Swift grb satelitte

SWIFT PREDICTIONS
The Swift grb satelitte launches tommorow!! Its observations will
mark the end of the standard model.

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

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


B

"sean" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
SWIFT PREDICTIONS
The Swift grb satelitte launches tommorow!! Its observations will
mark the end of the standard model.

Rather than being hypernovas with relativistic beaming , GRBs can be
explained as follows...
snip

Could be that GRBs are only the echoes of many big bangs happening in our
universe?
If multiverse theory is correct this seems no more weird than other
theories...

Luigi Caselli

Luigi Caselli wrote:
"sean" ha scritto nel messaggio
...
SWIFT PREDICTIONS
The Swift grb satelitte launches tommorow!! Its observations will
mark the end of the standard model.

Rather than being hypernovas with relativistic beaming , GRBs can
be
explained as follows...
snip

Swift should detect no redshift for GRB`s from the xray spectra

The UVOT ccd cameras should confirm my prediction that there are
multiple rebrightenings in the light curve. Moreso than any
beamed theory can account for.The shorter the bin times
(exposure times) the more rebrightenings will become observable
per burst. By this I mean that for example if a grb has 2 peaks
per second a 1 sec bin would show only 1 peak but a 1/4 sec bin
would show 2 peaks.
Or also if a grb had 1 peak every 5 seconds each peak lasting
a sec than a 5 sec bin would show a lower mag peak and 5
one sec bins would have 4 bins with no peak and 1 bin with a
much higher mag peak as it hasnt been averaged out over 5 sec.

Also shorter bin times should show that the rebrightenings or
multiple peaks should be greater in magnitude than previously
observed. This is because up till now the longer exposure
times average out the peak of the rebrightenings to make them
appear less bright. Also the rebrightenings will appear always
to occur later in longer wavelengths. The progression will be
proportional to wavelength. So that (for example only )
the peak will appear at 0 sec in gamma, 0.01 in x ray 2 sec in
UV 20 sec in B and 25 in R and 250 in IR etc. (These numbers
in seconds are just a guide only to illustrate what I mean by
proportional to wavelength ie the longer the wavelength observed
the later the peak is observed to occur)

I noticed the new google beta does not display the illustrations
in my first post correctly
So I`m reposting part of the original post with the illustrations
corrected for the new google beta page size. To get the full text
of predictions and explanations as to what the theory is behind
my predictions go to my first post in this thread.

Sean www.gammarayburst.com

If SWIFT is able to take multiple spectrum images of early optical
bursts in the first few hours post grb detection(as was done for
030329 over weeks) we would see that over minutes and hours the
main spikey features in the spectral lightcurve would appear to
`animate` smoothly from the blue end (A to B below) to red end of
the spectrum in the images. So over a certain time a feature
that occurs between 300nm and 600nm would eventually be seen
stretched to 600nm and 1200nm and on to radio etc.


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

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

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


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


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


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


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


The effect then at the ccd camera at x nm would be that the
observed flux increases as c is redshifted. When c and the
rest of the `hump` is stretched to longer wavelengths than x,
the observed flux at x will then appear to diminish. The
lightcurve profile of the flux intensity observed at x
mimics the spectral profile of the redshifted stars light
shown below at c. As the redshifting or decceleration
of the light is proportional to wavelength the speed at which
the hump passes by x will be faster if x is at a shorter
wavelength. Thus the entire spectral hump will be redshifted
past x much faster if x was observing in gamma than if x were
observing in UV for instance. This makes the observations in
shorter wavelengths appear to occur much faster.

Looking forward to the final verification of no redshift of
grbs and other predictions made in the beginning of this thread
from the SWIFT satelitte in the next week or so provided the
xr camera can do a spectra observation

Regarding my predictions that GRB`s do not need `host
galaxies` and will in many cases have none even in hubble
deep field please note that grb041219 may be offering
verification of this prediction . It is a bright grb observed
as a compact point source suggesting even at limits of
observation there is no underlying host galaxy. If this bears
out with follow up observations we will have an example of how
grbs will appear too bright for the high redshift to be
accomadated by theory.
It also emphasises the need for NASA to change the
xrt localization procedure and have the UVOT camera search
the entire xrt field of view rather than just any candidate
galaxies in the field of view. I also wonder if maybe the
SWIFT team could check the arrival times of grbs
from HETE and SWIFT and INTEGRAL to see if they do indeed
appear to give time of arrival localizations that do not
match observed localizations . In other words if SWIFT and
HETE observe the same grb and both give the same localization.
An analysis of the arrival times of the observed GRB at both
satelittes will for about 1/2 of grbs produce a result where
(for example even though SWIFT may be technically nearer the
observed GRB it will actually observe the burst LATER than
HETE despite being technically closer!! Not only will this
be proof that GR is invalid it will also validate my theory
at www.gammarayburst.com that GRB`s are essentially optical
illusions occuring only at the point of observation. (Although
the light source will be from stars maybe 50-100`s of billions
of light years away so grb`s will be the proof that the BBT
is incorrect.

I notice that the SWIFT team has declined
to release the lightcurve and spectrum of grb 050117.
Is it because they have found that there is no redshift
of GRBs as I predicted many times on this thread and
others? Unable to explain the lack of redshift may
have prompted the team to assume it was a technical
glitch. Or maybe they also noticed that, as I predicted
on google numerous times, the x ray lightcurve occurs
later than the gammaray lightcurve by a small time
amount(microseconds or even seconds possibly)
I wonder about this as on day of the burst NASA said a
spectrum and lightcurve would be posted in a couple of
hours. 4 days later they give a press release saying
that because the burst was near the edge of the field
of view a data analysis is impossible. If thats the
case then surely they would have known this at the time
of the burst and even before that.
Did it take them this long to realize a key limitation of
their satelitte? Anyways, I expect that the next burst
will give the final proof that GRB`s do not have redshifts
and are phenomena that occur locally at the point of
observation not unlike the similar phenomenae of a mirage
or sonic booms
Sean www.gammarayburst.com

"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...



I notice that the SWIFT team has declined
to release the lightcurve and spectrum of grb 050117.
Is it because they have found that there is no redshift
of GRBs as I predicted many times on this thread and
others? Unable to explain the lack of redshift may
have prompted the team to assume it was a technical
glitch.

Or since nobody has ever seen these kind of spectra
before, maybe they have some work to do to identify
the lines, if there are any to identify of course.

Or maybe they also noticed that, as I predicted
on google numerous times, the x ray lightcurve occurs
later than the gammaray lightcurve by a small time

Ever heard of dispersion?

amount(microseconds or even seconds possibly)

Maybe you should read the announcement:

"It was in the midst of exploding, as Swift
autonomously turned to focus in less than
200 seconds."

I wonder about this as on day of the burst NASA said a
spectrum and lightcurve would be posted in a couple of
hours. 4 days later they give a press release saying
that because the burst was near the edge of the field
of view a data analysis is impossible. If thats the
case then surely they would have known this at the time
of the burst and even before that.

The burst is fading as SWIFT slews round to point
at it, it isn't just a flash at the edge of the FOV.

Did it take them this long to realize a key limitation of
their satelitte?

The target times were on the web site before it
was launched. A small fraction of bursts should
happen within the FOV of both BAT and XRT just
by chance and it is those few that will give the
opportunity for measurements of relative arrival
times. You may need to wait months for that though.

Anyways, I expect that the next burst
will give the final proof that GRB`s do not have redshifts
and are phenomena that occur locally at the point of
observation not unlike the similar phenomenae of a mirage
or sonic booms

SWIFT isn't even fully operational yet though they
hope to have UVOT collecting within a week or so.
Have a little patience, it'll be up there for long
enough.

George

Or since nobody has ever seen these kind of spectra
before, maybe they have some work to do to identify
the lines, if there are any to identify of course.

Hi George
I dont think beamed theory predicts that the x ray
spectra has no lines let alone no red shifted
lines. Are there examples of any astronomical phenomena
not having spectral line features as you suggest above?
I am not aware of any but will consider your input in
that area.

Or maybe they also noticed that, as I predicted
on google numerous times, the x ray lightcurve occurs
later than the gammaray lightcurve by a small time

Ever heard of dispersion?

Yes I suppose I myself have argued with you on other
subjects (ie my suggestion that redshift could be due
to longer wavelengths traveling at slower speeds and
arriving slightly later) and used that very premise
of dispersion to account for delays in arrival.
But the difference for arrival delays between
x ray and gamma even for great cosmological distances
would surely not be in seconds or even 100 or 1000
of a second as I suggest in my post . I cant find your
post where I believe you calculate the delay but
I remember it being in the order of millionths of a
second for that sort of wavelength difference?
( ie/ x to gamma).

Maybe you should read the announcement:
"It was in the midst of exploding, as Swift
autonomously turned to focus in less than
200 seconds."
The burst is fading as SWIFT slews round to point
at it, it isn't just a flash at the edge of the FOV.

I dont quite get your point here unless you
are suggesting that it wasnt possible for SWIFT
to take a spectra in x because the burst has faded
by the time it slews around? My interpretation is
that they *did* get a spectra and x ray lightcurve.
And they did see them both by the time of the first
gcn and they must of been at that time not noticeably
unusable. Otherwise the gcn would not have stated that
they would be made available in a few hours. Then
again maybe they hadnt the data in graph form at
that point although I doubt they wouldnt have.
I would have thought it comes as a graph readout
when first viewed at HQ at the time of burst.
Otherwise they wouldnt have bean able to comment on
the gamma lightcurve features at that point.

The target times were on the web site before it
was launched. A small fraction of bursts should
happen within the FOV of both BAT and XRT just
by chance and it is those few that will give the
opportunity for measurements of relative arrival
times. You may need to wait months for that though.

Yes it would be best to wait for more burst info
but that still does not alter the fact that the burst
was in the xrt *and* bat FOV for at least 10 seconds
and that a spectra and x ray lightcurve was recorded.
There is no excuse to embargo the data. Let me put
it this way. If the FOV position of the burst is poor
how are thay able to give a detailed description of
the gamma lightcurve? If that was possible within the
limitations then there is no excuse for the x ray data
to be any less detailed.
I still think they could not explain the spectra
without discarding the standard model and therefore
presumed otherwise acceptable data as somehow flawed
not because it is but because it cant be explained.
But your points are worthwhile and considered.Thanks.
Lets see what future bursts reveal. My bet is that
there will be no redshift in grb`s and that this
already is apparent in the 050117 data.


SWIFT isn't even fully operational yet though they
hope to have UVOT collecting within a week or so.
Have a little patience, it'll be up there for long
enough.

Yes I agree. UVOT in a week too I hope as thats where
the details of how the early afterglow in optical
wavelengths will show how beamed theory cannot be
possible. The early optical afterglow will be identical
in profile to the gamma lightcurve but stretched and
delayed in time. There will also be too many rebrightenings
for beamed theory to account for and the shorter the bin
times the more pronounced the rebrightening spikes
will appear. It will also become apparent that lightcurve
features in uv will appear delayed considerably in optical
(ie seconds and more.)
Sean

"sean" wrote in message
oups.com...


Or since nobody has ever seen these kind of spectra
before, maybe they have some work to do to identify
the lines, if there are any to identify of course.

Hi George

Hi Sean,

I dont think beamed theory predicts that the x ray
spectra has no lines let alone no red shifted
lines.

I didn't say there were no lines. To identify
lines you need to fit a series to a source.
Consider the extreme example where you only get
one line. It might be element A at one red shift
or element B at another. The same is true if you
get dozens of lines. Sorting out which set of
elements produced them can be difficult. Remember
these are the first spectra so there is no body
of precedents to help.

Are there examples of any astronomical phenomena
not having spectral line features as you suggest above?
I am not aware of any but will consider your input in
that area.

The CMBR.

Or maybe they also noticed that, as I predicted
on google numerous times, the x ray lightcurve occurs
later than the gammaray lightcurve by a small time

Ever heard of dispersion?

Yes I suppose I myself have argued with you on other
subjects (ie my suggestion that redshift could be due
to longer wavelengths traveling at slower speeds and
arriving slightly later) and used that very premise
of dispersion to account for delays in arrival.

Indeed, my comment was just a reminder. Red shift
refes to a change of frequency, not a delay, so
your suggestion didn't work but that's another
matter.

But the difference for arrival delays between
x ray and gamma even for great cosmological distances
would surely not be in seconds or even 100 or 1000
of a second as I suggest in my post.

You said "microseconds or even seconds possibly"
and the times can be larger than microseconds.
Whether it could be seconds is another question
as it depends on the material around the source.
If the X-rays come from extreme heating, you
could get a simple thermal delay.

I cant find your
post where I believe you calculate the delay but
I remember it being in the order of millionths of a
second for that sort of wavelength difference?
( ie/ x to gamma).

That was for supernovae I believe. It is premature
to read across but the point is that there can
easily be delay mechansims that will apply. You
need to look in detail at the results once they
start coming in. In the meantime, you should be
doing your calculations to find out whether you
are predicting microseconds or seconds. You
haven't made a prediction yet.

Maybe you should read the announcement:
"It was in the midst of exploding, as Swift
autonomously turned to focus in less than
200 seconds."
The burst is fading as SWIFT slews round to point
at it, it isn't just a flash at the edge of the FOV.

I dont quite get your point here unless you
are suggesting that it wasnt possible for SWIFT
to take a spectra in x because the burst has faded
by the time it slews around?

No, I was pointing out you can't measure a
difference of arrival time of "microseconds
or even seconds possibly" if one detector
only slews onto the target 200 seconds after
the arrival.

My interpretation is
that they *did* get a spectra and x ray lightcurve.
And they did see them both by the time of the first
gcn and they must of been at that time not noticeably
unusable. Otherwise the gcn would not have stated that
they would be made available in a few hours. Then
again maybe they hadnt the data in graph form at
that point although I doubt they wouldnt have.
I would have thought it comes as a graph readout
when first viewed at HQ at the time of burst.
Otherwise they wouldnt have bean able to comment on
the gamma lightcurve features at that point.

Whatever the information, it will be published
but perhaps they saw lines and said they would
publish, then later found out they were mixed up
with false nulls to diffraction as it was on the
edge of the FoV. There's really no point in
speculating, they are still commissioning the
instrument so wait until it is propoerly on-line.

The target times were on the web site before it
was launched. A small fraction of bursts should
happen within the FOV of both BAT and XRT just
by chance and it is those few that will give the
opportunity for measurements of relative arrival
times. You may need to wait months for that though.

Yes it would be best to wait for more burst info
but that still does not alter the fact that the burst
was in the xrt *and* bat FOV for at least 10 seconds
and that a spectra and x ray lightcurve was recorded.
There is no excuse to embargo the data.

It is standard practice that those who funded
the mission get first access. However, they do
say they will release the data as soon as possible.
However, again the point is that the system is not
yet commissioned, they have a responsibility to
ensure the quality of the data they release and
until tesing is completed, i know I would be loathe
to release anything. Let them test and calibrate the
instrument then look at what comes in.

Let me put
it this way. If the FOV position of the burst is poor
how are thay able to give a detailed description of
the gamma lightcurve?

The BAT is a wide angle detector and the lightcurve
is just a time sequence of intensity. The satellite
didn't need to move to get that.

If that was possible within the
limitations then there is no excuse for the x ray data
to be any less detailed.

The XRT has a much narrower FoV and the satellite
has to rotate to point in the right direction.
Think of the usual way you get a spectrum, you
bounce the source off a grating and measure the
angle. Since the telescope was slewing at the
time, it was a moving target. Now I haven't looked
at the details so mybe this isn't relevant for the
method used but getting a spectrum is entirely
different from getting a lightcurve.

I still think they could not explain the spectra
without discarding the standard model

There is no "standard model" yet, that's why
the thing was lanched! There are ideas but
many a sound idea has gone down in flames
when faced with observation. That's why
experimental data wins prizes, not theories
(in general).

and therefore
presumed otherwise acceptable data as somehow flawed
not because it is but because it cant be explained.
But your points are worthwhile and considered.Thanks.
Lets see what future bursts reveal. My bet is that
there will be no redshift in grb`s and that this
already is apparent in the 050117 data.

Perhaps, maybe some will have blue shifts showing
high speed ejecta. Maybe they will turn out to have
a blackbody spectrum with no lines other than from
intervening interstellar material. Wait and see.

SWIFT isn't even fully operational yet though they
hope to have UVOT collecting within a week or so.
Have a little patience, it'll be up there for long
enough.

Yes I agree. UVOT in a week too I hope as thats where
the details of how the early afterglow in optical
wavelengths will show how beamed theory cannot be
possible. The early optical afterglow will be identical
in profile to the gamma lightcurve but stretched and
delayed in time. There will also be too many rebrightenings
for beamed theory to account for and the shorter the bin
times the more pronounced the rebrightening spikes
will appear. It will also become apparent that lightcurve
features in uv will appear delayed considerably in optical
(ie seconds and more.)

Fine, anyone could predict that due to dispersion.
Now where is your histogram showing the fraction
of bursts versus the measured delay? Put your money
where your mouth is, or at least your effort ;-)

best regards
George

From: George Dishman )
so there is no body
of precedents to help.

Are there examples of any astronomical phenomena
not having spectral line features as you suggest
above? I am not aware of any but will consider
your input in
that area.

The CMBR.
Hi George
Other than the big bang are there examples of objects
like stars quasars etc. Anything that has a definite
distance from earth and is a post BB light emitting
`object`. Anyways how can the source of the CMBR have
a redshift. WE are the center of the big bang arent
we? The whole universe was supposed to be from a
singularity that was located in the same place as
`us`? Therefore way back at the begining
everywhere was right here. Redshift is only for objects
that *started out* way over `there` and were already
rapidly receding when they first formed or were giving
out the light we now observe?

Indeed, my comment was just a reminder. Red shift
refes to a change of frequency, not a delay, so
your suggestion didn't work but that's another
matter.

If I remember correctly I was able to show that
if shorter wavelengths travel slower, then two
almost identical wavelengths should
be able to still produce interference fringes where
one being slower arrives later which is the same
as a longer path in the interferometer experiment.
The longer the path the more the pattern shifts
from the center fringe and the longer the shorter
of the two near identical wavelengths takes to
arrive (due to distance) then the more the
information or bright bands shift. Longer
wavelengths will shift more, so a range of
wavelengths should produce a spectral shift to red
due to greater distance travelled thus no
reccesion is needed to produce the redshift.
However you came up with the point that the two
slightly different wavelengths could produce a
shift in the pattern duplicating redshift but,as
you pointed out they would flicker and thus
the interfernce pattern would never be visible.
You had me there but I just realized one possible
situation where the flicker between two very
similar wavelengths would be cancelled out
and thus allowing redshift without expansion.
This is that at some point where two wavelengths
are almost identical the shorter wavelength
travels just slow enough to effectively always
match peak for peak the arrival time of the slightly
longer wavelength. This is the point where the slower
speed of the shorter wavelength compensates
for its shorter wavelength by having travelling
slower so the two still have their peaks arrive at
the same time.
Thus no flickering and a banded interference
pattern can emerge. This pattern will then
still be shifted within the spectrum to the red
end when the distance from source
increases. This is redshift without need for
expansion.


You said "microseconds or even seconds possibly"
and the times can be larger than microseconds.
Whether it could be seconds is another question
as it depends on the material around the source.
If the X-rays come from extreme heating, you
could get a simple thermal delay.

In beamed theory yes I can understand they predict
this I thinks its an Israeli theorist who did this
about 2 years ago? But as I mention later there can
be a delay due to conditions as you mention but
those delays will never be directly proportional
to wavelength.


There is no "standard model" yet, that's why
the thing was lanched! There are ideas but
many a sound idea has gone down in flames
when faced with observation. That's why
experimental data wins prizes, not theories
(in general).

I mean The Standard model of physics. You know
quarks gluons Guth QT etc. The beamed theory
is based on and operates within the Standard
Model. So I consider that if gRB`s cannot be
explained by beamed theory that means that the
Standard model cannot explain it. In the same way
that my model *is* Classical theory because it is
based in Classical theory. I am using GRBs to test
classical theory versus the standard model.
I expect SWIFT to provide results that can *never*
be explained by the Standard model.

Fine, anyone could predict that due to dispersion.
Now where is your histogram showing the fraction
of bursts versus the measured delay? Put your money
where your mouth is, or at least your effort ;-)

This seems a lot to ask from me considering
that beamed theory offers no such detailed predictions
or histograms! In fact beamed theory does not even
predict a delay proportional to the wavelength let alone
supply histogram details!
Anyways I`ve thought about what sort of rates would occur
in my model and its as follows, no histogram neccessary.
Theoretically in my model GRB`s range in lengths from
the smallest fraction of seconds to theoretically infinite
lengths. Without doing any maths it seems then that
the x ray delays should have the similar range and similar
populations within each measured delay. However
our instruments such as SWIFT have limits in detection
sensitivity and the background noise from other sources
provides a floor below which most GRB`s are masked by
in all wavelengths.
Thus in fact what you request is in fact a histogram
of what SWIFT is technically able to observe.Not what my
model predicts. As I dont work at NASA we`ll have to wait
and see what sort of picture emerges of SWIFTs instrument
sensitivities. For instance the XRT may detect at a
different sensitivity than bat or UVOT which in turn would
give a smaller fraction observed at longer delays not because
my model predicts it but because SWIFT detects a smaller
fraction of all xray afterglows at longer delays. The
histogram you want will emerge but it will be essentially
the same as those filter response graphs for different
filters. The fallof of a filters response isnt due to
a fallof in the actuall existence of those wavelengths.
Its due to a fallof in what ranges of wavelengths the
filter is sensitive to.
What also will emerge will be probably a histogram
where the longer the delay the fewer the observed
delays in x. THis is what I imagine will occur
as SWIFT will see a smaller fraction of total
x ray afterglows proportional to the longer
the observed decay/ delay. That will be because
as the delay is longer the afterglow on average will
be lower fluence. On the short end its harder for
me to model what SWIFTs instrument sensitivities will
be not being on the SWIFT team but it will probably
be a FRED shaped histogram where a rapid
fallof in sensitivity to afterglows in very short bursts
will occur. I imagine it should mirror the amount and
fallof in detection rate of short bursts detected in
xrt and also be subject to what proportion of x ray
afterglows SWIFT can detect compared to gamma
afterglows it detects.
The basic rule in my model though is simple.
All grbs have afterglows in all wavelengths regardless
of length or fluence. Its just a instrument limitation
that sets the amount observed.

Beamed theory still cant even explain all known
observations of GRBs whereas mine explains all known
and predicts correctly many as yet to be made.
(like for instance hete may detect the same burst
before swift despite hete being technically
farther away from the apparent grb location!!!
Lets see the standard model account for this
apparent violation of the speed of light where light
from the same source travels faster to a more
distant locations.

ie/ GRB-X A B

In some instances B will `appear` to see light from
GRB-X before A does despite being farther away than
A from GRB-X!)

regards
Sean

"sean" wrote in message
ups.com...
From: George Dishman )
[Sean asked:]
Are there examples of any astronomical phenomena
not having spectral line features as you suggest
above? I am not aware of any but will consider
your input in that area.

The CMBR.
Hi George

Hi Sean,

Other than the big bang are there examples of objects
like stars quasars etc. Anything that has a definite
distance from earth and is a post BB light emitting
`object`.

My answer was rather toungue-in-cheek, you said
you weren't aware of any but I think you are
aware of that one. Thermal radiation, whatever
the source, has no lines. Most sources will add
absorbption or emissions lines but each atom can
produce many though only a few will appear in
the spectrum, and there are sometimes several
different elements involved. Even when there are
several lines available, it can be difficult to
identify the mix of elements producing them.

Anyways how can the source of the CMBR have
a redshift. WE are the center of the big bang arent
we?

No, it has no centre. We are at the centre of
the part of the universe that we can see, the
"observable universe". That's quite different.

Think of standing in a field on a foggy day
when visibility is 100m. No matter where you
stand in the field, you are at the centre of
the 100m radius zone that you can see.

Now suppose the fog droplets contain dye of a
particular colour. If you run through the fog,
the colour of the light from ahead of you will
be blue shifted while that from behind will be
red shifted. That's what we see, we are moving
relative to the mean motion of the hydrogen
that emitted the CMBR.

The whole universe was supposed to be from a
singularity that was located in the same place as
`us`?

No, the present theory, as Joseph Lazio said
quite recently, only describes the expansion
of the universe from some time a fraction of
a second after it started and it happened
everwhere, the universe is homogenous, so
there is nothing special about where we are.

Therefore way back at the begining
everywhere was right here. Redshift is only for objects
that *started out* way over `there` and were already
rapidly receding when they first formed or were giving
out the light we now observe?

Redshift is for everything that emits light at
any time in the past but only dominates over
local Doppler effects for distances roughly
greater than a few hundred million light years.

Indeed, my comment was just a reminder. Red shift
refes to a change of frequency, not a delay, so
your suggestion didn't work but that's another
matter.

If I remember correctly I was able to show that
if shorter wavelengths travel slower, then two
almost identical wavelengths should
be able to still produce interference fringes where
one being slower arrives later which is the same
as a longer path in the interferometer experiment.
The longer the path the more the pattern shifts
from the center fringe and the longer the shorter
of the two near identical wavelengths takes to
arrive (due to distance) then the more the
information or bright bands shift. Longer
wavelengths will shift more, so a range of
wavelengths should produce a spectral shift to red
due to greater distance travelled thus no
reccesion is needed to produce the redshift.
However you came up with the point that the two
slightly different wavelengths could produce a
shift in the pattern duplicating redshift but,as
you pointed out they would flicker and thus
the interfernce pattern would never be visible.

That's right.

You had me there but I just realized one possible
situation where the flicker between two very
similar wavelengths would be cancelled out
and thus allowing redshift without expansion.
This is that at some point where two wavelengths
are almost identical the shorter wavelength
travels just slow enough to effectively always
match peak for peak the arrival time of the slightly
longer wavelength. This is the point where the slower
speed of the shorter wavelength compensates
for its shorter wavelength by having travelling
slower so the two still have their peaks arrive at
the same time.

Frequency A can be thought of as frequency B
with a time delay that increases by one cycle
every 1/(A-B) seconds. For a given distance
and speed, you get a given time delay. To
match as you suggest, the time delay for one
frequency has to be fixed while for the other
(higher) frequency, the delay would have to
increase linearly with time.

Note that, for a given speed of the light, a
time delay that increases linearly with time
implies a distance that increases linearly
with time hence the object is moving away
from us. That is just what we call Doppler
shift.

What you require is that the emitting object
is not moving for the lower frequency but
moving away for the higher frequency so that
the Doppler shift lets the two be received at
the same frequency.

Thus no flickering and a banded interference
pattern can emerge. This pattern will then
still be shifted within the spectrum to the red
end when the distance from source
increases. This is redshift without need for
expansion.

No, you have shifted the higher to the red by
Doppler and left the lower unshifted, and we
would still accurately measure the common
received frequency.

You said "microseconds or even seconds possibly"
and the times can be larger than microseconds.
Whether it could be seconds is another question
as it depends on the material around the source.
If the X-rays come from extreme heating, you
could get a simple thermal delay.

In beamed theory yes I can understand they predict
this I thinks its an Israeli theorist who did this
about 2 years ago?

It was a more general comment.

But as I mention later there can
be a delay due to conditions as you mention but
those delays will never be directly proportional
to wavelength.

If you previously said the delay would be
proportional to wavelength, I missed it.
That is a testable prediction.

There is no "standard model" yet, that's why
the thing was lanched! There are ideas but
many a sound idea has gone down in flames
when faced with observation. That's why
experimental data wins prizes, not theories
(in general).

I mean The Standard model of physics.

I thought you meant the standard model of a GRB.

You know
quarks gluons Guth QT etc. The beamed theory
is based on and operates within the Standard
Model. So I consider that if gRB`s cannot be
explained by beamed theory that means that the
Standard model cannot explain it. In the same way
that my model *is* Classical theory because it is
based in Classical theory. I am using GRBs to test
classical theory versus the standard model.
I expect SWIFT to provide results that can *never*
be explained by the Standard model.

If they are the coalescence of two black holes,
would particle physics be relevant?

Fine, anyone could predict that due to dispersion.
Now where is your histogram showing the fraction
of bursts versus the measured delay? Put your money
where your mouth is, or at least your effort ;-)

This seems a lot to ask from me considering
that beamed theory offers no such detailed predictions
or histograms! In fact beamed theory does not even
predict a delay proportional to the wavelength let alone
supply histogram details!

Then if it doesn't predict a delay, a histogram
wouldn't be relevant. However, you said above the
delay would be "directly proportional to wavelength"
which is adequate, now we have something that can be
checked.

Anyways I`ve thought about what sort of rates would occur
in my model and its as follows, no histogram neccessary.
Theoretically in my model GRB`s range in lengths from
the smallest fraction of seconds to theoretically infinite
lengths. Without doing any maths it seems then that
the x ray delays should have the similar range and similar
populations within each measured delay. However
our instruments such as SWIFT have limits in detection
sensitivity and the background noise from other sources
provides a floor below which most GRB`s are masked by
in all wavelengths.
Thus in fact what you request is in fact a histogram
of what SWIFT is technically able to observe.Not what my
model predicts.

OK, so perhaps you could check the web site for the
BAT to see if it states a sensitivity, then work out
the upper limit of delay for an avent that was just
detectable. The more numerical predictions you can
make, the better. The trick is you need to make them
_before_ the results start coming in or you get
accused of simply fitting your number to the answer.

As I dont work at NASA we`ll have to wait
and see what sort of picture emerges of SWIFTs instrument
sensitivities. For instance the XRT may detect at a
different sensitivity than bat or UVOT which in turn would
give a smaller fraction observed at longer delays not because
my model predicts it but because SWIFT detects a smaller
fraction of all xray afterglows at longer delays.

I would expect the light curve to have a steep
rising edge so that shouldn't matter, but again
you could predict the curve.

snip your other descriptions, we must now
just wait and see

George