Latest GRB data rules out Beamed theory

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

full post initially available at...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...01da8f65ab6950
and reprited below after my post here...

To better illustrate the phenomena behind gammaraybursts, Ive put a
short quicktime simulation explaining how light from a distant stellar
source can be redshifted as we watch it over short timeframes of
seconds hours and days. At this url...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8
To recap ....it shows the concept of my grb model which says that
light from a distant stellar source (in a non BB non GR/SR universe
model) has its light redshifted rapidly as we watch. So that initially
we see the spectra from the star very blue shifted into gamma. But as
our speed relative to the source changes this means that its spectra
gets redshifted rapidly into longer wavelengths. And an observor
looking in any particular frequency band, will thus see the spectra
only temporarily, as a burst like -increase and decrease- in the
observed magnitude, as the stars spectra is being redshifted through
that observors instruments frequency band.
Among many predictions this model has successfully predicted that
lightcurves filter bands other than gamma will also see the same multi
peaked rebrightenings as seen in gamma. And that there is no supernova
grb conection as beamed theory predicts.
Critics including one from the Nasa swift team itself claimed as far
back as 2001 that their was no proof of this rebrightening, that all
grb afterglows in all bands was well explained by smoothed power law
decays and that any evidence I used as proof that there was
rebrightenings (as posted at www.gammarayburst.com since 1999) was not
valid as any observed flucations were within observational error
margins of a smooth straight line power law decay.
See url below for some of their arguments since proved incorrect by
subsequent data...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...cd2919 ded6cf

Since then observational data has verified my models prediction and
contradicted beamed theories predictions and the fatuous unscientific
arguments put forward by academics like Markwardt, Hardcastle et al.
It is now accepted that all grb afterglows exhibit multiple
rebrightenings.
Seperately I also predicted in 1999 on google and my website that
there is no supernova grb connection and that the small amount of
spectral observations of a few grb afterglows showing a SN specral
evolution was a spurious misreading of data. My same critics as usual
argued against this and claimed all grbs were SN related and that I
had no proof to the contrary.
See url below for some of their incorrect scientific arguments since
proved incorrect by new observations...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...01da8f65ab6950

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sean