Latest GRB data rules out Beamed theory

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

full post initially available at...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...01da8f65ab6950
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 at www.gammarayburst.com since 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...cd2919 ded6cf

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...01da8f65ab6950

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.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

SWIFTPREDICTIONS
TheSwiftgrbsatelitte launches tommorow!! Its observations will
mark the end of the standard model.

Rather than being hypernovas with relativistic beaming , GRBs can be
explained as follows... The blackbody emmision spectrum (usually
presented as a flux/wavelength graph between about 300nm and 800nm
range in optical) of a star at great cosmological distances has been
initially extremely blue shifted to shorter wavelengths then gamma.
After the emmision spectrum has been observed in gamma it will seen
to rapidly redshift to longer wavelengths like optical and radio over
a time frame proportional to wavelength. Which means that over
time it takes longer to redshift into longer wavelengths. This is
why it is initially observed for a very short time in gamma then
longer in x ray and then in optical the OT lasts days or weeks and
finally in radio perhaps months. The length of the burst in longer
wavelengths is proportional to the length of the observed afterglow
in gamma so that the shorter the timescale observed in gamma the
shorter it will be in optical etc. This means that short
dark bursts do have optical afterglows , its just that they occur
much earlier and decay much faster so that by observation times
they have decayed to well below minimum observable mags.
Agrbis not an `explosion` but an optical effect occuring only
at the *point of observation*. In the same way that a sonic boom is
not an explosion or a mirage does not exist at the place it is
observed to be but rather both phenomena exist essentially wherever
one observes or hears them. Any apparent point like source is an
illusion and this may be shown bySWIFTby there being no observable
or confirmable z value. That is,SWIFTwill NOT be able to ascertain
any redshift as is expected. Furthermore there should be some OT`s
located without any apparent host galaxy even in hubble deep field
and some of theseGRB`s will be too bright relative to their
supposed great distance even for current beamed theory to explain.
IfSWIFTis able to take multiple spectrum images of early optical
bursts in the first few hours postgrbdetection(as was done for
030329 over weeks) we would see that over minutes and hours the
main spikey features in the spectral lightcurve would appear to
`animate` smoothly from the blue end (A to B below) to red end of
the spectrum in the images. So over a certain time a feature
that occurs between 300nm and 600nm would eventually be seen
stretched to 600nm and 1200nm and on to radio etc.

A .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
300nm 600nm 900nm

B
.
. .
. .
. .
. . .
. .
300nm 600nm 900nm

Also the shorter the time frame of the exposure of the CCD the more
detail will emerge.As thegrblightcurve time scale is equivelent
to the wavelength axis of the emmision spectrum and as there are
many peaks in spectra more `peaks` will emerge in shorter ccd
exposure times forSWIFT. This will give the appearance of more
numerous rapid rebrightenings than current theory allows.
And with the ability to observe almost simultaneously in different
wavelengthsSWIFTwill also see these rebrightenings always
occuring at later times in longer wavelengths. Ie/ a rebrightening
observed in UV will appear to peak slightly later in optical.
IfSWIFTobserves a burst with enough detail in its Gamma X UV OT
filter bands it should be possible to chart features that first
occur in gamma then appearing seconds later in X and then minutes
or hours later in UV and then in optical. This will be a
progression directly proportional to wavelength so that if it takes
10 seconds for the `spike` to move from 1nm to 10nm then it will
take 100 seconds to move from 10nm to 100nm.

The reason why there appear to be these bursts or `explosions` in
any observed wavelength is that we are observing the emmision
spectra of a very distant star being constantly redshifted over
time.
All observations are made in narrow band widths and the flux
intensity observed always appears to increase and then decrease.
This isnt due to an explosion but rather due to the fact that at
any one observed wavelength the main hump of the stars observable
flux, or observed energy emmitted, will be redshifted across that
particular wavelength. So for instance below we have the blackbody
emmision spectra of the star shown by the dotted line peaking at c
and a ccd camera observing at a particular wavelength x. Over time
the spectral hump of the star is redshifted to longer wavelengths.

X
c |
. |
. . |
. . |
. .|
. . . .

shorter wavelengths.........longer wavelengths

(over time the hump at c gets redshifted to the right and the
observed flux at x wavelength first increases then decreases
as c redshifts or `stretches` past x)

The effect then at the ccd camera at x nm would be that the
observed flux increases as c is redshifted. When c and the
rest of the `hump` is stretched to longer wavelengths than x,
the observed flux at x will then appear to diminish. The
lightcurve profile of the flux intensity observed at x
mimics the spectral profile of the redshifted stars light
shown below at c. As the redshifting or decceleration
of the light is proportional to wavelength the speed at which
the hump passes by x will be faster if x is at a shorter
wavelength. Thus the entire spectral hump will be redshifted
past x much faster if x was observing in gamma than if x were
observing in UV for instance. This makes the observations in
shorter wavelengths appear to occur much faster. The mistake
of theorists is to assume that they are watching an explosion.
Rather they are just watching light from a very distant star
being redshifted and in fact agrbis an optical illusion.
This is because in fact it is Earth or our local region of
galaxies which are travelling faster than the light from these
distant stars and `overtaking from behind` the light
wavefronts and seeing the light in reverse.In fact agrbthat
occurs above us in the sky is actually light from an ancient
star source in the opposite direction below our feet that may
have existed and died 100`s of billions of light years ago or
more in a infinite non BB universe.
This theory can be checked out in simulation by running a
spectral graph of an f star (for instance) in reverse past a
single point and at that point the flux is measured and
translated to another graph which mimics the observation in
gamma of agrb. Provided the graph is slowed down
as it animates across to mimic the decceleration of the
observor the resultinggrbflux graph made from this method
can match some grbs almost perfectly. For instance a sample
f star outputs an almost identical profile togrb041006.
I chose 041006 as it has what I call a classicgrbprofile.

If we were able to have detectors in wavelengths shorter than
Gamma we would still see the same flash proportional in energy
to that seen in gamma. I believe this is speculated on in
M M Gonzalez`s recent paper published in Nature.
The fainter the burst in gamma appears the fainter it will appear
in other wavelengths. This means that fainter bursts that appear
close by association with a host galaxy like grb031203 do not
imply a sub group of less energetic `bursts` but rather it is
agrbthat only `appears`to be coming from a nearby galaxy and
because it is so near but not any brighter than a distantgrb
the mistaken assumption is that it is a weaker `explosion` .
Also the lightcurve in each observed wavelength should be
roughly similar in profile so that for instance the xray
lightcurve being well sampled bySWIFTwill appear very similar
in profile to the gamma lightcurve. And at the far end of
the spectrum radio afterglows will mimic the same
lightcurve profile as seen initially in gamma
This is already seen in some data and I have supplied one
example on the first page ofwww.gammarayburst.com

Another important outcome of this model is that it should be proof
that the speed of light is infinitely variable and that the BB is
not valid . IfSWIFTand HETE both observe the same burst whereSWIFTis closer to the apparent directional `location` of the
burst than HETE, there may be some bursts where in fact HETE,
although technically farther away from the apparent location of
the burst will actually observe the burst *BEFORE*SWIFTdoes!!!
I believe that this can already be seen in current available data
where no IPN localization* has successfully localized aGRBby
using `time of arrival` methods. And the proportion of successful
dual localizations using the overlap between IPN and HETE Integral
boxes is proportional to the average box area covered by IPN.
In other words if observors studied the entire HETE/Integral
boxes for all alerts and not just the IPN overlap the success
rate would increase to closer to 100%.
(*Actually there is only one possible exception to the rule over
all the years of IPN and that can be ruled out as coincidental.)
The conclusion is that this model, if confirmed bySWIFT, cannot
accomodate GR, the BB and QT`s wave particle duality.I expect
then that theSWIFTobservations will seriously cast doubt
on the validity of the standard model. And only classical
physics in an infinite non expanding universe will be able
to account for the upcomingSWIFTobservations

For those of you who have bothered to read all this and would
like a bit more of an explanation as to how we see light in
reverse here is an analogy . In my model GR is invalid and light
can travel at any speed relative to Earth including slower than
us which essentially means that it can be thought of , relative
to us , as travelling in reverse. The analogy uses a boat on
a flat open ended plane of water. The boat (Earth)is travelling
north lets say at 60 mph. Travelling north in the same direction
is a series of waves travelling at 30mph (this in the
analogy is the light from a distant star in a infinite universe)
As we on Earth are travelling twice as fast as the waves we are
then in the analogy travelling at twice the speed of light in
the same direction as the light. But from the boat what we see
is something different. We see waves coming towards us at 30mph
as remember we are going at 60mph so relative to our boat the
waves are travelling at 1/2 the speed of the boat in the same
direction. So looking out of the front of the boat at the waves
as we overtake them obviously then it appears that the waves
are moving towards us at 30mph (in the analogy then 30 mph
is the speed of light so as we on earth are travelling at
twice the speed of light we see the light in reverse and it
appears to be light travelling towards us at the speed of light)
Thegrbeffect occurs because conservation of energy dictates
no acceleration and only decelleration so what would happen in
the boat analogy is that the boat is always deccelerating
relative to the waves speed.The effect then of the view out the
front of the boat is that the wave frequency observed
would decrease over time. If then the observor looking
outside the boat could only see the oncoming waves with a
frequency of 30mph and nothing else the effect would be that
as the boat slowed down from faster than 60mph to slower than
that there would be a brief burst of observable `light` just as
the boat hit exactly 60mph and then nothing would be seen.
The same effect is seen in grbs but because the wavefronts
we overtake are a range of frequencies (ie blackbody emmision
spectrum) concentrated around optical we see erm at any
observed frequency for a short time while the main redshifting
`hump` of the emmision spectra matches that observation
frequency. And as higher frequencies have shorter wavelengths
the emmision spectra hump redshifts through that observed
frequency (gamma) faster than it would for longer
observational frequencies like optical. Hence the burst
is much shorter in gamma than optical and longer still in
radio although the overall apparent energy seen in each
wavelength should be similar excepting technical limitations.
Ultimately all `grbs` continue to exist after we observe them
its just that they are stretched to longer and infinitely
longer wavelengths and over a set time frame the observed
energy decreases infinitely less and less towards 0 but
never quite. (One could speculate that light itself slowed
down to within an infinitely small increment above 0 speed
over an infinity of time is in fact what the vacuum is
made of. So it may be that erm propogates in a vacuum
and the vacuum is erm . Kind of like a snake swallowing
its tail forever. Just a guess though as I doubt we will
ever find out what a vacuum is made of.)

Sean

On May 2, 8:33 am, sean wrote:

[...]

1) Why are you replying to a post from 2004?

2) Congratulations - we have never had a GRB crank here.

On 2 May, 17:50, Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 2, 8:33 am, sean wrote:

[...]

1) Why are you replying to a post from 2004?
Im adding an extra link to that 2004 press release. The link..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
Helps further explain the theoretical model outlined in that 2004
post . I find that most of you relativity crackpots are unable to
visualize simple concepts so hopefully this will help you understand
better, the real mechanism behind GRB`s.
I also wanted to draw attention to the fact that recent observations
have confirmed predictions made in the 2004 post and ruled out
predictions made by beamed theory from the same time. As you know the
real test of theory is confirmation by observation. By these rules
relativity and the standard model are the crank theories as their
predictions have been found to be incorrect whereas mine from 2004 are
confirmed.
But check the link as there are also simulations showing how
relativity is unable to even explain MMx and sagnac. Contrary to the
false information supplied at Ned Wrights site, and wikipedia among
others. Note that Neds ring sagnac illustration
wouldnt work for SR if he tried doing it in the source frame .
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

On 2 May, 18:29, Sam Wormley wrote:
Background on GRBs
http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/sc...l1/bursts.html

More comprehensive info also at ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
and
www.gammarayburst.com

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

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.

... 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.

The fact that the Swift UVOT detected the afterglow in V band a few
minutes after the burst does indeed indicate a "lower" redshift
(i.e. the lack of a strong Ly alpha forest in V). However, the lack
of detection by Thoene et al several hours later leads to a much
weaker conclusion because the source was so much fainter then.

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

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.

... 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.

The fact that the Swift UVOT detected the afterglow in V band a few
minutes after the burst does indeed indicate a "lower" redshift
(i.e. the lack of a strong Ly alpha forest in V). However, the lack
of detection by Thoene et al several hours later leads to a much
weaker conclusion because the source was so much fainter then.

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

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

On 12 May, 19:53, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
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.
But they did `observe` How else could they have `suggested`. In fact
this is your mistake . In the first line of the copy of 6389 they
type..."We 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.

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.
Ill say it again then. The 3 seperate attempts at redshift
determination
were contradictory and all ultimately incorrect. In fact the grb has
no redshift
and like all others can be matched to one of the local ISM , provided
their is no
significant contamination from an unrelated galaxy in the grb`s FOV.
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."
Take your unwarranted character smear regarding how you think my
English
needs improving. You `substantiate` this with the suggestion that I
misread `suggest` incorrectly as `observe`.
But I point out earlier this is an unsubstantiated character smear
as in fact it is you who needs to brush up on any English skills.
Because 6389 clearly has the words... "we observed" in its copy.
The words you say dont exist
Thats your substantiation
If you cut the unsubstantatiated personal smears youll get a polite
response from me.
... 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.
I made more than one `claim` But the two I refered to above didnt
include the stretching claim. Although I stick to that and expect it
to be confirmed sooner or later by one of your peers.
What is relevent here is that I said that as the gamma lightcurve was
multi peaked so were all the others.
It was you who said this was an incorrect prediction, not
backed by any observation and that any rebrightenings were within
chi squared power smoothing etc and not therefore`real` or provable.
Since then in xray and optical it is the norm to accept that there
are multiple rebrightenings or late time flares.
So I was right and you were wrong. And its there in the google posts
for all to see.
[*] "sean" Usenet po 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.
Well OK,.. 2001 for your general criticism of the model which includes
an
assumed critique of the SN-GRB connection.
So for the record...you specifically criticise by quote the
variability in 2001 and you criticise my predictions of
the SN -grb connection by at least mar 28 2005 post 80.
Which is well before 2007 when the first acceptance by your peers that
sN-grb connection isnt a given appeared in Nature. Or the 2006
seminal paper by Stanek regarding the incorrect use
of power law smoothing of lightcurves
I also created www.gammarayburst.com in *2000* according to my
records and it has essentially the same content now as then.
But this is obfuscation on your part as you try to distract from
the essential fact that you and others tried to prove that my models
predictions were incorrect and then had to accept later that my
predictions were correct and yours werent.
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.
Why was it dubious? I kept within any error margins supplied and
thats
considered acceptable. And the beamed models straight line power
decays also used upper and lower ends to fit its predictions. In fact
I would argue that your power laws actually pushed the error margins
more
than my variable interpretation. Consider that for most of the points
in my graphs I didnt have to `iron` out the variability to fit a
straight
line. Anyways since then it turns out that lightcurves indeed do have
multiple rebrightenings contrary to yours and hardcastles "call"
So the data I used and my methods werent `dubious` as you suggested.
Yours were. That is , beamed theory`s were. And still are.
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.
This is exactly what I argued was the case 5 years ago. So Obviously
my interpretation of the variabilty in 970508 was correct and your
claims to the contrary were incorrect.Anyways Im glad you finally
admit
that my predictions made then have been confirmed.
Thats why I posted this to this thread. To set the record straight.
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.
What are suggesting. That one shouldnt make correct predictions and
correct analysis of the data until the incorrect predictions and
incorrect analysis made by a flawed model like the beamed theory are
definitely proved wrong?
So much for scientific advancement.
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).
041219A is exceptional by any standards. Not least because it was
hundreds of seconds long,and more unusually had a precursor or trigger
that was at least 250 seconds before the main burst. So it gave ample
time for optical telescopes to observe while gamma is still observable
But you made up the prediction that they cannot be seen
in more than one wavelngth at one time in my model. I never claimed
this. My model states that lightcurves in different wavelengths can
overlap but not *peak at the same time*. I predict they peak at later
times in longer wavelengths.
And I note that gcn 2872 doesnt clearly state that optical fades in K
between the early 2 min observation and the one about an hour or
so later. So its not clear to me it has faded neccesarily during the
time gamma is still observed.
Also technically if pairitel observed for 533 seconds starting at
0149UT and the burst started at 0143UT then
pairitels observation is from about 150 seconds post trig to 700 sec
approx. Yet the burst peaked in gamma at about 250 sec. So my
prediction that gamma peaks earlier still holds with the available
data as pairitel cant specify when in the 150-700sec observation
the peak was in K. norfor gaht matter when it started.

Also looking at these two gcn below suggests that 2876 detects
an increase in K between 2872 and 2876.
2876 is the later observation and after gamma finishes.Which is
consistent with a peak in optical after gamma and not just after
gamma peaks.

gcn 2872
K 15.5 ~150 seconds-700seconds
gcn 2876
K 14.9 0.8 hours

And raptor at 0144 which is about a minute-minute &1/2 (?)or so into
the burst has a detection that is before pairitel (?)but at a
fainter
mag at 19~ in R. So its extrapolating a bit(R-K) but it seems to me
the afterglow rises at least till just after the burst peaks
in gamma and possibly to a peak an hour later.
And in 2894-5 2-3 days post trigger ,the radio curve has increased
in flux as my model predicts longer wavelengths like radio should do
relative to optical.
In fact according to my model that if this is a long
burst as it appears, and the detection in optical for about
at least a day after trigger represents the first small spike
in gamma from t0- t10. Then its possible that the main part of the
burst in gamma at 250 sec post trig will manifest itself as a
substantial rebrightening in optical at a later time If we
use my `wavelength stretching method` and stretch gammas
500sec lightcurve into a longer timeframe duplicate profile in
optical.
Looking at the bat lightcurves from swift ...If the first
peak in gamma was in the 1-10sec range and that represents optical
in the first 24 hours lets say...
Then extrapolating out this could imply that 10 sec in gamma
=1 day in optical in my model at a rough estimate. In which case
its possible that 250 seconds = 25 days later for a substantial
rebrightening in optical for at least a further 5-10 days to
35 days.
So I wonder.. did any robotic telescope take images of this
part of the sky with a good limiting mag at this time
at about 25-35days after trigger? Anything in fact from lets say
5-35 days would be worth investigating for a rebrightening
in optical.
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."
I dont see any direct comparison of individual xrt and bat
lightcurves
in this paper. the closest is fig 1 and here the 3 xrt/gamma
seem to always start just about the same time as BAT finishes.
Although its hard to read the detail in the graph as to whether
the XRT circles actually are on top of Bat or not. I assume
they arent.
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.
You were defending the use of powerlaw to describ and explain decays
in the context of beamed theory. And I was saying theis was incorrect.
And yopu were saying I was wrong and had no proof.
So as far as the record goes,.. in principle you were defending
beamed theory and the use of power law decays to explain afterglows
even if you never issued a formal legal document stating this.
And as far as debunking my "***** claims". Yes ,.. you were
attempting to show that there was or would never be seen any
variability in lightcurves
But as more recent data shows your (and Hardcastles) debunk failed
and it was my models predictions not neamed theories that have
become the accepted norm.
In fact you admit as much earlier in this post...
(Craig)...
"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."

... 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 that case I suppose it was OK for me to make my claims on whatever
data
I had available at the time back in 2001. Or are you suggesting its OK
for your fave... beamed theory, to make claims on tentative data
but not OK for my theory to do so beven if it turns out that the
predictions beamed make are incorrect and mine correct?
My memory from english class is this line you inadvertantly
seem to paraphrase.." All pigs are equal but some are more
equal than others."
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.
Go back and read 6389. It has the word `observed` in the copy.
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?
Im glad to see you are finally distancing yourself from beamed
theory.
6 years after I told you to.

Sean
www.gammarayburst.com

and for grb researchers see gammaraybursts explained at...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb

sean writes:

On 12 May, 19:53, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
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.
But they did `observe` How else could they have `suggested`. In fact
this is your mistake . In the first line of the copy of 6389 they
type..."We observed.."

You are mis-quoting by removing the context. At no point in that
circular do the authors say they "observed a redshift 3.5".
Instead, you are taking one word mentioned at the beginning of the
circular, "observed," and joining it with a tentative conclusion at
the end of the circular. By ignoring the rest of the text, you are
erroneously manufacturing your case.


... 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.
Ill say it again then. The 3 seperate attempts at redshift
determination
were contradictory and all ultimately incorrect. ...

Actually, of the three "attempts" only the first is inconsistent with
the other two, and was based on a low confidence conclusion. Thus
your statement is irrelevant.

... In fact the grb has
no redshift
and like all others can be matched to one of the local ISM , provided
their is no
significant contamination from an unrelated galaxy in the grb`s FOV.

I note the total lack of substantiation of these claims. In fact the
redshifts of many afterglows has been firmly detected by spectroscopy,
some as high as z ~ 6.5.

Your requirement that there be no galaxy in the field of view is just
silly. In most cases where a galaxy is detected nearby, the afterglow
is found *within* the galaxy. In other cases only the afterglow has
been detected (no galaxy), but the afterglow itself can still have a
redshift measurement.


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."
Take your unwarranted character smear regarding how you think my
English
needs improving. You `substantiate` this with the suggestion that I
misread `suggest` incorrectly as `observe`.

I don't really see how that is "filth," which would have involved
obscene language, as the word is commonly defined.

But I point out earlier this is an unsubstantiated character smear
as in fact it is you who needs to brush up on any English skills.
Because 6389 clearly has the words... "we observed" in its copy.
The words you say dont exist
Thats your substantiation

Hold on a second. Are you claiming that I am smearing your character
when I demonstrate that you erroneously quote statements out of
context? Incredible.

If you cut the unsubstantatiated personal smears youll get a polite
response from me.

... 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.
I made more than one `claim` But the two I refered to above didnt
include the stretching claim. Although I stick to that and expect it
to be confirmed sooner or later by one of your peers.

Unlikely, since X-ray and gamma-ray GRB light curves from early times
can already be shown to be almost perfectly identical. These light
curves differ by a factor of ~10 in wavelength, but not a factor of
~10 in duration. (see for example the O'Brien paper, which has a
figure comparing burst durations as measured in X-rays and gamma-rays
independently).

What is relevent here is that I said that as the gamma lightcurve was
multi peaked so were all the others.

And what is the basis of your "prediction" that light curves at "other"
wavelengths would have multiple peaks?

It was you who said this was an incorrect prediction, not
backed by any observation and that any rebrightenings were within
chi squared power smoothing etc and not therefore`real` or provable.

Since I never said anything was "within chi squared power smoothing
etc," your claim is irrelevant. You are again erroneously quoting
what I wrote out of context, even though I have reiterated it multiple
times.

Since then in xray and optical it is the norm to accept that there
are multiple rebrightenings or late time flares.
So I was right and you were wrong. And its there in the google posts
for all to see.

Since I have never claimed there could not be multiple rebrightenings,
you are once again in error (once again you are mis-quoting me).
Further more, since I suspect that your "prediction" of multiple
flares is based on your "theory" of light curve stretching, which is
erroneous, it is likely that it is *you* who is incorrect.



[*] "sean" Usenet po 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.
Well OK,.. 2001 for your general criticism of the model which includes
an
assumed critique of the SN-GRB connection.

Hold on a second. *You* made the claim that I had been criticizing
your stance on the connection between GRBs and SNRs since 2000. Now
it is revealed that (a) you weren't even posting in 2000; (b) I didn't
discuss SNRs and GRBs together until at least 2006; and (c) all you
can point to is generic criticisms of your model with an "assumed"
critique? That is just bogus.

I note how you *invented* a story of how I was criticizing your stance
on the GRB-SNR connection since 2000 in order to create the perception
that you were being persecuted... and yet you could not substantiate
that story.

So for the record...you specifically criticise by quote the
variability in 2001 ...

Note that I didn't criticize claims of variability in general, but
rather the *amount* of variability, and the techniques used to measure
it. I did not mention supernovae.

... and you criticise my predictions of
the SN -grb connection by at least mar 28 2005 post 80.

Um, since I didn't mention supernovae once in that post, you are in
error.

Which is well before 2007 when the first acceptance by your peers that
sN-grb connection isnt a given appeared in Nature.

No, you are again inventing a controversy. There was never the
assumption in the community that GRBs were *only* caused by
supernovae. I myself gave a talk in Rome Italy (2004) discussing two
distinct models (hypernovae vs. compact object merger).

... Or the 2006
seminal paper by Stanek regarding the incorrect use
of power law smoothing of lightcurves

It's worth pointing out that the paper you are quoting does not
discuss any supernova models. And that the paper *does* in fact fit
power law models to parts of the afterglow light curve. And that the
X-ray and optical light curves match very well with no stretching.
And that late time flares had been detected in afterglow light curves
of various GRBs as far back as 1997. Hmm, seems like the situation is
not as black and white as you claimed.

I also created www.gammarayburst.com in *2000* according to my
records and it has essentially the same content now as then.

However, it was *you* who manufactured the claim that I have been
criticizing your stance on the SNR-GRB connection since 2000. When
you created your website is irrelevant to that point.

But this is obfuscation on your part as you try to distract from
the essential fact that you and others tried to prove that my models
predictions were incorrect and then had to accept later that my
predictions were correct and yours werent.

No, *you* made the claim (still quoted above) that I have been
criticizing your stance in the GRB-SNR connection since 2000. You did
it to make it sound like you were the victim. I note that you could
not substantiate that claim.


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.
Why was it dubious? I kept within any error margins supplied and
thats
considered acceptable. ...

You were interpreting every single statistical fluctuation as a
"flare." Since statistical fluctuations are *not* real fluctuations
of the source intensity, your method was dubious.

... And the beamed models straight line power
decays also used upper and lower ends to fit its predictions. In fact
I would argue that your power laws actually pushed the error margins
more
than my variable interpretation.

That may also be the case, but it also depends on which model would be
fitted, and which statistical test of goodness of fit was used. (you
provided neither)

... Consider that for most of the points
in my graphs I didnt have to `iron` out the variability to fit a
straight
line. Anyways since then it turns out that lightcurves indeed do have
multiple rebrightenings contrary to yours and hardcastles "call"
So the data I used and my methods werent `dubious` as you suggested.
Yours were. That is , beamed theory`s were. And still are.

As I pointed out above, I never said that flares do not exist. You
might have noticed that if you had read my *actual words*, instead of
the straw-man words you assumed.


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.
This is exactly what I argued was the case 5 years ago. So Obviously
my interpretation of the variabilty in 970508 was correct and your
claims to the contrary were incorrect.Anyways Im glad you finally
admit
that my predictions made then have been confirmed.
Thats why I posted this to this thread. To set the record straight.

Since you could *not* prove that your claimed "flares" were
statistically required, your and my arguements are not exactly the
same. Your interpretation of the variability of 970508 was faulty
then, and it is faulty now.

Please understand, I am not saying that flares do not exist in
general. I am saying that the flares that *you claimed* to exist in
970508 were dubious at best, since they were single point statistical
fluctuations.


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.
What are suggesting. That one shouldnt make correct predictions and
correct analysis of the data until the incorrect predictions and
incorrect analysis made by a flawed model like the beamed theory are
definitely proved wrong?
So much for scientific advancement.

I see that you invented another story. My criticism of your claimed
variations has *nothing* to do with gamma-ray bursts, supernovae or
beamed theories. It has everything to do with your dubious practice
of taking each single point that was a little high and calling it a
"flare." *Every* set of statistical measurements will have some high
points, but that does not mean they are real.



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).
041219A is exceptional by any standards. Not least because it was
hundreds of seconds long,and more unusually had a precursor or trigger
that was at least 250 seconds before the main burst. So it gave ample
time for optical telescopes to observe while gamma is still observable
But you made up the prediction that they cannot be seen
in more than one wavelngth at one time in my model. I never claimed
this.

You are in error; I never claimed that.

... My model states that lightcurves in different wavelengths can
overlap but not *peak at the same time*. I predict they peak at later
times in longer wavelengths.

Your prediction is erroneous. I will delete your discussion of many
different GCNs since they are not really relevant. The relevant
studies are astro-ph/0503508 and astro-ph/0503521, as I pointed out
back in Apr 2005, but you ignored then (and now). These papers show
prompt optical emission with no delay or stretching.


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."
I dont see any direct comparison of individual xrt and bat
lightcurves
in this paper. the closest is fig 1 and here the 3 xrt/gamma
seem to always start just about the same time as BAT finishes.
Although its hard to read the detail in the graph as to whether
the XRT circles actually are on top of Bat or not. I assume
they arent.

They are overlapping. That's the point.

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.
You were defending the use of powerlaw to describ and explain decays
in the context of beamed theory. And I was saying theis was incorrect.
And yopu were saying I was wrong and had no proof.

Actually I never "defended" the fitting of a power law to afterglow
light curves. I did recommend starting with a simple model first
(with the power law as one possible simple model), and then making the
more complicated if statistically required.

So as far as the record goes,.. in principle you were defending
beamed theory and the use of power law decays to explain afterglows
even if you never issued a formal legal document stating this.

Just because I was debunking your dubious practices does *not* mean I
was arguing for another model (such as a beamed GRB model).

And as far as debunking my "***** claims". Yes ,.. you were
attempting to show that there was or would never be seen any
variability in lightcurves

You are in error. I never made that claim, and in fact discussed many
ways to quantify the amount and structure of the variability.

But as more recent data shows your (and Hardcastles) debunk failed
and it was my models predictions not neamed theories that have
become the accepted norm.
In fact you admit as much earlier in this post...
(Craig)...
"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."

OK, so you agree that older GRB observations did not have many
significant flares?


... 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 that case I suppose it was OK for me to make my claims on whatever
data
I had available at the time back in 2001. Or are you suggesting its OK
for your fave... beamed theory, to make claims on tentative data
but not OK for my theory to do so beven if it turns out that the
predictions beamed make are incorrect and mine correct?

A rapid redshift estimate is useful for the community to know
immediately; and has absolutely *nothing* to do with any theoretical
GRB model. Why are you inventing yet another controversy?

My memory from english class is this line you inadvertantly
seem to paraphrase.." All pigs are equal but some are more
equal than others."
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.
Go back and read 6389. It has the word `observed` in the copy.

Go back and read the words *between* "observed" and "redshift 3.5".
Gosh! There's a whole bunch of discussions about the technique
(photometric redshift) and the level of reliability (low)!

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?
Im glad to see you are finally distancing yourself from beamed
theory.
6 years after I told you to.

Since I never was a theorist, I am not distancing myself from
anything. I hold most astrophysical (and GRB) theorists in very high
regard. I was merely responding to your non-sensical assertions about
my profession.

CM