0605230v1)


... Observations and papers
since then havve confirmed that these miguided theoretical predictions
made by you in support of beamed theory were not consistent with
observations or later analysis.

Can you cite even *one* instance where I said that the "beamed" theory
must be true in all cases? In fact, I don't believe I *ever* argued
in favor of any "beamed" model, since I was occupied debunking your
erroneous and unstantiated claims on their face.


... It was you who got it wrong and it was
my predictions from that time which have not only been confirmed but
stood the test of time. The same goes now for your `scientific` rating
scheme for redshift analysis. If you you think that the redshift is
definitely or firmly2.3. then you got it wrong earlier when you or
others claimed your science gave indicated it 2.3.
If your science cant tell the difference between 2.3 or greater than
2.3 then Id say your science is about as incorrect and flawed as it
....

Since I was not an author of any of the GCN circulars mentioned, I was
neither wrong nor right.

As George Dishman and I have pointed out before, the GCN system is for
rapid dissemination of (sometimes tentative) results. Thoene's lack
of a V-band detection would indeed *suggest* a higher redshift, but
with low confidence because of the less reliable measurement
technique. The later reports of a detection in V-band (which came
from earlier-time observations) ruled out the high redshift
possibility. Your problem is that you are seeing everything in black
vs. white, us vs. them terms. In fact, scientists cannot always make
rock-solid claims in the face of incomplete data, but in the case of
rapid phenomena like GRBs, it is better to make a tentative claim than
no claim at all.

I still assert that if you can't tell the difference between tentative
low-confidence claims, and firm or rock-solid claims just based on the
English language, you have some serious problems.

was when it incorrectly predicted that all grbs were supernovas
sourced and that all lightcurves were smooth power law decays without
late time multiple flares So seeing as my predictions are always
proved right, yours always proved wrong , by your own data . then Id
say.... you deserve to be refunded some of the ad hominem attacks you
yourself so ungraciously handed out in the past.

You are erroneous. See above.

for a correct explanation of how there is no grb supernova connection
(contrary to the incompetent claims of beamed theorists like
Markwardt )see..

Since "Markwardt" is not a "beamed theorist," and is not even a
"theorist," your claim is non-sensical. What kind of theorist would
you claim is like a non-theorist?

CM