swift data not compatible with beamed theory

sean writes:

On Apr 12, 10:01 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
This is a continuation of an april 08 thread titled "Latest Swift data
not compatible wih beamed theory"
On 12 Sep 2007, 08:33, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
The following link is to the last post in thread I am responding to.
Unfortunately I`m unable to continue posting to that thread so this is
a new one to continue the discussion.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/99314772...
Regarding GRB 050904, the high redshift burst,
This is a circular argument we are having vis a vis Tarot. It was in
bvri
and there was no other simultaneous bvr observation to the same limits
to compare with. Which means that you cannot prove that tarot was in
any
one or all of the bvri filter. We can only both assume what range
tarot
actually saw. Why you insist that the theoretical assumption that it
was
only in I should be considered substantive proof is illogical.

[***] The problem is that *you* are claiming that the GRB afterglow
was detected in the optical band. The burden is on *you* to
substantiate your claim. However, the "proof" you are offering is in
fact an observation that covers both infrared and optical. Therefore,
the evidence you offer is ambiguous, and cannot be used as an argument
for or against optical emission.
In that case you cant use the same data as an argument against
optical
emmision .

However, I did not. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding
of the definition of the word "ambiguous." *You* are trying to prove
your case, so *you* are responsible to prove that optical emission was
present. Your use of ambiguous data provides no substantiation to
your "theory."


.... deletions ...

... As far as I can tell Haislip first observed at about
3 hours
after trigger. Notice the tarot measurements I refer to finish at 480
seconds
after trigger.
[sec after GRB]
start end magnitude
86 144 R18.1 +/- 0.3 (no detected)
150 253 R=18.5 +/- 0.3
312 370 R=18.7 +/- 0.3
376 479 R=19.1 +/- 0.4

...

Your comments are irrelevant. The Haislip et al paper presents true
R-band observations from BOOTES starting 2.1 minutes after the GRB
trigger and extendingoutto two hours, i.e. over the same time
interval you discuss above. And yet these R-*ONLY*-band observations
do not detect the afterglow. The magnitude upper limits are R18.2 at
T+2.8 min, and R20 at T+60 minutes. The point being, similar
observations, similar sensitivity, at a similar time after the burst,
but in R-band only, do not detect this afterglow. The conclusion is
obvious: the afterglow emission was *never* present in optical, even
at early times.
Obviously you are conveniently ignoring how magnitude measurements
work.
Note that your only simultaneous observation is at T+2.8min. And
notice
that YOU say it was with an upper limit of 18.2. Notice how at the
three Tarot detections at the same time the detections were all
below the limiting mag of Haislips 18.2. ...

You are incorrect, but it's a more subtle point. The key point is
that the Haislip et al. upper limits are quoted as *3-sigma* upper
limits (see their Table 1), while the Klotz TAROT error bars are
quoted as 1-sigma. They have different statistical confidence levels.
Haislip's 3-sigma upper limit provides a 99.9% confidence; whereas the
1-sigma error bars of TAROT are only 68% confident.

The conversion for upper limits is,
UPPER(1-sigma) = UPPER(3-sigma) + 2.5*LOG10(3)
= UPPER(3-sigma) + 1.2
Thus, the actual comparison should be,

[ use fixed font to view ]
Time BOOTES BOOTES TAROT
(min) (3 sig) (1 sig) (1 sig)
T+2.8 18.2 19.4
T+3.8 18.1
T+6.5 18.3 19.5
T+6.7 18.5 +/- 0.3
T+11.4 18.7 +/- 0.3
T+13.2 19.2 20.4
T+14.3 19.1 +/- 0.4
T+26 19.5 20.7
T+54 19.9 21.1

In short, one could say that *if* one assumes that the counterpart
emitted in the R band at the quoted TAROT intensities, then BOOTES
would have detected the counterpart with individual confidence levels
between 95% and 99%. However, because BOOTES did *not* detect the
counterpart, the assumption must be wrong. I.e., the counterpart did
not emit in the R band. Of course this conclusion is supported by
every other observation, including ultra-deep optical images (Haislip
et al) and spectroscopy (Kawai et al)


.... deletions ...


KAWAI SPECTRUM

Um, the spectrum is totally consistent with the published noise level
shortward of 880 nm. Any "absorption lines" found by you there are
surely bogus.
You cannot prove that the features below 880nm are definitively noise.
You can only assume they are noise. And you can only do this by
ignoring
some of the other substantivedata(Tarots bvri detection.)
Thats bogus science on your part.

Huh? You are incorrect:
1. We can guage whether something is noise or not, by comparing to
the experimental uncertainties ("the error bars"). Shortward of
880 nm, thedataare *consistent with zero*, within the
uncertainties.
As Ive already said, this isnt proof that the fluctuations arent real.

Shortward of the Ly-alpha line, the spectrum is statistically
consistent with zero, via a formal statistical test. I suggest you
try to understand statistics and measurement uncertainties better.
They have a real effect. It's truly naive to ascribe meaning to small
bumps and wiggles, when those wiggles are comparable to the known
measurement uncertainties.



You are still missing the point. You cherry-picked a few linesoutof
thousands from your "solar wind" spectrum. And you didn't pick the
brightest lines, just any old lines. In statistics, that is called a
problem of "number of trials," meaning that if you try enough times,
you will find a match. [ which is true in this case because the
stellar line catalog you referenced has lines at nearly every
wavelength. ]
Not to the same extent that Kawai and other beamed theorists do?
Look at his detail in fig 8 from astro ph 0512154. showing
an imaginary feature at about 750.He has what looks
like essentially a flat continuum with slight variations
in the flux at.. 730 755 and 770nm.
But Its convenient for him to "cherry pick" 750 so he does , to fit
that
graphs projection.

Umm, you must be confused. The figure you refer to, Figure 8 of
Totani et al, shows the well-fit Ly-alpha line wing on the top panel
(870-920 nm), and the Ly-beta region in the bottom panel (734-776).

The importance of that plot is that the redshift is extremely well
determined by the Ly-alpha line near 890 nm. The lower panel is
consistent with *zero* emission near the Ly-beta line. Totani et al
didn't *choose* to put a line at 750 nm, since since the Ly-beta line
must occur there, based on atomic physics.


Below are observed wavelength lines from 3 different grb.
An * indicates if a line is seen at that wavelength in that grb.
An element reference shows what others have attributed to
that same line to in each grb. Note at exactly the same wavelength
an absorbtion feature is called by a least two different
element line names. So for instance the same feature at exactly 660nm
is called SiII in 030323 but MgII in 021004.

Line identification takes some experience. Generally speaking one
cannot identify a single line by itself, but rather a *complex* of
lines whose separations are known, from the same (or related) atomic
species. That is the case in your examples.


On the other hand, the Kawai paper found specific *strong* lines of
*abundant* atomic species,
Note that Kawai only found 5 strong lines by cherry picking.

Huh? There is a gigantic Ly-alpha line wing which sets the redshift
scale to 6.3. The extra lines are merely confirmatory. Hence, the
number of trials is 1, which is not cherry picking.


....

Returning to some relevant discussion:
[ Markwardt: ]
: However, if you had bothered to look at the actual observations, no
: such behavior is present. Both the Haislip et al (Fig 2) and
: Tagliaferri et al (Fig 3) papers show that infrared emission was
: detected at the earliest times. This time-resolved spectroscopy shows
: that the afterglow was absolutely *not* a "hump that is redshifting as
: we watch," but rather smoothly fading in all bands. The longward
: infrared wavelengths were detected at the *earliest* times (2.4
: hours), and continued to be detected for ~8 days (Tagliaferri et al
: Fig 2). On the other hand, visible light was *never* detected
: (Haislip et al Fig 2). In short, your supposition is entirely
: unsubstantiated by thedata.

While you continue to harp about the optical emission (erroneously),
it is still true that your "hump"theorydoesn't work for the infrared
emission either.

This is an erroneous claim you make here. If you look at the optical
and NIR data supplied in any of the papers available you can see
that in fact the longer wavelengths decay at slower rates than
shorter.

However, that is not a "hump that is redshifting as we watch." As
noted above, the IR emission was detected from the very earliest
times.



If you accept the Lyman alpha "break" lies between 8830 AA and 8910
AA, then you must accept that the redshift is between 6.27 and 6.34.
However, a fit to the redward wing of the absorption line yields
a more precise line center, hence z=6.29.

I note no response.
Why do you need a response? I asked you why the researchers had
decided against
8830 and 8910 and you gave one. Although in fact your response didnt
explain
how it couldnt be 8830 or 8910. All you did was explain how it could
be 8850.
So technically you havent responded to my question...
Why is it that the Lyman alpha break cannot be either 8830 or 8910?

The center of the line is determined by fitting the whole wing, and
thus, the center can be determined very accurately.

So you now admit that the redshift must lie between 6.27 and 6.34?


What
it does look like though is the falloff on the blueward side of any
stellar spectra usually seen between 2-400nm.
Ive done two examples (for illustration purposes
only)and put them up at...

Again, your "youtube" pictures are cute, but beyond "illustration"
they are of little value. You have conveniently translated and
stretched the spectrum in *both* directions, wavelength *and*
intensity. The result has little meaning. For example, the stellar
spectrum actually goes *below zero* when it is stretched onto the
Kawai spectrum, which is a physical impossibility.
....

As noted above, your stretching is physically impossible, since it
produces negative emission shortward of 800 nm.
Im not saying it produces negative emission 800nm. Im
saying it produces emission below the limiting mag of kawais
observation at 800nm.

Actually, since your curve goes below zero, you *are* "predicting"
negative "emission." I.e. you are "predicting" something impossible.


But also as noted, the stellar lines you refer to do not exactly match
the Kawai line wavelengths. I'm talking about the actual line
centers, not your "eyeball" match-up.
My matches are better than kawai does. His graph clearly
shows a feature centered at 9496 and covering a ranges of 9492-9500.
Thats as accurate as one can ascertain from what he has made available
in his paper. Magnified by many times in graph software on pc.

Please. You're trying to do analysis with Powerpoint, and it's rather
silly.


Unfortunately you seem to be able to find only 5outof how many?
Probably much more. ...

Umm, no. The strongest lines from the most abundant species. The top
ten species, in order of total abundance are H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Fe,
Mg, Si and S, ignoring the ionization state. Kawai detected almost
all of the strong lines of the must abundant elements in the
interstellar medium.
Not by your yardstick. You just said above that he should also
see H, He Ne N and Fe. Where are they in Kawais analysis?

(a) It's not Kawai's obligation to find "every" line. The Ly-alpha
detection nails the redshift, and the other weaker line
identifications merely confirm it. (b) There are no known strong
lines of the H, He, Ne, N, and Fe atomic species in the relevant
wavelength range.

CM

For information on the important new discovery of an underlying
structure in the table of element conductivity see...
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...tivity_02.html
On 26 Jun, 12:08, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On Apr 12, 10:01 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
This is a continuation of an april 08 thread titled "Latest Swift data
not compatible wih beamed theory"
On 12 Sep 2007, 08:33, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
The following link is to the last post in thread I am responding to.
Unfortunately I`m unable to continue posting to that thread so this is
a new one to continue the discussion.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/99314772...
Regarding GRB 050904, the high redshift burst,
This is a circular argument we are having vis a vis Tarot. It was in
bvri
and there was no other simultaneous bvr observation to the same limits
to compare with. Which means that you cannot prove that tarot was in
any
one or all of the bvri filter. We can only both assume what range
tarot
actually saw. Why you insist that the theoretical assumption that it
was
only in I should be considered substantive proof is illogical.

[***] The problem is that *you* are claiming that the GRB afterglow
was detected in the optical band. The burden is on *you* to
substantiate your claim. However, the "proof" you are offering is in
fact an observation that covers both infrared and optical. Therefore,
the evidence you offer is ambiguous, and cannot be used as an argument
for or against optical emission.
In that case you cant use the same data as an argument against
optical
emmision .

However, I did not. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding
of the definition of the word "ambiguous." *You* are trying to prove
your case, so *you* are responsible to prove that optical emission was
present. Your use of ambiguous data provides no substantiation to
your "theory."
You are the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument at
hand.
I only claimed that the bvri detection from tarot matched my models
predictions. I dont have to prove that Tarot did not see in bvri.
It is YOU who claims the tarot bvri detection could not have been in
bvri
Therefore seeing as it is YOU who claims Tarots ability to see
in bvri is not always successful,.. It must therefore be your
responsibility to supply proof that in this case tarot did
not see anything in bvr. Despite it having a bvri filter.
Im not questioning tarot. YOU are.
... deletions ...

... As far as I can tell Haislip first observed at about
3 hours
after trigger. Notice the tarot measurements I refer to finish at 480
seconds
after trigger.
[sec after GRB]
start end magnitude
86 144 R18.1 +/- 0.3 (no detected)
150 253 R=18.5 +/- 0.3
312 370 R=18.7 +/- 0.3
376 479 R=19.1 +/- 0.4

...

Your comments are irrelevant. The Haislip et al paper presents true
R-band observations from BOOTES starting 2.1 minutes after the GRB
trigger and extendingoutto two hours, i.e. over the same time
interval you discuss above. And yet these R-*ONLY*-band observations
do not detect the afterglow. The magnitude upper limits are R18.2 at
T+2.8 min, and R20 at T+60 minutes. The point being, similar
observations, similar sensitivity, at a similar time after the burst,
but in R-band only, do not detect this afterglow. The conclusion is
obvious: the afterglow emission was *never* present in optical, even
at early times.
Obviously you are conveniently ignoring how magnitude measurements
work.
Note that your only simultaneous observation is at T+2.8min. And
notice
that YOU say it was with an upper limit of 18.2. Notice how at the
three Tarot detections at the same time the detections were all
below the limiting mag of Haislips 18.2. ...

You are incorrect, but it's a more subtle point. The key point is
that the Haislip et al. upper limits are quoted as *3-sigma* upper
limits (see their Table 1), while the Klotz TAROT error bars are
quoted as 1-sigma. They have different statistical confidence levels.
Haislip's 3-sigma upper limit provides a 99.9% confidence; whereas the
1-sigma error bars of TAROT are only 68% confident.
The conversion for upper limits is,
UPPER(1-sigma) = UPPER(3-sigma) + 2.5*LOG10(3)
= UPPER(3-sigma) + 1.2
Thus, the actual comparison should be,

[ use fixed font to view ]
Time BOOTES BOOTES TAROT
(min) (3 sig) (1 sig) (1 sig)
T+2.8 18.2 19.4
T+3.8 18.1
T+6.5 18.3 19.5
T+6.7 18.5 +/- 0.3
T+11.4 18.7 +/- 0.3
T+13.2 19.2 20.4
T+14.3 19.1 +/- 0.4
T+26 19.5 20.7
T+54 19.9 21.1

In short, one could say that *if* one assumes that the counterpart
emitted in the R band at the quoted TAROT intensities, then BOOTES
would have detected the counterpart with individual confidence levels
between 95% and 99%. However, because BOOTES did *not* detect the
counterpart, the assumption must be wrong. I.e., the counterpart did
not emit in the R band. Of course this conclusion is supported by
every other observation, including ultra-deep optical images (Haislip
et al) and spectroscopy (Kawai et al)
You make many mistakes here. Kawai did not observe simultaneous
to Tarot. Neither did Haislip.And as for your calculations you
havent convinced me that an 18.2 limiting mag is the same as
an 18.5 limiting mag. Or a 19.1 the same as a 19.2.
Otherwise haislip would not have bothered to specify
in his paper the following... no detection at limiting mag 18.2.
etc...If he was certain that a limiting mag of 18.2 ruled out
any OT down to 18.5,.. he would have said so.(See astro ph 0509660).

Your mistake is to assume that the Bootes `no detection` at one
limiting mag *rules out* any detection of an OT at much deeper
magnitudes simply because it is a possibility mathematically.
Your mistake is to confuse possibility and certainty.And
unfortunately the body of evidence cuts this possibility down to
very unlikely. Why? Because there are 3 seperate
additional observations in bvri below that limiting mag that
DO see an OT. And these confirm that Bootes limiting mag
on that occasion was correct as stated....18.2. It is consistent
with Tarot. Your mistake here is to ignore the scientific rule
of veracity through consistency. Tarot and Bootes are consistent
with each other. Bootes doesnt rule out Tarot any more than
Tarot could rule out Bootes. Not least because they are
self consistent.
Ultimately your argument is emotive more than rational. The truth is
you
wouldnt be challenging the veracity of these measurements if it was
a supposed low redshift grb that beamed theory does allow to be seen
in optical.
I also note the recent admission by beamed theorists that the theory
itself may be falling apart as it seems unable to explain the slow
decay rates in optical. Assuming 050904 has a relatively slow decay
rate
this can only mean that you dont need me to point out the flaws in
beamed theory vis avis 050904. Your peers are now doing it for me.
KAWAI SPECTRUM

Um, the spectrum is totally consistent with the published noise level
shortward of 880 nm. Any "absorption lines" found by you there are
surely bogus.
You cannot prove that the features below 880nm are definitively noise.
You can only assume they are noise. And you can only do this by
ignoring
some of the other substantivedata(Tarots bvri detection.)
Thats bogus science on your part.

Huh? You are incorrect:
1. We can guage whether something is noise or not, by comparing to
the experimental uncertainties ("the error bars"). Shortward of
880 nm, thedataare *consistent with zero*, within the
uncertainties.
As Ive already said, this isnt proof that the fluctuations arent real.

Shortward of the Ly-alpha line, the spectrum is statistically
consistent with zero, via a formal statistical test. I suggest you
try to understand statistics and measurement uncertainties better.
They have a real effect. It's truly naive to ascribe meaning to small
bumps and wiggles, when those wiggles are comparable to the known
measurement uncertainties.
And its naive of you to to suggest that because an observed
fluctuation
is within error margins it isnt real. You can only say its consistent
to beamed predictions (within error margins) .
You are still missing the point. You cherry-picked a few linesoutof
thousands from your "solar wind" spectrum. And you didn't pick the
brightest lines, just any old lines. In statistics, that is called a
problem of "number of trials," meaning that if you try enough times,
you will find a match. [ which is true in this case because the
stellar line catalog you referenced has lines at nearly every
wavelength. ]
Not to the same extent that Kawai and other beamed theorists do?
Look at his detail in fig 8 from astro ph 0512154. showing
an imaginary feature at about 750.He has what looks
like essentially a flat continuum with slight variations
in the flux at.. 730 755 and 770nm.
But Its convenient for him to "cherry pick" 750 so he does , to fit
that
graphs projection.

Umm, you must be confused. The figure you refer to, Figure 8 of
Totani et al, shows the well-fit Ly-alpha line wing on the top panel
(870-920 nm), and the Ly-beta region in the bottom panel (734-776).

The importance of that plot is that the redshift is extremely well
determined by the Ly-alpha line near 890 nm. The lower panel is
consistent with *zero* emission near the Ly-beta line. Totani et al
didn't *choose* to put a line at 750 nm, since since the Ly-beta line
must occur there, based on atomic physics.
Its not clear yet what is `well fit ` about that detail.At that point
there is no feature. No line. Yet you say beamed theory predicts a
`line` there? If thats the case then kawais illustration shows
that whatever beamed predicts at that point,.. it isnt there.
Unless beamed theory predicts `no feature` at that point. Which is
not what his graph suggests.
Below are observed wavelength lines from 3 different grb.
An * indicates if a line is seen at that wavelength in that grb.
An element reference shows what others have attributed to
that same line to in each grb. Note at exactly the same wavelength
an absorbtion feature is called by a least two different
element line names. So for instance the same feature at exactly 660nm
is called SiII in 030323 but MgII in 021004.

Line identification takes some experience. Generally speaking one
cannot identify a single line by itself, but rather a *complex* of
lines whose separations are known, from the same (or related) atomic
species. That is the case in your examples.
Irrelevent. The fact is the same distinct feature can be seen at
the same observed wavelength in many grb spectra. Which calls into
question
the assumption that these features are all from different sources at
different
redshifts. Something Prochter and Prochaska 2006 research of GRB s
shows leads to uncomfortable conclusions that there are more galaxies
along the line of sight of grbs then quasars. A conclusion that is
physically impossible if one assumes that the same feature
in different observed grb spectra come from different sources .
On the other hand, the Kawai paper found specific *strong* lines of
*abundant* atomic species,
Note that Kawai only found 5 strong lines by cherry picking.

Huh? There is a gigantic Ly-alpha line wing which sets the redshift
scale to 6.3. The extra lines are merely confirmatory. Hence, the
number of trials is 1, which is not cherry picking.
Certainly he finds a wing. I wasnt disputing that. My model TOO
predicts the same dropoff in flux! But we are discussing the observed
lines not the dropoff and it is obvious he cherry picks his lines far
more than you can accuse me of doing.He can only find 4 or 5 matches.
He should have found many more.
Returning to some relevant discussion:
[ Markwardt: ]
: However, if you had bothered to look at the actual observations, no
: such behavior is present. Both the Haislip et al (Fig 2) and
: Tagliaferri et al (Fig 3) papers show that infrared emission was
: detected at the earliest times. This time-resolved spectroscopy shows
: that the afterglow was absolutely *not* a "hump that is redshifting as
: we watch," but rather smoothly fading in all bands. The longward
: infrared wavelengths were detected at the *earliest* times (2.4
: hours), and continued to be detected for ~8 days (Tagliaferri et al
: Fig 2). On the other hand, visible light was *never* detected
: (Haislip et al Fig 2). In short, your supposition is entirely
: unsubstantiated by thedata.

While you continue to harp about the optical emission (erroneously),
it is still true that your "hump"theorydoesn't work for the infrared
emission either.
This is an erroneous claim you make here. If you look at the optical
and NIR data supplied in any of the papers available you can see
that in fact the longer wavelengths decay at slower rates than
shorter.

However, that is not a "hump that is redshifting as we watch." As
noted above, the IR emission was detected from the very earliest
times.
You obviously havent read the gcn data on 050904. The first tarot
optical
doesnt actually measure a detection . Implying a rise in bvri at the
very
earliset times.
And a quick check of the gcn postings on 050904 shows the first
posted
longer wavelength only ( J band gcn 3913) seems to be at 3 hours post
trigger.
Well after Tarot.
So you cant substantiate your claim that Infrared only was observed
decaying
at early times with optical/. Why? Because you have no NIR only data
at
the same early time as optical to substantiate your claim.
Whereas I have ALL the later time NIR observations that show that
there is a faster decay in shorter NIR than longer. Which is
consistent
with the prediction that there is a hump in flux moving progressively
to longer wavelengths over time.
See..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJZV-kCmJTY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
and also notice how there is a hump in flux moving to longer
wavelengths
in the observed spectra of 030329 at these urls..
page 2 of..
www.gammarayburst.com
and notice at the bottom of the graph on the following page ..
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...blog-post.html

If you accept the Lyman alpha "break" lies between 8830 AA and 8910
AA, then you must accept that the redshift is between 6.27 and 6.34.
However, a fit to the redward wing of the absorption line yields
a more precise line center, hence z=6.29.

I note no response.
Why do you need a response? I asked you why the researchers had
decided against
8830 and 8910 and you gave one. Although in fact your response didnt
explain
how it couldnt be 8830 or 8910. All you did was explain how it could
be 8850.
So technically you havent responded to my question...
Why is it that the Lyman alpha break cannot be either 8830 or 8910?

The center of the line is determined by fitting the whole wing, and
thus, the center can be determined very accurately.

So you now admit that the redshift must lie between 6.27 and 6.34?
No. The grb afterglow is not from a distant redshifted source at all
That assumption is generally not consistent with the observed data.
My research shows that in fact the data is consistent with the
assumption that the grb afterglow is an optical effect
that occurs at point of observation locally and that most absorbtion
lines observed are overlayed locally by the OT interacting with the
solar wind.
What
it does look like though is the falloff on the blueward side of any
stellar spectra usually seen between 2-400nm.
Ive done two examples (for illustration purposes
only)and put them up at...

Again, your "youtube" pictures are cute, but beyond "illustration"
they are of little value. You have conveniently translated and
stretched the spectrum in *both* directions, wavelength *and*
intensity. The result has little meaning. For example, the stellar
spectrum actually goes *below zero* when it is stretched onto the
Kawai spectrum, which is a physical impossibility.
...

As noted above, your stretching is physically impossible, since it
produces negative emission shortward of 800 nm.
Im not saying it produces negative emission 800nm. Im
saying it produces emission below the limiting mag of kawais
observation at 800nm.

Actually, since your curve goes below zero, you *are* "predicting"
negative "emission." I.e. you are "predicting" something impossible.
Wrong again. You are the one who predicts the impossible. Im claiming
that
any light that is below detection thresholds will not be observed.
That claim is perfectly acceptable scientifically.
Whereas your claim is that because it isnt observed it is negative
emmision.
Yours surely is the impossible claim, not mine.
But also as noted, the stellar lines you refer to do not exactly match
the Kawai line wavelengths. I'm talking about the actual line
centers, not your "eyeball" match-up.
My matches are better than kawai does. His graph clearly
shows a feature centered at 9496 and covering a ranges of 9492-9500.
Thats as accurate as one can ascertain from what he has made available
in his paper. Magnified by many times in graph software on pc.

Please. You're trying to do analysis with Powerpoint, and it's rather
silly.
OK show me the spectral data that supplies a more accurate parameter
for
the observed feature centered at 9496.
You cant because none exists. Otherwise Kawai would have supplied
it in his paper. Anyways unlike yourself I dont have, nor do
I use powerpoint.
It would be silly of me to use such an inferior software for this
purpose.
Unfortunately you seem to be able to find only 5outof how many?
Probably much more. ...

Umm, no. The strongest lines from the most abundant species. The top
ten species, in order of total abundance are H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Fe,
Mg, Si and S, ignoring the ionization state. Kawai detected almost
all of the strong lines of the must abundant elements in the
interstellar medium.
Not by your yardstick. You just said above that he should also
see H, He Ne N and Fe. Where are they in Kawais analysis?

(a) It's not Kawai's obligation to find "every" line.
Yes it is . Otherwise its called cherry picking.

The Ly-alpha
detection nails the redshift, and the other weaker line
identifications merely confirm it. (b) There are no known strong
lines of the H, He, Ne, N, and Fe atomic species in the relevant
wavelength range.
He should see many more. How about the 3 persistent lines in Oxygen
at 1302? Or the two at Mg 1239-40? Or the three persistent lines at
C 1277? (much stronger than the weak line at C1334 that Kawai
cherry picked)
Shouldnt these also be in kawai?

Sean

www.gammarayburst.com
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...blog-post.html

sean writes:
On 26 Jun, 12:08, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On Apr 12, 10:01 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
This is a continuation of an april 08 thread titled "Latest Swift data
not compatible wih beamed theory"
On 12 Sep 2007, 08:33, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
The following link is to the last post in thread I am responding to.
Unfortunately I`m unable to continue posting to that thread so this is
a new one to continue the discussion.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/99314772...
Regarding GRB 050904, the high redshift burst,
This is a circular argument we are having vis a vis Tarot. It was in
bvri
and there was no other simultaneous bvr observation to the same limits
to compare with. Which means that you cannot prove that tarot was in
any
one or all of the bvri filter. We can only both assume what range
tarot
actually saw. Why you insist that the theoretical assumption that it
was
only in I should be considered substantive proof is illogical.

[***] The problem is that *you* are claiming that the GRB afterglow
was detected in the optical band. The burden is on *you* to
substantiate your claim. However, the "proof" you are offering is in
fact an observation that covers both infrared and optical. Therefore,
the evidence you offer is ambiguous, and cannot be used as an argument
for or against optical emission.
In that case you cant use the same data as an argument against
optical
emmision .

However, I did not. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding
of the definition of the word "ambiguous." *You* are trying to prove
your case, so *you* are responsible to prove that optical emission was
present. Your use of ambiguous data provides no substantiation to
your "theory."
You are the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument at
hand.
I only claimed that the bvri detection from tarot matched my models
predictions. I dont have to prove that Tarot did not see in bvri.

You are incorrect. The original discussion in July 2007 went
something like this:

Markwardt:
: You are incorrect. No optical emission was ever detected for GRB
: 050904. I.e. the optical images were blank, hence there was no
: optical light available to make a spectrum.

"Sean:"
: Wrong here. Gcn3917 refers to a optical flash at 10 minutes.

It was *you* who claimed that the TAROT data somehow reflected an
optical flash. But now that you know the wavelength band of TAROT
includes both optical and infrared, you must know that your claim is
unsubstantiated.

To summarize: I claim now, and always claimed, that there is *no*
optical(-only) detection of the GRB 050904 afterglow. This includes
very sensitive exposures and very early exposures. Since the only
counter-evidence you offered was from TAROT, which is in fact
*ambiguous*, your claim remains utterly unsubstantiated.


....
... As far as I can tell Haislip first observed at about
3 hours
after trigger. Notice the tarot measurements I refer to finish at 480
seconds
after trigger.
[sec after GRB]
start end magnitude
86 144 R18.1 +/- 0.3 (no detected)
150 253 R=18.5 +/- 0.3
312 370 R=18.7 +/- 0.3
376 479 R=19.1 +/- 0.4

...

Your comments are irrelevant. The Haislip et al paper presents true
R-band observations from BOOTES starting 2.1 minutes after the GRB
trigger and extendingoutto two hours, i.e. over the same time
interval you discuss above. And yet these R-*ONLY*-band observations
do not detect the afterglow. The magnitude upper limits are R18.2 at
T+2.8 min, and R20 at T+60 minutes. The point being, similar
observations, similar sensitivity, at a similar time after the burst,
but in R-band only, do not detect this afterglow. The conclusion is
obvious: the afterglow emission was *never* present in optical, even
at early times.
Obviously you are conveniently ignoring how magnitude measurements
work.
Note that your only simultaneous observation is at T+2.8min. And
notice
that YOU say it was with an upper limit of 18.2. Notice how at the
three Tarot detections at the same time the detections were all
below the limiting mag of Haislips 18.2. ...

You are incorrect, but it's a more subtle point. The key point is
that the Haislip et al. upper limits are quoted as *3-sigma* upper
limits (see their Table 1), while the Klotz TAROT error bars are
quoted as 1-sigma. They have different statistical confidence levels.
Haislip's 3-sigma upper limit provides a 99.9% confidence; whereas the
1-sigma error bars of TAROT are only 68% confident.
The conversion for upper limits is,
UPPER(1-sigma) = UPPER(3-sigma) + 2.5*LOG10(3)
= UPPER(3-sigma) + 1.2
Thus, the actual comparison should be,

[ use fixed font to view ]
Time BOOTES BOOTES TAROT
(min) (3 sig) (1 sig) (1 sig)
T+2.8 18.2 19.4
T+3.8 18.1
T+6.5 18.3 19.5
T+6.7 18.5 +/- 0.3
T+11.4 18.7 +/- 0.3
T+13.2 19.2 20.4
T+14.3 19.1 +/- 0.4
T+26 19.5 20.7
T+54 19.9 21.1

In short, one could say that *if* one assumes that the counterpart
emitted in the R band at the quoted TAROT intensities, then BOOTES
would have detected the counterpart with individual confidence levels
between 95% and 99%. However, because BOOTES did *not* detect the
counterpart, the assumption must be wrong. I.e., the counterpart did
not emit in the R band. Of course this conclusion is supported by
every other observation, including ultra-deep optical images (Haislip
et al) and spectroscopy (Kawai et al)
You make many mistakes here. Kawai did not observe simultaneous
to Tarot. Neither did Haislip. ...

You are in error. The BOOTES observations shown above are centered
just before and just after the claimed TAROT detects.

If the counterpart had had optical emission, BOOTES *would* have
detected it with between 95-99% confidence, but did not. Thus, your
claim is both erroneous and unsubstantiated.


... And as for your calculations you
havent convinced me that an 18.2 limiting mag is the same as
an 18.5 limiting mag. Or a 19.1 the same as a 19.2.

Huh? I didn't not claim that 18.2 is the "same as" 18.5.

Otherwise haislip would not have bothered to specify
in his paper the following... no detection at limiting mag 18.2.
etc...If he was certain that a limiting mag of 18.2 ruled out
any OT down to 18.5,.. he would have said so.(See astro ph 0509660).

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.

Your mistake is to assume that the Bootes `no detection` at one
limiting mag *rules out* any detection of an OT at much deeper
magnitudes simply because it is a possibility mathematically.

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.

....

KAWAI SPECTRUM

Um, the spectrum is totally consistent with the published noise level
shortward of 880 nm. Any "absorption lines" found by you there are
surely bogus.
You cannot prove that the features below 880nm are definitively noise.
You can only assume they are noise. And you can only do this by
ignoring
some of the other substantivedata(Tarots bvri detection.)
Thats bogus science on your part.

Huh? You are incorrect:
1. We can guage whether something is noise or not, by comparing to
the experimental uncertainties ("the error bars"). Shortward of
880 nm, thedataare *consistent with zero*, within the
uncertainties.
As Ive already said, this isnt proof that the fluctuations arent real.

Shortward of the Ly-alpha line, the spectrum is statistically
consistent with zero, via a formal statistical test. I suggest you
try to understand statistics and measurement uncertainties better.
They have a real effect. It's truly naive to ascribe meaning to small
bumps and wiggles, when those wiggles are comparable to the known
measurement uncertainties.
And its naive of you to to suggest that because an observed
fluctuation
is within error margins it isnt real. You can only say its consistent
to beamed predictions (within error margins) .

Formally and logically, one can only test consistency or inconsistency
with a hypothesis. I stand my my claim that it is foolish to ascribe
meaning to wiggles comparable to the measurement uncertainty.


You are still missing the point. You cherry-picked a few linesoutof
thousands from your "solar wind" spectrum. And you didn't pick the
brightest lines, just any old lines. In statistics, that is called a
problem of "number of trials," meaning that if you try enough times,
you will find a match. [ which is true in this case because the
stellar line catalog you referenced has lines at nearly every
wavelength. ]
Not to the same extent that Kawai and other beamed theorists do?
Look at his detail in fig 8 from astro ph 0512154. showing
an imaginary feature at about 750.He has what looks
like essentially a flat continuum with slight variations
in the flux at.. 730 755 and 770nm.
But Its convenient for him to "cherry pick" 750 so he does , to fit
that
graphs projection.

Umm, you must be confused. The figure you refer to, Figure 8 of
Totani et al, shows the well-fit Ly-alpha line wing on the top panel
(870-920 nm), and the Ly-beta region in the bottom panel (734-776).

The importance of that plot is that the redshift is extremely well
determined by the Ly-alpha line near 890 nm. The lower panel is
consistent with *zero* emission near the Ly-beta line. Totani et al
didn't *choose* to put a line at 750 nm, since since the Ly-beta line
must occur there, based on atomic physics.
Its not clear yet what is `well fit ` about that detail.At that point
there is no feature. No line. Yet you say beamed theory predicts a
`line` there? If thats the case then kawais illustration shows
that whatever beamed predicts at that point,.. it isnt there.
Unless beamed theory predicts `no feature` at that point. Which is
not what his graph suggests.

I did not say "beamed theory predicts a line there." If you even
bothered to read my wording, I said that according to *atomic physics*
the Ly Beta absorption feature must be present. Unless you are also
claiming that all of atomic physics is wrong, the Ly Beta transition
must exist. However, the fact that there is no continuum emission to
be absorbed at that wavelength makes the issue a moot point.


....
On the other hand, the Kawai paper found specific *strong* lines of
*abundant* atomic species,
Note that Kawai only found 5 strong lines by cherry picking.

Huh? There is a gigantic Ly-alpha line wing which sets the redshift
scale to 6.3. The extra lines are merely confirmatory. Hence, the
number of trials is 1, which is not cherry picking.
Certainly he finds a wing. I wasnt disputing that. My model TOO
predicts the same dropoff in flux! But we are discussing the observed
lines not the dropoff and it is obvious he cherry picks his lines far
more than you can accuse me of doing.He can only find 4 or 5 matches.

Your interpretation is faulty, for the reason noted just above. Once
a hypothesis has been formed ("redshift is 6.3 based on Ly Alpha
feature"), then it is not cherry picking to test this hypothesis by
searching for known strong lines of abundant elements at the *same*
redshift.


Returning to some relevant discussion:
[ Markwardt: ]
: However, if you had bothered to look at the actual observations, no
: such behavior is present. Both the Haislip et al (Fig 2) and
: Tagliaferri et al (Fig 3) papers show that infrared emission was
: detected at the earliest times. This time-resolved spectroscopy shows
: that the afterglow was absolutely *not* a "hump that is redshifting as
: we watch," but rather smoothly fading in all bands. The longward
: infrared wavelengths were detected at the *earliest* times (2.4
: hours), and continued to be detected for ~8 days (Tagliaferri et al
: Fig 2). On the other hand, visible light was *never* detected
: (Haislip et al Fig 2). In short, your supposition is entirely
: unsubstantiated by thedata.

While you continue to harp about the optical emission (erroneously),
it is still true that your "hump"theorydoesn't work for the infrared
emission either.
This is an erroneous claim you make here. If you look at the optical
and NIR data supplied in any of the papers available you can see
that in fact the longer wavelengths decay at slower rates than
shorter.

However, that is not a "hump that is redshifting as we watch." As
noted above, the IR emission was detected from the very earliest
times.
You obviously havent read the gcn data on 050904. The first tarot
optical doesnt actually measure a detection . Implying a rise in
bvri at the very earliset times. And a quick check of the gcn
postings on 050904 shows the first posted longer wavelength only ( J
band gcn 3913) seems to be at 3 hours post trigger. Well after
Tarot.

Huh? That still doesn't sound like a "hump that is redshifting as we
watch." The observation at 3 hours post-trigger implies nothing about
what occurred previously.


So you cant substantiate your claim that Infrared only was observed
decaying at early times with optical/. Why? Because you have no NIR
only data at the same early time as optical to substantiate your
claim.

Actually, I was referring to the Haislip paper which shows a smooth
decay at all detectable wavelengths. I.e. it was not a "hump that is
redshifting as we watch."


Whereas I have ALL the later time NIR observations that show that
there is a faster decay in shorter NIR than longer.

Ahh, but you are basing your interpretation on your erroneous plot.
The plot where you erroneously displayed two *different* wavelength
filters, I1 and I2, with the same color and with a trend line
connecting them. The plot where you erroneously displayed a BVRI
detection as "V", and where you connected it to an upper limit point
with a trend line. These are both erroneous techniques, and hence
your conclusions are irrelevant.

....
If you accept the Lyman alpha "break" lies between 8830 AA and 8910
AA, then you must accept that the redshift is between 6.27 and 6.34.
However, a fit to the redward wing of the absorption line yields
a more precise line center, hence z=6.29.

I note no response.
Why do you need a response? I asked you why the researchers had
decided against
8830 and 8910 and you gave one. Although in fact your response didnt
explain
how it couldnt be 8830 or 8910. All you did was explain how it could
be 8850.
So technically you havent responded to my question...
Why is it that the Lyman alpha break cannot be either 8830 or 8910?

The center of the line is determined by fitting the whole wing, and
thus, the center can be determined very accurately.

So you now admit that the redshift must lie between 6.27 and 6.34?
No. The grb afterglow is not from a distant redshifted source at all
That assumption is generally not consistent with the observed data.
....

I believe you are incorrect. I believe that in every case where the
"break" has been detected, it has been consistent with other redshift
indicators.

....
What
it does look like though is the falloff on the blueward side of any
stellar spectra usually seen between 2-400nm.
Ive done two examples (for illustration purposes
only)and put them up at...

Again, your "youtube" pictures are cute, but beyond "illustration"
they are of little value. You have conveniently translated and
stretched the spectrum in *both* directions, wavelength *and*
intensity. The result has little meaning. For example, the stellar
spectrum actually goes *below zero* when it is stretched onto the
Kawai spectrum, which is a physical impossibility.
...

As noted above, your stretching is physically impossible, since it
produces negative emission shortward of 800 nm.
Im not saying it produces negative emission 800nm. Im
saying it produces emission below the limiting mag of kawais
observation at 800nm.

Actually, since your curve goes below zero, you *are* "predicting"
negative "emission." I.e. you are "predicting" something impossible.
Wrong again. You are the one who predicts the impossible. Im claiming
that
any light that is below detection thresholds will not be observed.

However, your own plot belies your error. The plot shows the
"predicted" flux which falls below zero. That prediction is
physically impossible. I note your failure to address this specific
point. Your "interpretation" that a negative flux level would simply
not be detectable is valiant, but irrelevant. By applying ad hoc
methods, you have obtained ad hoc results. I.e. your results are
irrelevant.

....
But also as noted, the stellar lines you refer to do not exactly match
the Kawai line wavelengths. I'm talking about the actual line
centers, not your "eyeball" match-up.
My matches are better than kawai does. His graph clearly
shows a feature centered at 9496 and covering a ranges of 9492-9500.
Thats as accurate as one can ascertain from what he has made available
in his paper. Magnified by many times in graph software on pc.

Please. You're trying to do analysis with Powerpoint, and it's rather
silly.
OK show me the spectral data that supplies a more accurate parameter
for the observed feature centered at 9496. You cant because none
exists. Otherwise Kawai would have supplied it in his paper. Anyways
unlike yourself I dont have, nor do I use powerpoint. It would be
silly of me to use such an inferior software for this purpose.

Whatever image manipulation program you used is irrelevant. The point
is that quantitative science can't be done at the appropriate
precision by stretching and shifting images by hand. Also, even if
Kawai et al. didn't plot the highest resolution spectrum in their
paper, does not mean such a spectrum does not exist.


Unfortunately you seem to be able to find only 5outof how many?
Probably much more. ...

Umm, no. The strongest lines from the most abundant species. The top
ten species, in order of total abundance are H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Fe,
Mg, Si and S, ignoring the ionization state. Kawai detected almost
all of the strong lines of the must abundant elements in the
interstellar medium.
Not by your yardstick. You just said above that he should also
see H, He Ne N and Fe. Where are they in Kawais analysis?

(a) It's not Kawai's obligation to find "every" line.
Yes it is . Otherwise its called cherry picking.

As noted above, you are in error.

The Ly-alpha
detection nails the redshift, and the other weaker line
identifications merely confirm it. (b) There are no known strong
lines of the H, He, Ne, N, and Fe atomic species in the relevant
wavelength range.
He should see many more. How about the 3 persistent lines in Oxygen
at 1302? Or the two at Mg 1239-40? Or the three persistent lines at
C 1277? (much stronger than the weak line at C1334... )

It's bizarre you picked Oxygen since Kawai did indeed identify that
line (Table 1, line 7). As noted above, the remaining line
identifications were confirmatory: strong lines in the spectrum,
identified with strong lines of the most abundant species. Your
"every line" assertion is a cannard.

Since you continue to misinterpret my statements, and issue
unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, I don't see a reason for me to
respond further to this discussion.

CM

On 6 Jul, 17:30, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...tivity_02.html
On 26 Jun, 12:08, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On Apr 12, 10:01 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
This is a continuation of an april 08 thread titled "Latest Swift data
not compatible wih beamed theory"
On 12 Sep 2007, 08:33, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
The following link is to the last post in thread I am responding to.
Unfortunately I`m unable to continue posting to that thread so this is
a new one to continue the discussion.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/99314772...
Regarding GRB 050904, the high redshift burst,
This is a circular argument we are having vis a vis Tarot. It was in
bvri
and there was no other simultaneous bvr observation to the same limits
to compare with. Which means that you cannot prove that tarot was in
any
one or all of the bvri filter. We can only both assume what range
tarot
actually saw. Why you insist that the theoretical assumption that it
was
only in I should be considered substantive proof is illogical.

[***] The problem is that *you* are claiming that the GRB afterglow
was detected in the optical band. The burden is on *you* to
substantiate your claim. However, the "proof" you are offering is in
fact an observation that covers both infrared and optical. Therefore,
the evidence you offer is ambiguous, and cannot be used as an argument
for or against optical emission.
In that case you cant use the same data as an argument against
optical
emmision .

However, I did not. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding
of the definition of the word "ambiguous." *You* are trying to prove
your case, so *you* are responsible to prove that optical emission was
present. Your use of ambiguous data provides no substantiation to
your "theory."
You are the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument at
hand.
I only claimed that the bvri detection from tarot matched my models
predictions. I dont have to prove that Tarot did not see in bvri.

You are incorrect. The original discussion in July 2007 went
something like this:

Markwardt:
: You are incorrect. No optical emission was ever detected for GRB
: 050904. I.e. the optical images were blank, hence there was no
: optical light available to make a spectrum.

"Sean:"
: Wrong here. Gcn3917 refers to a optical flash at 10 minutes.

It was *you* who claimed that the TAROT data somehow reflected an
optical flash. But now that you know the wavelength band of TAROT
includes both optical and infrared, you must know that your claim is
unsubstantiated.

To summarize: I claim now, and always claimed, that there is *no*
optical(-only) detection of the GRB 050904 afterglow. This includes
very sensitive exposures and very early exposures. Since the only
counter-evidence you offered was from TAROT, which is in fact
*ambiguous*, your claim remains utterly unsubstantiated.
You claimed initially that I had no proof that there was a flash
in optical. Not that there was no optical only flash detected.
Nor did I ever claim that there was an optical only flash detected.
I always claimed that TAROT saw in bvri.
It is YOU who claims that Tarot did not see in BVR
And it is YOU who has no substantiation to prove that the bvri
detection was only in I band. Because your only other measurements
at the same time are posted in gcn and elsewhere as being
of a limiting mag that was less than the TAROT observed magnitudes

... As far as I can tell Haislip first observed at about
3 hours
after trigger. Notice the tarot measurements I refer to finish at 480
seconds
after trigger.
[sec after GRB]
start end magnitude
86 144 R18.1 +/- 0.3 (no detected)
150 253 R=18.5 +/- 0.3
312 370 R=18.7 +/- 0.3
376 479 R=19.1 +/- 0.4

...

Your comments are irrelevant. The Haislip et al paper presents true
R-band observations from BOOTES starting 2.1 minutes after the GRB
trigger and extendingoutto two hours, i.e. over the same time
interval you discuss above. And yet these R-*ONLY*-band observations
do not detect the afterglow. The magnitude upper limits are R18.2 at
T+2.8 min, and R20 at T+60 minutes. The point being, similar
observations, similar sensitivity, at a similar time after the burst,
but in R-band only, do not detect this afterglow. The conclusion is
obvious: the afterglow emission was *never* present in optical, even
at early times.
Obviously you are conveniently ignoring how magnitude measurements
work.
Note that your only simultaneous observation is at T+2.8min. And
notice
that YOU say it was with an upper limit of 18.2. Notice how at the
three Tarot detections at the same time the detections were all
below the limiting mag of Haislips 18.2. ...

You are incorrect, but it's a more subtle point. The key point is
that the Haislip et al. upper limits are quoted as *3-sigma* upper
limits (see their Table 1), while the Klotz TAROT error bars are
quoted as 1-sigma. They have different statistical confidence levels.
Haislip's 3-sigma upper limit provides a 99.9% confidence; whereas the
1-sigma error bars of TAROT are only 68% confident.
The conversion for upper limits is,
UPPER(1-sigma) = UPPER(3-sigma) + 2.5*LOG10(3)
= UPPER(3-sigma) + 1.2
Thus, the actual comparison should be,

[ use fixed font to view ]
Time BOOTES BOOTES TAROT
(min) (3 sig) (1 sig) (1 sig)
T+2.8 18.2 19.4
T+3.8 18.1
T+6.5 18.3 19.5
T+6.7 18.5 +/- 0.3
T+11.4 18.7 +/- 0.3
T+13.2 19.2 20.4
T+14.3 19.1 +/- 0.4
T+26 19.5 20.7
T+54 19.9 21.1

In short, one could say that *if* one assumes that the counterpart
emitted in the R band at the quoted TAROT intensities, then BOOTES
would have detected the counterpart with individual confidence levels
between 95% and 99%. However, because BOOTES did *not* detect the
counterpart, the assumption must be wrong. I.e., the counterpart did
not emit in the R band. Of course this conclusion is supported by
every other observation, including ultra-deep optical images (Haislip
et al) and spectroscopy (Kawai et al)
You make many mistakes here. Kawai did not observe simultaneous
to Tarot. Neither did Haislip. ...

You are in error. The BOOTES observations shown above are centered
just before and just after the claimed TAROT detects.
Complete false claim here on your part. Haislip isnt
Bootes. Bootes does not have haislips name on its relevent gcn
posting. Haislips` only gcn credits are for later time observations.
See gcn 3913 and 3914. THey are the first haislip
and they are at 3 hours post trigger. Well after Tarot.
And Kawai saw at 3 days post trigger. Also well after
TAROT. Bootes on the other hand WAS simultaneous to tarot
but, it doesnt have Haislips credit on it. See gcn 3929.
Therefore my claim is correct....Haislip and Kawai
did not observe simultaneous to Tarot (or bootes).
If the counterpart had had optical emission, BOOTES *would* have
detected it with between 95-99% confidence, but did not. Thus, your
claim is both erroneous and unsubstantiated.
Unscientific fiddle here. It may be possible that Bootes`
18.2 limiting mag was the same as an 18.5 limiting mag,...
But its more probable it was 18.2. And furthermore that calculation
is substantiated by TAROT. Because TAROT has a clear bvri detection
at lower mags then bootes stated limiting mag. Which in turn confirms
Bootes no detection limiting mag at ~18.2 as being roughly correct.
... And as for your calculations you
havent convinced me that an 18.2 limiting mag is the same as
an 18.5 limiting mag. Or a 19.1 the same as a 19.2.

Huh? I didn't not claim that 18.2 is the "same as" 18.5.
Yes you did. Otherwise you wouldnt be claiming that Bootes
18.2 limiting mag rules out an 18.5 detection by Tarot

Otherwise haislip would not have bothered to specify
in his paper the following... no detection at limiting mag 18.2.
etc...If he was certain that a limiting mag of 18.2 ruled out
any OT down to 18.5,.. he would have said so.(See astro ph 0509660).

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.
Yes I do. I say yes, its possible Bootes 18.2 limiting mag was the
same
as a 18.5 limiting mag. But not as probable as it being an 18.2 mag
only.
There, I addressed your confidence levels. They are not proof
that Tarot did not see in bvri.
Your mistake is to assume that the Bootes `no detection` at one
limiting mag *rules out* any detection of an OT at much deeper
magnitudes simply because it is a possibility mathematically.

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.
Yes I do. I say yes, its possible Bootes 18.2 limiting mag was the
same
as a 18.5 limiting mag. But not as probable as it being an 18.2 mag
only.
There, I addressed your confidence levels. They are not proof
that Tarot did not see in bvri.
KAWAI SPECTRUM

Um, the spectrum is totally consistent with the published noise level
shortward of 880 nm. Any "absorption lines" found by you there are
surely bogus.
You cannot prove that the features below 880nm are definitively noise.
You can only assume they are noise. And you can only do this by
ignoring
some of the other substantivedata(Tarots bvri detection.)
Thats bogus science on your part.

Huh? You are incorrect:
1. We can guage whether something is noise or not, by comparing to
the experimental uncertainties ("the error bars"). Shortward of
880 nm, thedataare *consistent with zero*, within the
uncertainties.
As Ive already said, this isnt proof that the fluctuations arent real.

Shortward of the Ly-alpha line, the spectrum is statistically
consistent with zero, via a formal statistical test. I suggest you
try to understand statistics and measurement uncertainties better.
They have a real effect. It's truly naive to ascribe meaning to small
bumps and wiggles, when those wiggles are comparable to the known
measurement uncertainties.
And its naive of you to to suggest that because an observed
fluctuation
is within error margins it isnt real. You can only say its consistent
to beamed predictions (within error margins) .

Formally and logically, one can only test consistency or inconsistency
with a hypothesis. I stand my my claim that it is foolish to ascribe
meaning to wiggles comparable to the measurement uncertainty.
And I stand by my claim that it is foolish to assume that all observed
fluctuations in flux within error margins are not real. This is an
assumption
you make . Not a substantiated fact.
You are still missing the point. You cherry-picked a few linesoutof
thousands from your "solar wind" spectrum. And you didn't pick the
brightest lines, just any old lines. In statistics, that is called a
problem of "number of trials," meaning that if you try enough times,
you will find a match. [ which is true in this case because the
stellar line catalog you referenced has lines at nearly every
wavelength. ]
Not to the same extent that Kawai and other beamed theorists do?
Look at his detail in fig 8 from astro ph 0512154. showing
an imaginary feature at about 750.He has what looks
like essentially a flat continuum with slight variations
in the flux at.. 730 755 and 770nm.
But Its convenient for him to "cherry pick" 750 so he does , to fit
that
graphs projection.

Umm, you must be confused. The figure you refer to, Figure 8 of
Totani et al, shows the well-fit Ly-alpha line wing on the top panel
(870-920 nm), and the Ly-beta region in the bottom panel (734-776).

The importance of that plot is that the redshift is extremely well
determined by the Ly-alpha line near 890 nm. The lower panel is
consistent with *zero* emission near the Ly-beta line. Totani et al
didn't *choose* to put a line at 750 nm, since since the Ly-beta line
must occur there, based on atomic physics.
Its not clear yet what is `well fit ` about that detail.At that point
there is no feature. No line. Yet you say beamed theory predicts a
`line` there? If thats the case then kawais illustration shows
that whatever beamed predicts at that point,.. it isnt there.
Unless beamed theory predicts `no feature` at that point. Which is
not what his graph suggests.

I did not say "beamed theory predicts a line there." If you even
bothered to read my wording, I said that according to *atomic physics*
the Ly Beta absorption feature must be present. Unless you are also
claiming that all of atomic physics is wrong, the Ly Beta transition
must exist. However, the fact that there is no continuum emission to
be absorbed at that wavelength makes the issue a moot point.
Whats important here is that the part of the spectrum he highlited
in his illustration was essentially featureless. Yet he
compares it on his graph to a dotted line that curves down
and up in flux. Whatever feature he imagines being here whether it
be the Lyman beta feature or otherwise is not obvious. THere is no
feature there. Why does he say we should see one? What is it
about the flux associated with a lyman Beta transition feature
that he sees in this featureless part of the spectra?
On the other hand, the Kawai paper found specific *strong* lines of
*abundant* atomic species,
Note that Kawai only found 5 strong lines by cherry picking.

Huh? There is a gigantic Ly-alpha line wing which sets the redshift
scale to 6.3. The extra lines are merely confirmatory. Hence, the
number of trials is 1, which is not cherry picking.
Certainly he finds a wing. I wasnt disputing that. My model TOO
predicts the same dropoff in flux! But we are discussing the observed
lines not the dropoff and it is obvious he cherry picks his lines far
more than you can accuse me of doing.He can only find 4 or 5 matches.

Your interpretation is faulty, for the reason noted just above. Once
a hypothesis has been formed ("redshift is 6.3 based on Ly Alpha
feature"), then it is not cherry picking to test this hypothesis by
searching for known strong lines of abundant elements at the *same*
redshift.
OK he sets his LY alpha parameter for 6.3. That doesnt alter the fact
that when he tries to find line matches at ~z=6.295 ,.. he
cant make very many. And the ones he makes are for the most part
vague, innacurate and insufficient in quantity. In other words
he cherry picks his line features to substantiate his assumed
L-a feature.
Returning to some relevant discussion:
[ Markwardt: ]
: However, if you had bothered to look at the actual observations, no
: such behavior is present. Both the Haislip et al (Fig 2) and
: Tagliaferri et al (Fig 3) papers show that infrared emission was
: detected at the earliest times. This time-resolved spectroscopy shows
: that the afterglow was absolutely *not* a "hump that is redshifting as
: we watch," but rather smoothly fading in all bands. The longward
: infrared wavelengths were detected at the *earliest* times (2.4
: hours), and continued to be detected for ~8 days (Tagliaferri et al
: Fig 2). On the other hand, visible light was *never* detected
: (Haislip et al Fig 2). In short, your supposition is entirely
: unsubstantiated by thedata.

While you continue to harp about the optical emission (erroneously),
it is still true that your "hump"theorydoesn't work for the infrared
emission either.
This is an erroneous claim you make here. If you look at the optical
and NIR data supplied in any of the papers available you can see
that in fact the longer wavelengths decay at slower rates than
shorter.

However, that is not a "hump that is redshifting as we watch." As
noted above, the IR emission was detected from the very earliest
times.
You obviously havent read the gcn data on 050904. The first tarot
optical doesnt actually measure a detection . Implying a rise in
bvri at the very earliset times. And a quick check of the gcn
postings on 050904 shows the first posted longer wavelength only ( J
band gcn 3913) seems to be at 3 hours post trigger. Well after
Tarot.

Huh? That still doesn't sound like a "hump that is redshifting as we
watch." The observation at 3 hours post-trigger implies nothing about
what occurred previously.
If you want to prove that NIR peaked at the *same time* as optical
you need seperate NIR data at the same time as tarot. And I dont
believe
any exists.Furthermore you need to prove that optical decays as
slow as NIR. Which it doesnt. See my graph at....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVLFSfeGSE
This supplies the substantiation in graph format that optical
decays faster then NIR. Something that is consistent with
a redshifting flux hump. Furthermore the graph shows that
even I band decays faster then z j h k. Once again
substantiating my models predictions of a flux hump
redshifting over time.
So you cant substantiate your claim that Infrared only was observed
decaying at early times with optical/. Why? Because you have no NIR
only data at the same early time as optical to substantiate your
claim.

Actually, I was referring to the Haislip paper which shows a smooth
decay at all detectable wavelengths. I.e. it was not a "hump that is
redshifting as we watch."
If you thought a bit more for a change you would realize that a
decay rate that is slower in longer wavelengths is consistent with
a model that predicts a flux hump redshifting over time. Do some
maths.
Whereas I have ALL the later time NIR observations that show that
there is a faster decay in shorter NIR than longer.

Ahh, but you are basing your interpretation on your erroneous plot.
The plot where you erroneously displayed two *different* wavelength
filters, I1 and I2, with the same color and with a trend line
connecting them. The plot where you erroneously displayed a BVRI
detection as "V", and where you connected it to an upper limit point
with a trend line. These are both erroneous techniques, and hence
your conclusions are irrelevant.
It was not erroneous to label both I1 and 2 as I band. Seeing as both
are in fact ...I band!
Not only that, but my source ...Tagliaferri in astro ph 0509766, also
labels them both in blue AND more notably connects them both
with one projected blue line. Despite them being I1 and I2.
So if its OK for him to do it , its OK for me.
As for the datapoint that I label as V. Note that in the acompanying
text
and original post I specify clearly that it was a non detection at
that point and that the datapoint was an upper limit only. How much
more clearly do you need your information? Can you not read english?
As usual your claims are utterly false and misleading.
... If you accept the Lyman alpha "break" lies between 8830 AA and 8910
AA, then you must accept that the redshift is between 6.27 and 6.34.
However, a fit to the redward wing of the absorption line yields
a more precise line center, hence z=6.29.

I note no response.
Why do you need a response? I asked you why the researchers had
decided against
8830 and 8910 and you gave one. Although in fact your response didnt
explain
how it couldnt be 8830 or 8910. All you did was explain how it could
be 8850.
So technically you havent responded to my question...
Why is it that the Lyman alpha break cannot be either 8830 or 8910?

The center of the line is determined by fitting the whole wing, and
thus, the center can be determined very accurately.

So you now admit that the redshift must lie between 6.27 and 6.34?
No. The grb afterglow is not from a distant redshifted source at all
That assumption is generally not consistent with the observed data.

...

I believe you are incorrect. I believe that in every case where the
"break" has been detected, it has been consistent with other redshift
indicators.
Incorrect? There are numerous examples where beamed theory is not
consistent
with the data including 050904. Lets take 050904 specifically. The
3 verified TAROT bvri detections and their substantiation by bootes
are not
consistent with beamed theory. Beamed cannot explain an optical
detection
for this burst. Furthermore the different rates of decay observed for
optical wavelengths and verified in publications like Tagliaferri in
astro
ph 0509766 are not consistent with beamed theory. It cannot explain
these different rates of decay. . And more generally probably the most
telling inconsistencies are Prochter and Prochaska 2006 research of
GRB
spectra that showed that Galaxies appear to be four times more common
in
the direction of gamma-ray bursts than in the direction of quasars.
This
is accepted as impossible under current physics and underscores the
flawed methodology of analysing grb spectra by asssuming they are from
different redshifted sources. And finally the most recent research has
shown that generally the slow decay in optical seen particularly
in long grbs cannot be explained by beamed theory.
What more evidence does NASA need before it realizes it is wasting
its time paying its employees to prop up a theory that is past
its use by date.
What
it does look like though is the falloff on the blueward side of any
stellar spectra usually seen between 2-400nm.
Ive done two examples (for illustration purposes
only)and put them up at...

Again, your "youtube" pictures are cute, but beyond "illustration"
they are of little value. You have conveniently translated and
stretched the spectrum in *both* directions, wavelength *and*
intensity. The result has little meaning. For example, the stellar
spectrum actually goes *below zero* when it is stretched onto the
Kawai spectrum, which is a physical impossibility.
...

As noted above, your stretching is physically impossible, since it
produces negative emission shortward of 800 nm.
Im not saying it produces negative emission 800nm. Im
saying it produces emission below the limiting mag of kawais
observation at 800nm.

Actually, since your curve goes below zero, you *are* "predicting"
negative "emission." I.e. you are "predicting" something impossible.
Wrong again. You are the one who predicts the impossible. Im claiming
that
any light that is below detection thresholds will not be observed.

However, your own plot belies your error. The plot shows the
"predicted" flux which falls below zero.
You understand even less about the basics then I ever imagined.
Do you not realize that in Kawai the 0 line isnt 0 flux emmission,
its 0 flux detected.!! Believe it or not, in an example like Kawai
where the limiting mag of his exposure was about 20-21 mag, there
is still flux below this limit coming from the source blueward of
880nm!!
But just because he cant see it doesnt mean it is negative emmision!!
That prediction is
physically impossible. I note your failure to address this specific
point.
Your "interpretation" that a negative flux level would simply
not be detectable is valiant, but irrelevant.
See above. And by the way it wasnt my `interpretation` that
non detection of flux is the same as negative. It was yours.
By applying ad hoc
methods, you have obtained ad hoc results. I.e. your results are
irrelevant.
Wrong again as usual. They are very relevent. What the two graphs
show is that redshifted by 2 a solar or gtype stars flux/wavelength
graph very closely matches the flux wavelength profile
of the observed spectra of grb 050904. See...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVJ-W...eature=related
or..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5sJTMxJbo
But also as noted, the stellar lines you refer to do not exactly match
the Kawai line wavelengths. I'm talking about the actual line
centers, not your "eyeball" match-up.
My matches are better than kawai does. His graph clearly
shows a feature centered at 9496 and covering a ranges of 9492-9500.
Thats as accurate as one can ascertain from what he has made available
in his paper. Magnified by many times in graph software on pc.

Please. You're trying to do analysis with Powerpoint, and it's rather
silly.
OK show me the spectral data that supplies a more accurate parameter
for the observed feature centered at 9496. You cant because none
exists. Otherwise Kawai would have supplied it in his paper. Anyways
unlike yourself I dont have, nor do I use powerpoint. It would be
silly of me to use such an inferior software for this purpose.

Whatever image manipulation program you used is irrelevant.
In that case dont make irrelevent statements about powerpoint
as you do above.
The point
is that quantitative science can't be done at the appropriate
precision by stretching and shifting images by hand. Also, even if
Kawai et al. didn't plot the highest resolution spectrum in their
paper, does not mean such a spectrum does not exist.
Ill make you a deal . I wont pretend that it doesnt exist if you dont
pretend that it does and that you have studied it.
Unfortunately you seem to be able to find only 5outof how many?
Probably much more. ...

Umm, no. The strongest lines from the most abundant species. The top
ten species, in order of total abundance are H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Fe,
Mg, Si and S, ignoring the ionization state. Kawai detected almost
all of the strong lines of the must abundant elements in the
interstellar medium.
Not by your yardstick. You just said above that he should also
see H, He Ne N and Fe. Where are they in Kawais analysis?

(a) It's not Kawai's obligation to find "every" line.
Yes it is . Otherwise its called cherry picking.

As noted above, you are in error.
What error? Ive shown Kawai cannot explain many lines ,both
observed and predicted by beamed theory. And the few he does match
are generally poorly matched. That can only be called cherry picking.
The Ly-alpha
detection nails the redshift, and the other weaker line
identifications merely confirm it. (b) There are no known strong
lines of the H, He, Ne, N, and Fe atomic species in the relevant
wavelength range.
He should see many more. How about the 3 persistent lines in Oxygen
at 1302? Or the two at Mg 1239-40? Or the three persistent lines at
C 1277? (much stronger than the weak line at C1334... )

It's bizarre you picked Oxygen since Kawai did indeed identify that
line (Table 1, line 7).
This is debateable. At z=6.295 the three Oxygen lines at 1302-4-6 end
up at 9498, 9512 and 9527. Whereas the main feature he tries to
attribute
Oxygen to is at ~ 9480 and 9495. Is that a good match?
No.
He has 3 strong lines in Oxygen. And only two strong lines at the
relevent
wavelength range in his grb spectra.
He matches one Oxygen line and only one grb absorbtion line.
He ignores TWO other strong oxygen lines 0f 1304 and 1306
and CANNOT find a match to one of the strongest lines
in the grb spectra at 9480. That doesnt even rate the
insult of cherry picking.
As noted above, the remaining line
identifications were confirmatory: strong lines in the spectrum,
identified with strong lines of the most abundant species. Your
"every line" assertion is a cannard.
You are desperate here.
He hasnt shown the line at Mg 1239,1240. He hasnt shown the
5 very strong lines in Carbon at 1277-8.
He hasnt shown Nitrogen at 1243,
And his Sulfur attributions make no sense. He claims S-1253
and S-1259 are at 9146 and 9188. There are no clear strong
lines at these points in the grb spectra.
The same goes for his Si-1264 at 9225. Theres nothing of any strength
there in the grb spectra . He only manages to get a rough match
to the line at 919 for his SI-1260.
But note the cherry picking here. He matches the weaker S-1260 line
only sort of and he cant get anything for the strong S-1264
His analysis is a mess. And doesnt stand up to even the most
casual scrutiny.
Then again this isnt unusual for a beamed theorist. Look at other
attempts at redshift determination . Take the one done for 060605
Its pathetic. They match maybe one out of every 5 observed lines
And even the L-a break is a fiddle as really its just a moderate
decrease in observed flux blueward of their erroneous assumption.
And I havent actually gone and checked how exacting their line
matches are. But my experience with Kawais` is that they are probably
way off and completely fiddled.
*****
Im not sure if the following qualify as abundant but there
are also strong persistent lines at Boron 1362, Chlorine 1347,
Chromium 1362, which he doent seem to show matches to.
(My apologies to Kawai et al.It wasnt my intention to critique their
research in particular. Hes just doing what is considered
acceptable under beamed theory. Its just that the overall standards
of beamed theory and its proponents are so poor that they must be
highlited here as such. )
Since you continue to misinterpret my statements, and issue
unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, I don't see a reason for me to
respond further to this discussion.
And as long as you continue to make unsubstantiated erroneous claims
that Kawai has found matches for all the abundant lines when he
clearly
hasnt,...then I agree your might as well give up before you dig
yourself
into an even deeper hole.
But dont give up Craig! We were getting on so well.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...tivity_02.html

On 6 Jul, 17:30, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On 26 Jun, 12:08, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On Apr 12, 10:01 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
This is a continuation of an april 08 thread titled "Latest Swift data
not compatible wih beamed theory"
On 12 Sep 2007, 08:33, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
The following link is to the last post in thread I am responding to.
Unfortunately I`m unable to continue posting to that thread so this is
a new one to continue the discussion.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/99314772...
Regarding GRB 050904, the high redshift burst,
This is a circular argument we are having vis a vis Tarot. It was in
bvri
and there was no other simultaneous bvr observation to the same limits
to compare with. Which means that you cannot prove that tarot was in
any
one or all of the bvri filter. We can only both assume what range
tarot
actually saw. Why you insist that the theoretical assumption that it
was
only in I should be considered substantive proof is illogical.

[***] The problem is that *you* are claiming that the GRB afterglow
was detected in the optical band. The burden is on *you* to
substantiate your claim. However, the "proof" you are offering is in
fact an observation that covers both infrared and optical. Therefore,
the evidence you offer is ambiguous, and cannot be used as an argument
for or against optical emission.
In that case you cant use the same data as an argument against
optical
emmision .

However, I did not. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding
of the definition of the word "ambiguous." *You* are trying to prove
your case, so *you* are responsible to prove that optical emission was
present. Your use of ambiguous data provides no substantiation to
your "theory."
You are the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument at
hand.
I only claimed that the bvri detection from tarot matched my models
predictions. I dont have to prove that Tarot did not see in bvri.

You are incorrect. The original discussion in July 2007 went
something like this:

Markwardt:
: You are incorrect. No optical emission was ever detected for GRB
: 050904. I.e. the optical images were blank, hence there was no
: optical light available to make a spectrum.

"Sean:"
: Wrong here. Gcn3917 refers to a optical flash at 10 minutes.

It was *you* who claimed that the TAROT data somehow reflected an
optical flash. But now that you know the wavelength band of TAROT
includes both optical and infrared, you must know that your claim is
unsubstantiated.

To summarize: I claim now, and always claimed, that there is *no*
optical(-only) detection of the GRB 050904 afterglow. This includes
very sensitive exposures and very early exposures. Since the only
counter-evidence you offered was from TAROT, which is in fact
*ambiguous*, your claim remains utterly unsubstantiated.
You claimed initially that I had no proof that there was a flash
in optical. Not that there was no optical only flash detected.
Nor did I ever claim that there was an optical only flash detected.
I always claimed that TAROT saw in bvri.
It is YOU who claims that Tarot did not see in BVR
And it is YOU who has no substantiation to prove that the bvri
detection was only in I band. Because your only other measurements
at the same time are posted in gcn and elsewhere as being
of a limiting mag that was less than the TAROT observed magnitudes

... As far as I can tell Haislip first observed at about
3 hours
after trigger. Notice the tarot measurements I refer to finish at 480
seconds
after trigger.
[sec after GRB]
start end magnitude
86 144 R18.1 +/- 0.3 (no detected)
150 253 R=18.5 +/- 0.3
312 370 R=18.7 +/- 0.3
376 479 R=19.1 +/- 0.4

...

Your comments are irrelevant. The Haislip et al paper presents true
R-band observations from BOOTES starting 2.1 minutes after the GRB
trigger and extendingoutto two hours, i.e. over the same time
interval you discuss above. And yet these R-*ONLY*-band observations
do not detect the afterglow. The magnitude upper limits are R18.2 at
T+2.8 min, and R20 at T+60 minutes. The point being, similar
observations, similar sensitivity, at a similar time after the burst,
but in R-band only, do not detect this afterglow. The conclusion is
obvious: the afterglow emission was *never* present in optical, even
at early times.
Obviously you are conveniently ignoring how magnitude measurements
work.
Note that your only simultaneous observation is at T+2.8min. And
notice
that YOU say it was with an upper limit of 18.2. Notice how at the
three Tarot detections at the same time the detections were all
below the limiting mag of Haislips 18.2. ...

You are incorrect, but it's a more subtle point. The key point is
that the Haislip et al. upper limits are quoted as *3-sigma* upper
limits (see their Table 1), while the Klotz TAROT error bars are
quoted as 1-sigma. They have different statistical confidence levels.
Haislip's 3-sigma upper limit provides a 99.9% confidence; whereas the
1-sigma error bars of TAROT are only 68% confident.
The conversion for upper limits is,
UPPER(1-sigma) = UPPER(3-sigma) + 2.5*LOG10(3)
= UPPER(3-sigma) + 1.2
Thus, the actual comparison should be,

[ use fixed font to view ]
Time BOOTES BOOTES TAROT
(min) (3 sig) (1 sig) (1 sig)
T+2.8 18.2 19.4
T+3.8 18.1
T+6.5 18.3 19.5
T+6.7 18.5 +/- 0.3
T+11.4 18.7 +/- 0.3
T+13.2 19.2 20.4
T+14.3 19.1 +/- 0.4
T+26 19.5 20.7
T+54 19.9 21.1

In short, one could say that *if* one assumes that the counterpart
emitted in the R band at the quoted TAROT intensities, then BOOTES
would have detected the counterpart with individual confidence levels
between 95% and 99%. However, because BOOTES did *not* detect the
counterpart, the assumption must be wrong. I.e., the counterpart did
not emit in the R band. Of course this conclusion is supported by
every other observation, including ultra-deep optical images (Haislip
et al) and spectroscopy (Kawai et al)
You make many mistakes here. Kawai did not observe simultaneous
to Tarot. Neither did Haislip. ...

You are in error. The BOOTES observations shown above are centered
just before and just after the claimed TAROT detects.
Complete false claim here on your part. Haislip isnt
Bootes. Bootes does not have haislips name on its relevent gcn
posting. Haislips` only gcn credits are for later time observations.
See gcn 3913 and 3914. THey are the first haislip
and they are at 3 hours post trigger. Well after Tarot.
And Kawai saw at 3 days post trigger. Also well after
TAROT. Bootes on the other hand WAS simultaneous to tarot
but, it doesnt have Haislips credit on it. See gcn 3929.
Therefore my claim is correct....Haislip and Kawai
did not observe simultaneous to Tarot (or bootes).
If the counterpart had had optical emission, BOOTES *would* have
detected it with between 95-99% confidence, but did not. Thus, your
claim is both erroneous and unsubstantiated.
Unscientific fiddle here. It may be possible that Bootes`
18.2 limiting mag was the same as an 18.5 limiting mag,...
But its more probable it was 18.2. And furthermore that calculation
is substantiated by TAROT. Because TAROT has a clear bvri detection
at lower mags then bootes stated limiting mag. Which in turn confirms
Bootes no detection limiting mag at ~18.2 as being roughly correct.
... And as for your calculations you
havent convinced me that an 18.2 limiting mag is the same as
an 18.5 limiting mag. Or a 19.1 the same as a 19.2.

Huh? I didn't not claim that 18.2 is the "same as" 18.5.
Yes you did. Otherwise you wouldnt be claiming that Bootes
18.2 limiting mag rules out an 18.5 detection by Tarot

Otherwise haislip would not have bothered to specify
in his paper the following... no detection at limiting mag 18.2.
etc...If he was certain that a limiting mag of 18.2 ruled out
any OT down to 18.5,.. he would have said so.(See astro ph 0509660).

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.
Yes I do. I say yes, its possible Bootes 18.2 limiting mag was the
same
as a 18.5 limiting mag. But not as probable as it being an 18.2 mag
only.
There, I addressed your confidence levels. They are not proof
that Tarot did not see in bvri.
Your mistake is to assume that the Bootes `no detection` at one
limiting mag *rules out* any detection of an OT at much deeper
magnitudes simply because it is a possibility mathematically.

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.
Yes I do. I say yes, its possible Bootes 18.2 limiting mag was the
same
as a 18.5 limiting mag. But not as probable as it being an 18.2 mag
only.
There, I addressed your confidence levels. They are not proof
that Tarot did not see in bvri.
KAWAI SPECTRUM

Um, the spectrum is totally consistent with the published noise level
shortward of 880 nm. Any "absorption lines" found by you there are
surely bogus.
You cannot prove that the features below 880nm are definitively noise.
You can only assume they are noise. And you can only do this by
ignoring
some of the other substantivedata(Tarots bvri detection.)
Thats bogus science on your part.

Huh? You are incorrect:
1. We can guage whether something is noise or not, by comparing to
the experimental uncertainties ("the error bars"). Shortward of
880 nm, thedataare *consistent with zero*, within the
uncertainties.
As Ive already said, this isnt proof that the fluctuations arent real.

Shortward of the Ly-alpha line, the spectrum is statistically
consistent with zero, via a formal statistical test. I suggest you
try to understand statistics and measurement uncertainties better.
They have a real effect. It's truly naive to ascribe meaning to small
bumps and wiggles, when those wiggles are comparable to the known
measurement uncertainties.
And its naive of you to to suggest that because an observed
fluctuation
is within error margins it isnt real. You can only say its consistent
to beamed predictions (within error margins) .

Formally and logically, one can only test consistency or inconsistency
with a hypothesis. I stand my my claim that it is foolish to ascribe
meaning to wiggles comparable to the measurement uncertainty.
And I stand by my claim that it is foolish to assume that all observed
fluctuations in flux within error margins are not real. This is an
assumption
you make . Not a substantiated fact.
You are still missing the point. You cherry-picked a few linesoutof
thousands from your "solar wind" spectrum. And you didn't pick the
brightest lines, just any old lines. In statistics, that is called a
problem of "number of trials," meaning that if you try enough times,
you will find a match. [ which is true in this case because the
stellar line catalog you referenced has lines at nearly every
wavelength. ]
Not to the same extent that Kawai and other beamed theorists do?
Look at his detail in fig 8 from astro ph 0512154. showing
an imaginary feature at about 750.He has what looks
like essentially a flat continuum with slight variations
in the flux at.. 730 755 and 770nm.
But Its convenient for him to "cherry pick" 750 so he does , to fit
that
graphs projection.

Umm, you must be confused. The figure you refer to, Figure 8 of
Totani et al, shows the well-fit Ly-alpha line wing on the top panel
(870-920 nm), and the Ly-beta region in the bottom panel (734-776).

The importance of that plot is that the redshift is extremely well
determined by the Ly-alpha line near 890 nm. The lower panel is
consistent with *zero* emission near the Ly-beta line. Totani et al
didn't *choose* to put a line at 750 nm, since since the Ly-beta line
must occur there, based on atomic physics.
Its not clear yet what is `well fit ` about that detail.At that point
there is no feature. No line. Yet you say beamed theory predicts a
`line` there? If thats the case then kawais illustration shows
that whatever beamed predicts at that point,.. it isnt there.
Unless beamed theory predicts `no feature` at that point. Which is
not what his graph suggests.

I did not say "beamed theory predicts a line there." If you even
bothered to read my wording, I said that according to *atomic physics*
the Ly Beta absorption feature must be present. Unless you are also
claiming that all of atomic physics is wrong, the Ly Beta transition
must exist. However, the fact that there is no continuum emission to
be absorbed at that wavelength makes the issue a moot point.
Whats important here is that the part of the spectrum he highlited
in his illustration was essentially featureless. Yet he
compares it on his graph to a dotted line that curves down
and up in flux. Whatever feature he imagines being here whether it
be the Lyman beta feature or otherwise is not obvious. THere is no
feature there. Why does he say we should see one? What is it
about the flux associated with a lyman Beta transition feature
that he sees in this featureless part of the spectra?
On the other hand, the Kawai paper found specific *strong* lines of
*abundant* atomic species,
Note that Kawai only found 5 strong lines by cherry picking.

Huh? There is a gigantic Ly-alpha line wing which sets the redshift
scale to 6.3. The extra lines are merely confirmatory. Hence, the
number of trials is 1, which is not cherry picking.
Certainly he finds a wing. I wasnt disputing that. My model TOO
predicts the same dropoff in flux! But we are discussing the observed
lines not the dropoff and it is obvious he cherry picks his lines far
more than you can accuse me of doing.He can only find 4 or 5 matches.

Your interpretation is faulty, for the reason noted just above. Once
a hypothesis has been formed ("redshift is 6.3 based on Ly Alpha
feature"), then it is not cherry picking to test this hypothesis by
searching for known strong lines of abundant elements at the *same*
redshift.
OK he sets his LY alpha parameter for 6.3. That doesnt alter the fact
that when he tries to find line matches at ~z=6.295 ,.. he
cant make very many. And the ones he makes are for the most part
vague, innacurate and insufficient in quantity. In other words
he cherry picks his line features to substantiate his assumed
L-a feature.
Returning to some relevant discussion:
[ Markwardt: ]
: However, if you had bothered to look at the actual observations, no
: such behavior is present. Both the Haislip et al (Fig 2) and
: Tagliaferri et al (Fig 3) papers show that infrared emission was
: detected at the earliest times. This time-resolved spectroscopy shows
: that the afterglow was absolutely *not* a "hump that is redshifting as
: we watch," but rather smoothly fading in all bands. The longward
: infrared wavelengths were detected at the *earliest* times (2.4
: hours), and continued to be detected for ~8 days (Tagliaferri et al
: Fig 2). On the other hand, visible light was *never* detected
: (Haislip et al Fig 2). In short, your supposition is entirely
: unsubstantiated by thedata.

While you continue to harp about the optical emission (erroneously),
it is still true that your "hump"theorydoesn't work for the infrared
emission either.
This is an erroneous claim you make here. If you look at the optical
and NIR data supplied in any of the papers available you can see
that in fact the longer wavelengths decay at slower rates than
shorter.

However, that is not a "hump that is redshifting as we watch." As
noted above, the IR emission was detected from the very earliest
times.
You obviously havent read the gcn data on 050904. The first tarot
optical doesnt actually measure a detection . Implying a rise in
bvri at the very earliset times. And a quick check of the gcn
postings on 050904 shows the first posted longer wavelength only ( J
band gcn 3913) seems to be at 3 hours post trigger. Well after
Tarot.

Huh? That still doesn't sound like a "hump that is redshifting as we
watch." The observation at 3 hours post-trigger implies nothing about
what occurred previously.
If you want to prove that NIR peaked at the *same time* as optical
you need seperate NIR data at the same time as tarot. And I dont
believe
any exists.Furthermore you need to prove that optical decays as
slow as NIR. Which it doesnt. See my graph at....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVLFSfeGSE
This supplies the substantiation in graph format that optical
decays faster then NIR. Something that is consistent with
a redshifting flux hump. Furthermore the graph shows that
even I band decays faster then z j h k. Once again
substantiating my models predictions of a flux hump
redshifting over time.
So you cant substantiate your claim that Infrared only was observed
decaying at early times with optical/. Why? Because you have no NIR
only data at the same early time as optical to substantiate your
claim.

Actually, I was referring to the Haislip paper which shows a smooth
decay at all detectable wavelengths. I.e. it was not a "hump that is
redshifting as we watch."
If you thought a bit more for a change you would realize that a
decay rate that is slower in longer wavelengths is consistent with
a model that predicts a flux hump redshifting over time. Do some
maths.
Whereas I have ALL the later time NIR observations that show that
there is a faster decay in shorter NIR than longer.

Ahh, but you are basing your interpretation on your erroneous plot.
The plot where you erroneously displayed two *different* wavelength
filters, I1 and I2, with the same color and with a trend line
connecting them. The plot where you erroneously displayed a BVRI
detection as "V", and where you connected it to an upper limit point
with a trend line. These are both erroneous techniques, and hence
your conclusions are irrelevant.
It was not erroneous to label both I1 and 2 as I band. Seeing as both
are in fact ...I band!
Not only that, but my source ...Tagliaferri in astro ph 0509766, also
labels them both in blue AND more notably connects them both
with one projected blue line. Despite them being I1 and I2.
So if its OK for him to do it , its OK for me.
As for the datapoint that I label as V. Note that in the acompanying
text
and original post I specify clearly that it was a non detection at
that point and that the datapoint was an upper limit only. How much
more clearly do you need your information? Can you not read english?
As usual your claims are utterly false and misleading.
... If you accept the Lyman alpha "break" lies between 8830 AA and 8910
AA, then you must accept that the redshift is between 6.27 and 6.34.
However, a fit to the redward wing of the absorption line yields
a more precise line center, hence z=6.29.

I note no response.
Why do you need a response? I asked you why the researchers had
decided against
8830 and 8910 and you gave one. Although in fact your response didnt
explain
how it couldnt be 8830 or 8910. All you did was explain how it could
be 8850.
So technically you havent responded to my question...
Why is it that the Lyman alpha break cannot be either 8830 or 8910?

The center of the line is determined by fitting the whole wing, and
thus, the center can be determined very accurately.

So you now admit that the redshift must lie between 6.27 and 6.34?
No. The grb afterglow is not from a distant redshifted source at all
That assumption is generally not consistent with the observed data.

...

I believe you are incorrect. I believe that in every case where the
"break" has been detected, it has been consistent with other redshift
indicators.
Incorrect? There are numerous examples where beamed theory is not
consistent
with the data including 050904. Lets take 050904 specifically. The
3 verified TAROT bvri detections and their substantiation by bootes
are not
consistent with beamed theory. Beamed cannot explain an optical
detection
for this burst. Furthermore the different rates of decay observed for
optical wavelengths and verified in publications like Tagliaferri in
astro
ph 0509766 are not consistent with beamed theory. It cannot explain
these different rates of decay. . And more generally probably the most
telling inconsistencies are Prochter and Prochaska 2006 research of
GRB
spectra that showed that Galaxies appear to be four times more common
in
the direction of gamma-ray bursts than in the direction of quasars.
This
is accepted as impossible under current physics and underscores the
flawed methodology of analysing grb spectra by asssuming they are from
different redshifted sources. And finally the most recent research has
shown that generally the slow decay in optical seen particularly
in long grbs cannot be explained by beamed theory.
What more evidence does NASA need before it realizes it is wasting
its time paying its employees to prop up a theory that is past
its use by date.
What
it does look like though is the falloff on the blueward side of any
stellar spectra usually seen between 2-400nm.
Ive done two examples (for illustration purposes
only)and put them up at...

Again, your "youtube" pictures are cute, but beyond "illustration"
they are of little value. You have conveniently translated and
stretched the spectrum in *both* directions, wavelength *and*
intensity. The result has little meaning. For example, the stellar
spectrum actually goes *below zero* when it is stretched onto the
Kawai spectrum, which is a physical impossibility.
...

As noted above, your stretching is physically impossible, since it
produces negative emission shortward of 800 nm.
Im not saying it produces negative emission 800nm. Im
saying it produces emission below the limiting mag of kawais
observation at 800nm.

Actually, since your curve goes below zero, you *are* "predicting"
negative "emission." I.e. you are "predicting" something impossible.
Wrong again. You are the one who predicts the impossible. Im claiming
that
any light that is below detection thresholds will not be observed.

However, your own plot belies your error. The plot shows the
"predicted" flux which falls below zero.
You understand even less about the basics then I ever imagined.
Do you not realize that in Kawai the 0 line isnt 0 flux emmission,
its 0 flux detected.!! Believe it or not, in an example like Kawai
where the limiting mag of his exposure was about 20-21 mag, there
is still flux below this limit coming from the source blueward of
880nm!!
But just because he cant see it doesnt mean it is negative emmision!!
That prediction is
physically impossible. I note your failure to address this specific
point.
Your "interpretation" that a negative flux level would simply
not be detectable is valiant, but irrelevant.
See above. And by the way it wasnt my `interpretation` that
non detection of flux is the same as negative. It was yours.
By applying ad hoc
methods, you have obtained ad hoc results. I.e. your results are
irrelevant.
Wrong again as usual. They are very relevent. What the two graphs
show is that redshifted by 2 a solar or gtype stars flux/wavelength
graph very closely matches the flux wavelength profile
of the observed spectra of grb 050904. See...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVJ-W...eature=related
or..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5sJTMxJbo
But also as noted, the stellar lines you refer to do not exactly match
the Kawai line wavelengths. I'm talking about the actual line
centers, not your "eyeball" match-up.
My matches are better than kawai does. His graph clearly
shows a feature centered at 9496 and covering a ranges of 9492-9500.
Thats as accurate as one can ascertain from what he has made available
in his paper. Magnified by many times in graph software on pc.

Please. You're trying to do analysis with Powerpoint, and it's rather
silly.
OK show me the spectral data that supplies a more accurate parameter
for the observed feature centered at 9496. You cant because none
exists. Otherwise Kawai would have supplied it in his paper. Anyways
unlike yourself I dont have, nor do I use powerpoint. It would be
silly of me to use such an inferior software for this purpose.

Whatever image manipulation program you used is irrelevant.
In that case dont make irrelevent statements about powerpoint
as you do above.
The point
is that quantitative science can't be done at the appropriate
precision by stretching and shifting images by hand. Also, even if
Kawai et al. didn't plot the highest resolution spectrum in their
paper, does not mean such a spectrum does not exist.
Ill make you a deal . I wont pretend that it doesnt exist if you dont
pretend that it does and that you have studied it.
Unfortunately you seem to be able to find only 5outof how many?
Probably much more. ...

Umm, no. The strongest lines from the most abundant species. The top
ten species, in order of total abundance are H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Fe,
Mg, Si and S, ignoring the ionization state. Kawai detected almost
all of the strong lines of the must abundant elements in the
interstellar medium.
Not by your yardstick. You just said above that he should also
see H, He Ne N and Fe. Where are they in Kawais analysis?

(a) It's not Kawai's obligation to find "every" line.
Yes it is . Otherwise its called cherry picking.

As noted above, you are in error.
What error? Ive shown Kawai cannot explain many lines ,both
observed and predicted by beamed theory. And the few he does match
are generally poorly matched. That can only be called cherry picking.
The Ly-alpha
detection nails the redshift, and the other weaker line
identifications merely confirm it. (b) There are no known strong
lines of the H, He, Ne, N, and Fe atomic species in the relevant
wavelength range.
He should see many more. How about the 3 persistent lines in Oxygen
at 1302? Or the two at Mg 1239-40? Or the three persistent lines at
C 1277? (much stronger than the weak line at C1334... )

It's bizarre you picked Oxygen since Kawai did indeed identify that
line (Table 1, line 7).
This is debateable. At z=6.295 the three Oxygen lines at 1302-4-6 end
up at 9498, 9512 and 9527. Whereas the main feature he tries to
attribute
Oxygen to is at ~ 9480 and 9495. Is that a good match?
No.
He has 3 strong lines in Oxygen. And only two strong lines at the
relevent
wavelength range in his grb spectra.
He matches one Oxygen line and only one grb absorbtion line.
He ignores TWO other strong oxygen lines 0f 1304 and 1306
and CANNOT find a match to one of the strongest lines
in the grb spectra at 9480. That doesnt even rate the
insult of cherry picking.
As noted above, the remaining line
identifications were confirmatory: strong lines in the spectrum,
identified with strong lines of the most abundant species. Your
"every line" assertion is a cannard.
You are desperate here.
He hasnt shown the line at Mg 1239,1240. He hasnt shown the
5 very strong lines in Carbon at 1277-8.
He hasnt shown Nitrogen at 1243,
And his Sulfur attributions make no sense. He claims S-1253
and S-1259 are at 9146 and 9188. There are no clear strong
lines at these points in the grb spectra.
The same goes for his Si-1264 at 9225. Theres nothing of any strength
there in the grb spectra . He only manages to get a rough match
to the line at 919 for his SI-1260.
But note the cherry picking here. He matches the weaker S-1260 line
only sort of and he cant get anything for the strong S-1264
His analysis is a mess. And doesnt stand up to even the most
casual scrutiny.
Then again this isnt unusual for a beamed theorist. Look at other
attempts at redshift determination . Take the one done for 060605
Its pathetic. They match maybe one out of every 5 observed lines
And even the L-a break is a fiddle as really its just a moderate
decrease in observed flux blueward of their erroneous assumption.
And I havent actually gone and checked how exacting their line
matches are. But my experience with Kawais` is that they are probably
way off and completely fiddled.
*****
Im not sure if the following qualify as abundant but there
are also strong persistent lines at Boron 1362, Chlorine 1347,
Chromium 1362, which he doent seem to show matches to.
(My apologies to Kawai et al.It wasnt my intention to critique their
research in particular. Hes just doing what is considered
acceptable under beamed theory. Its just that the overall standards
of beamed theory and its proponents are so poor that they must be
highlited here as such. )
Since you continue to misinterpret my statements, and issue
unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, I don't see a reason for me to
respond further to this discussion.
And as long as you continue to make unsubstantiated erroneous claims
that Kawai has found matches for all the abundant lines when he
clearly
hasnt,...then I agree your might as well give up before you dig
yourself
into an even deeper hole.
But dont give up Craig! We were getting on so well.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...tivity_02.html

On 6 Jul, 17:30, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On 26 Jun, 12:08, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
On Apr 12, 10:01 pm, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
sean writes:
This is a continuation of an april 08 thread titled "Latest Swift data
not compatible wih beamed theory"
On 12 Sep 2007, 08:33, Craig Markwardt
wrote:
The following link is to the last post in thread I am responding to.
Unfortunately I`m unable to continue posting to that thread so this is
a new one to continue the discussion.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...hread/99314772...
Regarding GRB 050904, the high redshift burst,
This is a circular argument we are having vis a vis Tarot. It was in
bvri
and there was no other simultaneous bvr observation to the same limits
to compare with. Which means that you cannot prove that tarot was in
any
one or all of the bvri filter. We can only both assume what range
tarot
actually saw. Why you insist that the theoretical assumption that it
was
only in I should be considered substantive proof is illogical.

[***] The problem is that *you* are claiming that the GRB afterglow
was detected in the optical band. The burden is on *you* to
substantiate your claim. However, the "proof" you are offering is in
fact an observation that covers both infrared and optical. Therefore,
the evidence you offer is ambiguous, and cannot be used as an argument
for or against optical emission.
In that case you cant use the same data as an argument against
optical
emmision .

However, I did not. You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding
of the definition of the word "ambiguous." *You* are trying to prove
your case, so *you* are responsible to prove that optical emission was
present. Your use of ambiguous data provides no substantiation to
your "theory."
You are the one with a fundamental misunderstanding of the argument at
hand.
I only claimed that the bvri detection from tarot matched my models
predictions. I dont have to prove that Tarot did not see in bvri.

You are incorrect. The original discussion in July 2007 went
something like this:

Markwardt:
: You are incorrect. No optical emission was ever detected for GRB
: 050904. I.e. the optical images were blank, hence there was no
: optical light available to make a spectrum.

"Sean:"
: Wrong here. Gcn3917 refers to a optical flash at 10 minutes.

It was *you* who claimed that the TAROT data somehow reflected an
optical flash. But now that you know the wavelength band of TAROT
includes both optical and infrared, you must know that your claim is
unsubstantiated.

To summarize: I claim now, and always claimed, that there is *no*
optical(-only) detection of the GRB 050904 afterglow. This includes
very sensitive exposures and very early exposures. Since the only
counter-evidence you offered was from TAROT, which is in fact
*ambiguous*, your claim remains utterly unsubstantiated.
You claimed initially that I had no proof that there was a flash
in optical. Not that there was no optical only flash detected.
Nor did I ever claim that there was an optical only flash detected.
I always claimed that TAROT saw in bvri.
It is YOU who claims that Tarot did not see in BVR
And it is YOU who has no substantiation to prove that the bvri
detection was only in I band. Because your only other measurements
at the same time are posted in gcn and elsewhere as being
of a limiting mag that was less than the TAROT observed magnitudes

... As far as I can tell Haislip first observed at about
3 hours
after trigger. Notice the tarot measurements I refer to finish at 480
seconds
after trigger.
[sec after GRB]
start end magnitude
86 144 R18.1 +/- 0.3 (no detected)
150 253 R=18.5 +/- 0.3
312 370 R=18.7 +/- 0.3
376 479 R=19.1 +/- 0.4

...

Your comments are irrelevant. The Haislip et al paper presents true
R-band observations from BOOTES starting 2.1 minutes after the GRB
trigger and extendingoutto two hours, i.e. over the same time
interval you discuss above. And yet these R-*ONLY*-band observations
do not detect the afterglow. The magnitude upper limits are R18.2 at
T+2.8 min, and R20 at T+60 minutes. The point being, similar
observations, similar sensitivity, at a similar time after the burst,
but in R-band only, do not detect this afterglow. The conclusion is
obvious: the afterglow emission was *never* present in optical, even
at early times.
Obviously you are conveniently ignoring how magnitude measurements
work.
Note that your only simultaneous observation is at T+2.8min. And
notice
that YOU say it was with an upper limit of 18.2. Notice how at the
three Tarot detections at the same time the detections were all
below the limiting mag of Haislips 18.2. ...

You are incorrect, but it's a more subtle point. The key point is
that the Haislip et al. upper limits are quoted as *3-sigma* upper
limits (see their Table 1), while the Klotz TAROT error bars are
quoted as 1-sigma. They have different statistical confidence levels.
Haislip's 3-sigma upper limit provides a 99.9% confidence; whereas the
1-sigma error bars of TAROT are only 68% confident.
The conversion for upper limits is,
UPPER(1-sigma) = UPPER(3-sigma) + 2.5*LOG10(3)
= UPPER(3-sigma) + 1.2
Thus, the actual comparison should be,

[ use fixed font to view ]
Time BOOTES BOOTES TAROT
(min) (3 sig) (1 sig) (1 sig)
T+2.8 18.2 19.4
T+3.8 18.1
T+6.5 18.3 19.5
T+6.7 18.5 +/- 0.3
T+11.4 18.7 +/- 0.3
T+13.2 19.2 20.4
T+14.3 19.1 +/- 0.4
T+26 19.5 20.7
T+54 19.9 21.1

In short, one could say that *if* one assumes that the counterpart
emitted in the R band at the quoted TAROT intensities, then BOOTES
would have detected the counterpart with individual confidence levels
between 95% and 99%. However, because BOOTES did *not* detect the
counterpart, the assumption must be wrong. I.e., the counterpart did
not emit in the R band. Of course this conclusion is supported by
every other observation, including ultra-deep optical images (Haislip
et al) and spectroscopy (Kawai et al)
You make many mistakes here. Kawai did not observe simultaneous
to Tarot. Neither did Haislip. ...

You are in error. The BOOTES observations shown above are centered
just before and just after the claimed TAROT detects.
Complete false claim here on your part. Haislip isnt
Bootes. Bootes does not have haislips name on its relevent gcn
posting. Haislips` only gcn credits are for later time observations.
See gcn 3913 and 3914. THey are the first haislip
and they are at 3 hours post trigger. Well after Tarot.
And Kawai saw at 3 days post trigger. Also well after
TAROT. Bootes on the other hand WAS simultaneous to tarot
but, it doesnt have Haislips credit on it. See gcn 3929.
Therefore my claim is correct....Haislip and Kawai
did not observe simultaneous to Tarot (or bootes).
If the counterpart had had optical emission, BOOTES *would* have
detected it with between 95-99% confidence, but did not. Thus, your
claim is both erroneous and unsubstantiated.
Unscientific fiddle here. It may be possible that Bootes`
18.2 limiting mag was the same as an 18.5 limiting mag,...
But its more probable it was 18.2. And furthermore that calculation
is substantiated by TAROT. Because TAROT has a clear bvri detection
at lower mags then bootes stated limiting mag. Which in turn confirms
Bootes no detection limiting mag at ~18.2 as being roughly correct.
... And as for your calculations you
havent convinced me that an 18.2 limiting mag is the same as
an 18.5 limiting mag. Or a 19.1 the same as a 19.2.

Huh? I didn't not claim that 18.2 is the "same as" 18.5.
Yes you did. Otherwise you wouldnt be claiming that Bootes
18.2 limiting mag rules out an 18.5 detection by Tarot

Otherwise haislip would not have bothered to specify
in his paper the following... no detection at limiting mag 18.2.
etc...If he was certain that a limiting mag of 18.2 ruled out
any OT down to 18.5,.. he would have said so.(See astro ph 0509660).

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.
Yes I do. I say yes, its possible Bootes 18.2 limiting mag was the
same
as a 18.5 limiting mag. But not as probable as it being an 18.2 mag
only.
There, I addressed your confidence levels. They are not proof
that Tarot did not see in bvri.
Your mistake is to assume that the Bootes `no detection` at one
limiting mag *rules out* any detection of an OT at much deeper
magnitudes simply because it is a possibility mathematically.

I note that you did not address the differences in confidence level
between the two reports.
Yes I do. I say yes, its possible Bootes 18.2 limiting mag was the
same
as a 18.5 limiting mag. But not as probable as it being an 18.2 mag
only.
There, I addressed your confidence levels. They are not proof
that Tarot did not see in bvri.
KAWAI SPECTRUM

Um, the spectrum is totally consistent with the published noise level
shortward of 880 nm. Any "absorption lines" found by you there are
surely bogus.
You cannot prove that the features below 880nm are definitively noise.
You can only assume they are noise. And you can only do this by
ignoring
some of the other substantivedata(Tarots bvri detection.)
Thats bogus science on your part.

Huh? You are incorrect:
1. We can guage whether something is noise or not, by comparing to
the experimental uncertainties ("the error bars"). Shortward of
880 nm, thedataare *consistent with zero*, within the
uncertainties.
As Ive already said, this isnt proof that the fluctuations arent real.

Shortward of the Ly-alpha line, the spectrum is statistically
consistent with zero, via a formal statistical test. I suggest you
try to understand statistics and measurement uncertainties better.
They have a real effect. It's truly naive to ascribe meaning to small
bumps and wiggles, when those wiggles are comparable to the known
measurement uncertainties.
And its naive of you to to suggest that because an observed
fluctuation
is within error margins it isnt real. You can only say its consistent
to beamed predictions (within error margins) .

Formally and logically, one can only test consistency or inconsistency
with a hypothesis. I stand my my claim that it is foolish to ascribe
meaning to wiggles comparable to the measurement uncertainty.
And I stand by my claim that it is foolish to assume that all observed
fluctuations in flux within error margins are not real. This is an
assumption
you make . Not a substantiated fact.
You are still missing the point. You cherry-picked a few linesoutof
thousands from your "solar wind" spectrum. And you didn't pick the
brightest lines, just any old lines. In statistics, that is called a
problem of "number of trials," meaning that if you try enough times,
you will find a match. [ which is true in this case because the
stellar line catalog you referenced has lines at nearly every
wavelength. ]
Not to the same extent that Kawai and other beamed theorists do?
Look at his detail in fig 8 from astro ph 0512154. showing
an imaginary feature at about 750.He has what looks
like essentially a flat continuum with slight variations
in the flux at.. 730 755 and 770nm.
But Its convenient for him to "cherry pick" 750 so he does , to fit
that
graphs projection.

Umm, you must be confused. The figure you refer to, Figure 8 of
Totani et al, shows the well-fit Ly-alpha line wing on the top panel
(870-920 nm), and the Ly-beta region in the bottom panel (734-776).

The importance of that plot is that the redshift is extremely well
determined by the Ly-alpha line near 890 nm. The lower panel is
consistent with *zero* emission near the Ly-beta line. Totani et al
didn't *choose* to put a line at 750 nm, since since the Ly-beta line
must occur there, based on atomic physics.
Its not clear yet what is `well fit ` about that detail.At that point
there is no feature. No line. Yet you say beamed theory predicts a
`line` there? If thats the case then kawais illustration shows
that whatever beamed predicts at that point,.. it isnt there.
Unless beamed theory predicts `no feature` at that point. Which is
not what his graph suggests.

I did not say "beamed theory predicts a line there." If you even
bothered to read my wording, I said that according to *atomic physics*
the Ly Beta absorption feature must be present. Unless you are also
claiming that all of atomic physics is wrong, the Ly Beta transition
must exist. However, the fact that there is no continuum emission to
be absorbed at that wavelength makes the issue a moot point.
Whats important here is that the part of the spectrum he highlited
in his illustration was essentially featureless. Yet he
compares it on his graph to a dotted line that curves down
and up in flux. Whatever feature he imagines being here whether it
be the Lyman beta feature or otherwise is not obvious. THere is no
feature there. Why does he say we should see one? What is it
about the flux associated with a lyman Beta transition feature
that he sees in this featureless part of the spectra?
On the other hand, the Kawai paper found specific *strong* lines of
*abundant* atomic species,
Note that Kawai only found 5 strong lines by cherry picking.

Huh? There is a gigantic Ly-alpha line wing which sets the redshift
scale to 6.3. The extra lines are merely confirmatory. Hence, the
number of trials is 1, which is not cherry picking.
Certainly he finds a wing. I wasnt disputing that. My model TOO
predicts the same dropoff in flux! But we are discussing the observed
lines not the dropoff and it is obvious he cherry picks his lines far
more than you can accuse me of doing.He can only find 4 or 5 matches.

Your interpretation is faulty, for the reason noted just above. Once
a hypothesis has been formed ("redshift is 6.3 based on Ly Alpha
feature"), then it is not cherry picking to test this hypothesis by
searching for known strong lines of abundant elements at the *same*
redshift.
OK he sets his LY alpha parameter for 6.3. That doesnt alter the fact
that when he tries to find line matches at ~z=6.295 ,.. he
cant make very many. And the ones he makes are for the most part
vague, innacurate and insufficient in quantity. In other words
he cherry picks his line features to substantiate his assumed
L-a feature.
Returning to some relevant discussion:
[ Markwardt: ]
: However, if you had bothered to look at the actual observations, no
: such behavior is present. Both the Haislip et al (Fig 2) and
: Tagliaferri et al (Fig 3) papers show that infrared emission was
: detected at the earliest times. This time-resolved spectroscopy shows
: that the afterglow was absolutely *not* a "hump that is redshifting as
: we watch," but rather smoothly fading in all bands. The longward
: infrared wavelengths were detected at the *earliest* times (2.4
: hours), and continued to be detected for ~8 days (Tagliaferri et al
: Fig 2). On the other hand, visible light was *never* detected
: (Haislip et al Fig 2). In short, your supposition is entirely
: unsubstantiated by thedata.

While you continue to harp about the optical emission (erroneously),
it is still true that your "hump"theorydoesn't work for the infrared
emission either.
This is an erroneous claim you make here. If you look at the optical
and NIR data supplied in any of the papers available you can see
that in fact the longer wavelengths decay at slower rates than
shorter.

However, that is not a "hump that is redshifting as we watch." As
noted above, the IR emission was detected from the very earliest
times.
You obviously havent read the gcn data on 050904. The first tarot
optical doesnt actually measure a detection . Implying a rise in
bvri at the very earliset times. And a quick check of the gcn
postings on 050904 shows the first posted longer wavelength only ( J
band gcn 3913) seems to be at 3 hours post trigger. Well after
Tarot.

Huh? That still doesn't sound like a "hump that is redshifting as we
watch." The observation at 3 hours post-trigger implies nothing about
what occurred previously.
If you want to prove that NIR peaked at the *same time* as optical
you need seperate NIR data at the same time as tarot. And I dont
believe
any exists.Furthermore you need to prove that optical decays as
slow as NIR. Which it doesnt. See my graph at....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRVLFSfeGSE
This supplies the substantiation in graph format that optical
decays faster then NIR. Something that is consistent with
a redshifting flux hump. Furthermore the graph shows that
even I band decays faster then z j h k. Once again
substantiating my models predictions of a flux hump
redshifting over time.
So you cant substantiate your claim that Infrared only was observed
decaying at early times with optical/. Why? Because you have no NIR
only data at the same early time as optical to substantiate your
claim.

Actually, I was referring to the Haislip paper which shows a smooth
decay at all detectable wavelengths. I.e. it was not a "hump that is
redshifting as we watch."
If you thought a bit more for a change you would realize that a
decay rate that is slower in longer wavelengths is consistent with
a model that predicts a flux hump redshifting over time. Do some
maths.
Whereas I have ALL the later time NIR observations that show that
there is a faster decay in shorter NIR than longer.

Ahh, but you are basing your interpretation on your erroneous plot.
The plot where you erroneously displayed two *different* wavelength
filters, I1 and I2, with the same color and with a trend line
connecting them. The plot where you erroneously displayed a BVRI
detection as "V", and where you connected it to an upper limit point
with a trend line. These are both erroneous techniques, and hence
your conclusions are irrelevant.
It was not erroneous to label both I1 and 2 as I band. Seeing as both
are in fact ...I band!
Not only that, but my source ...Tagliaferri in astro ph 0509766, also
labels them both in blue AND more notably connects them both
with one projected blue line. Despite them being I1 and I2.
So if its OK for him to do it , its OK for me.
As for the datapoint that I label as V. Note that in the acompanying
text
and original post I specify clearly that it was a non detection at
that point and that the datapoint was an upper limit only. How much
more clearly do you need your information? Can you not read english?
As usual your claims are utterly false and misleading.
... If you accept the Lyman alpha "break" lies between 8830 AA and 8910
AA, then you must accept that the redshift is between 6.27 and 6.34.
However, a fit to the redward wing of the absorption line yields
a more precise line center, hence z=6.29.

I note no response.
Why do you need a response? I asked you why the researchers had
decided against
8830 and 8910 and you gave one. Although in fact your response didnt
explain
how it couldnt be 8830 or 8910. All you did was explain how it could
be 8850.
So technically you havent responded to my question...
Why is it that the Lyman alpha break cannot be either 8830 or 8910?

The center of the line is determined by fitting the whole wing, and
thus, the center can be determined very accurately.

So you now admit that the redshift must lie between 6.27 and 6.34?
No. The grb afterglow is not from a distant redshifted source at all
That assumption is generally not consistent with the observed data.

...

I believe you are incorrect. I believe that in every case where the
"break" has been detected, it has been consistent with other redshift
indicators.
Incorrect? There are numerous examples where beamed theory is not
consistent
with the data including 050904. Lets take 050904 specifically. The
3 verified TAROT bvri detections and their substantiation by bootes
are not
consistent with beamed theory. Beamed cannot explain an optical
detection
for this burst. Furthermore the different rates of decay observed for
optical wavelengths and verified in publications like Tagliaferri in
astro
ph 0509766 are not consistent with beamed theory. It cannot explain
these different rates of decay. . And more generally probably the most
telling inconsistencies are Prochter and Prochaska 2006 research of
GRB
spectra that showed that Galaxies appear to be four times more common
in
the direction of gamma-ray bursts than in the direction of quasars.
This
is accepted as impossible under current physics and underscores the
flawed methodology of analysing grb spectra by asssuming they are from
different redshifted sources. And finally the most recent research has
shown that generally the slow decay in optical seen particularly
in long grbs cannot be explained by beamed theory.
What more evidence does NASA need before it realizes it is wasting
its time paying its employees to prop up a theory that is past
its use by date.
What
it does look like though is the falloff on the blueward side of any
stellar spectra usually seen between 2-400nm.
Ive done two examples (for illustration purposes
only)and put them up at...

Again, your "youtube" pictures are cute, but beyond "illustration"
they are of little value. You have conveniently translated and
stretched the spectrum in *both* directions, wavelength *and*
intensity. The result has little meaning. For example, the stellar
spectrum actually goes *below zero* when it is stretched onto the
Kawai spectrum, which is a physical impossibility.
...

As noted above, your stretching is physically impossible, since it
produces negative emission shortward of 800 nm.
Im not saying it produces negative emission 800nm. Im
saying it produces emission below the limiting mag of kawais
observation at 800nm.

Actually, since your curve goes below zero, you *are* "predicting"
negative "emission." I.e. you are "predicting" something impossible.
Wrong again. You are the one who predicts the impossible. Im claiming
that
any light that is below detection thresholds will not be observed.

However, your own plot belies your error. The plot shows the
"predicted" flux which falls below zero.
You understand even less about the basics then I ever imagined.
Do you not realize that in Kawai the 0 line isnt 0 flux emmission,
its 0 flux detected.!! Believe it or not, in an example like Kawai
where the limiting mag of his exposure was about 20-21 mag, there
is still flux below this limit coming from the source blueward of
880nm!!
But just because he cant see it doesnt mean it is negative emmision!!
That prediction is
physically impossible. I note your failure to address this specific
point.
Your "interpretation" that a negative flux level would simply
not be detectable is valiant, but irrelevant.
See above. And by the way it wasnt my `interpretation` that
non detection of flux is the same as negative. It was yours.
By applying ad hoc
methods, you have obtained ad hoc results. I.e. your results are
irrelevant.
Wrong again as usual. They are very relevent. What the two graphs
show is that redshifted by 2 a solar or gtype stars flux/wavelength
graph very closely matches the flux wavelength profile
of the observed spectra of grb 050904. See...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVJ-W...eature=related
or..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf5sJTMxJbo
But also as noted, the stellar lines you refer to do not exactly match
the Kawai line wavelengths. I'm talking about the actual line
centers, not your "eyeball" match-up.
My matches are better than kawai does. His graph clearly
shows a feature centered at 9496 and covering a ranges of 9492-9500.
Thats as accurate as one can ascertain from what he has made available
in his paper. Magnified by many times in graph software on pc.

Please. You're trying to do analysis with Powerpoint, and it's rather
silly.
OK show me the spectral data that supplies a more accurate parameter
for the observed feature centered at 9496. You cant because none
exists. Otherwise Kawai would have supplied it in his paper. Anyways
unlike yourself I dont have, nor do I use powerpoint. It would be
silly of me to use such an inferior software for this purpose.

Whatever image manipulation program you used is irrelevant.
In that case dont make irrelevent statements about powerpoint
as you do above.
The point
is that quantitative science can't be done at the appropriate
precision by stretching and shifting images by hand. Also, even if
Kawai et al. didn't plot the highest resolution spectrum in their
paper, does not mean such a spectrum does not exist.
Ill make you a deal . I wont pretend that it doesnt exist if you dont
pretend that it does and that you have studied it.
Unfortunately you seem to be able to find only 5outof how many?
Probably much more. ...

Umm, no. The strongest lines from the most abundant species. The top
ten species, in order of total abundance are H, He, O, C, Ne, N, Fe,
Mg, Si and S, ignoring the ionization state. Kawai detected almost
all of the strong lines of the must abundant elements in the
interstellar medium.
Not by your yardstick. You just said above that he should also
see H, He Ne N and Fe. Where are they in Kawais analysis?

(a) It's not Kawai's obligation to find "every" line.
Yes it is . Otherwise its called cherry picking.

As noted above, you are in error.
What error? Ive shown Kawai cannot explain many lines ,both
observed and predicted by beamed theory. And the few he does match
are generally poorly matched. That can only be called cherry picking.
The Ly-alpha
detection nails the redshift, and the other weaker line
identifications merely confirm it. (b) There are no known strong
lines of the H, He, Ne, N, and Fe atomic species in the relevant
wavelength range.
He should see many more. How about the 3 persistent lines in Oxygen
at 1302? Or the two at Mg 1239-40? Or the three persistent lines at
C 1277? (much stronger than the weak line at C1334... )

It's bizarre you picked Oxygen since Kawai did indeed identify that
line (Table 1, line 7).
This is debateable. At z=6.295 the three Oxygen lines at 1302-4-6 end
up at 9498, 9512 and 9527. Whereas the main feature he tries to
attribute
Oxygen to is at ~ 9480 and 9495. Is that a good match?
No.
He has 3 strong lines in Oxygen. And only two strong lines at the
relevent
wavelength range in his grb spectra.
He matches one Oxygen line and only one grb absorbtion line.
He ignores TWO other strong oxygen lines 0f 1304 and 1306
and CANNOT find a match to one of the strongest lines
in the grb spectra at 9480. That doesnt even rate the
insult of cherry picking.
As noted above, the remaining line
identifications were confirmatory: strong lines in the spectrum,
identified with strong lines of the most abundant species. Your
"every line" assertion is a cannard.
You are desperate here.
He hasnt shown the line at Mg 1239,1240. He hasnt shown the
5 very strong lines in Carbon at 1277-8.
He hasnt shown Nitrogen at 1243,
And his Sulfur attributions make no sense. He claims S-1253
and S-1259 are at 9146 and 9188. There are no clear strong
lines at these points in the grb spectra.
The same goes for his Si-1264 at 9225. Theres nothing of any strength
there in the grb spectra . He only manages to get a rough match
to the line at 919 for his SI-1260.
But note the cherry picking here. He matches the weaker S-1260 line
only sort of and he cant get anything for the strong S-1264
His analysis is a mess. And doesnt stand up to even the most
casual scrutiny.
Then again this isnt unusual for a beamed theorist. Look at other
attempts at redshift determination . Take the one done for 060605
Its pathetic. They match maybe one out of every 5 observed lines
And even the L-a break is a fiddle as really its just a moderate
decrease in observed flux blueward of their erroneous assumption.
And I havent actually gone and checked how exacting their line
matches are. But my experience with Kawais` is that they are probably
way off and completely fiddled.
*****
Im not sure if the following qualify as abundant but there
are also strong persistent lines at Boron 1362, Chlorine 1347,
Chromium 1362, which he doent seem to show matches to.
(My apologies to Kawai et al.It wasnt my intention to critique their
research in particular. Hes just doing what is considered
acceptable under beamed theory. Its just that the overall standards
of beamed theory and its proponents are so poor that they must be
highlited here as such. )
Since you continue to misinterpret my statements, and issue
unsubstantiated and erroneous claims, I don't see a reason for me to
respond further to this discussion.
And as long as you continue to make unsubstantiated erroneous claims
that Kawai has found matches for all the abundant lines when he
clearly
hasnt,...then I agree your might as well give up before you dig
yourself
into an even deeper hole.
But dont give up Craig! We were getting on so well.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...tivity_02.html

On 9 Jul, 14:33, sean wrote:
Recent data from grb 080727B shows that once again the observed data
are not consistent with beamed
theory predictions. But, are completely consistent with the grb model
as outlined at www.gammarayburst.com.
The two gcn to see are copied below with the relevent passages from
them included...

********
TITLE: GCN CIRCULAR
NUMBER: 8046
SUBJECT: GRB 080727B: KAIT photometry and an early lightcurve break
DATE: 08/07/28 23:49:10 GMT
FROM: Weidong Li at UC Berkeley KAIT/LOSS

"...The KAIT unfiltered light curve of GRB 080727B can be well fit by
a broken power-law with an index of 1.08 +/- 0.07 between t = 49 s
to 169 s, and 1.88 +/- 0.21 between t= 169 s and 524 s. Such an
early break in the light curve is quite extraordinary."

********

TITLE: GCN CIRCULAR
NUMBER: 8049
SUBJECT: GRB 080727B: IR photometry
DATE: 08/07/29 15:15:00 GMT
FROM: Andrew Levan at U.of Leicester

"...The K-band is suggestive of a break occurring at t_b ~ 1600s, with
pre- and post-break slopes of alpha_1 =0.84 and alpha_2 =1.26. The
initial slope is significantly shallower than that suggested by the
KAIT observations (Li et al GCN 8046), and implies either that the
afterglow decay flatenned after those observations, or that the
optical and IR were not tracking each other in this case."
*******

In gcn 8046 the use of "extraordinary" almost certainly implies
that it is incompatible with current beamed model predictions.
And more importantly ... (for the first
time in any gcn even though this sort of `non tracking` data from
different
filters is already well observed: see.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJZV-kCmJTY),
in gcn 8049 the author admits that the shorter wavelengths are not
only not decaying at the
same rate as longer wavelengths, they are fluctuating at different
times. This behaviour seen in the grb data is not only unexplainable
under beamed theory, it has also been predicted for many years by my
grb model and posted at various newsgroups and urls since 1999.
Up till and including this current thread
Not to mention that various members of the astrophysics community
have also vigorously argued that this `varying`
rate of decay was not possible under beamed theory and current
physics.
For examples see..
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...9f2?lnk=st&q=&

rnum=2&hl=en#038baa14b370b9f2
or...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...ae1?hl=en#6f27

f0ee2d87cae1

I imagine beamed theorists will use the argument that the optical
decay
flattened out in time to match K band. The problem
for them is... they do not have any data in optical to back
up this claim.
In fact,at many times in the past 8 years including up to his
latest post on this thread Craig (Markwardt) and others
in the astyrophysics community have vigorously argued
that my predictions including faster rates of decay for
shorter wavelengths were not only impossible under beamed theory and
current
physics they were not or ever could be observed in any future data.
(Despite
me showing that in fact these trends have already been observed
in previous grbs including 050904. See for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJZV-kCmJTY)
Obviously once again their claims that my models predictions
could not be consistent with the data have been repudiated and their
favorite theory , beamed theory, proved once again incompatible
with their own peer accepted gcn data.
Its also worth noting here that when I attempted to post to the M.
Hardcastle
moderated group Sci astro research many years ago my claim that grb
afterglows should show a clear trend of longer decays for longer
wavelengths
and that the rates of fluctuation would be different for various
wavelengths
I was told it was not possible to accept the post for publication
as it was not possible under current physics for afterglows
to display this behaviour. I wonder if the `scientists`
who moderate that newsgroup will now agree to include my
posts in light of the latest data.
Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...tivity_02.html

sean writes:
In gcn 8046 the use of "extraordinary" almost certainly implies
that it is incompatible with current beamed model predictions.

It almost certainly does not. The authors' claims imply something
about rarity only, the rest is due to your unsubstantiated
speculation.

And more importantly ... (for the first
time in any gcn even though this sort of `non tracking` data from
different
filters is already well observed: see.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJZV-kCmJTY),
in gcn 8049 the author admits that the shorter wavelengths are not
only not decaying at the
same rate as longer wavelengths, they are fluctuating at different
times.


*OR*, if you had bothered to read the other possibility, the GRB light
curve may have flattened.

CM

On 13 Aug, 22:41, Craig Markwardt


wrote:
sean writes:
In gcn 8046 the use of "extraordinary" almost certainly implies
that it is incompatible with current beamed model predictions.

It almost certainly does not. The authors' claims imply something
about rarity only, the rest is due to your unsubstantiated
speculation.

And more importantly ... (for the first
time in any gcn even though this sort of `non tracking`datafrom
different
filters is already well observed:

see..http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJZV-kCmJTY),
in gcn 8049 the author admits that the shorter wavelengths are not
only not decaying at the
same rate as longer wavelengths, they are fluctuating at different
times.

*OR*, if you had bothered to read the other possibility, theGRBlight
curve may have flattened.
I certainly did bother to read the other possibility. Thats one reason
why I included it in the quote which you conveniently snipped.
I knew if I didnt you would complain that I didnt include it.

Heres the quote again...

FROM: Andrew Levan at U.of Leicester
"...The K-band is suggestive of a break occurring at t_b ~ 1600s, with
pre- and post-break slopes of alpha_1 =0.84 and alpha_2 =1.26. The
initial slope is significantly shallower than that suggested by the
KAIT observations (Li et al GCN 8046), and implies either that the
afterglow decay flatenned after those observations, or that the
optical and IR were not tracking each other in this case."

What you ignore is the possibilty that even Levan admits. Which is
that the optical and IR were not tracking. Which since 2001 and
up until now you claimed was impossible , unsubstantiatable and
unscientific to even predict. Levans data now confirms my model
and contrary to your arguments confirms that my predictions
are scientific and substantiatable ... Furthermore the second
possibilty you prefer to choose seems fairly untenable to me.
Because EVEN if we do *pretend* that the
afterglow decay flattened (not substantiated),.. that would
still mean that the afterglow in Optical and IR peaked,
flattened then broke in the first 169 seconds post trigger.
Which as the other quote from gcn 8046 says is "extraordinary".
I think you will find that "extraordinary" also means..not
explainable and definitely not predicted by beamed theory.

And furthermore, if you want to *pretend* (not actually observed)
that IR and optical were tracking then you have to add in an extra
second break at about 524 seconds to accomodate the re-flattening
seen in K band observations. I think you will find that not
only is one break at 169 seconds not explainable under
beamed theory,.. definitely two by ~524 will not be.
So unless you can confirm that a break in optical
at 169 s is predicted/ explained by beamed theory then the
080810 data explainable ONLY by my model. An observation which
you claimed (incorrectly) would never be seen in the data.

Sean
www.gammarayburst.com
For various pages covering different scientific subjects go to...
sagnac explained..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IOdD4Sd-Oko
new discovery of underlying pattern in element conductivity
http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com...tivity_02.html
explanation of earths magnetism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiCBrXKIH_0
and many others...
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=jaymoseleygrb