George Dishman wrote:
> "sean" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Hi
> > Ive tried posting this to the original thread but it doesnt seem
> > to post so hopefully this gets through ...
> > I would like to take the opportunity to show how a recent
> > published paper has confirmed earlier predictions of mine,
> IIRC you predicted it would be impossible
> to measure their redshifts and that they
> were not at large distances.
I forget what IIRC means but I get the general message.
First of all I notice you cant supply any arguments in
defense of my critics misguided attempts to suggest that
my use of power law smoothing was unscientific. I can
only conclude you`ve concurred with me that it was them
who were practising bad science, not me, at least on that
main point of my above post.
And its all there in my latest post. Including my claims,
their counter claims that I was wrong, and finally quotes
from Staneks paper confirming that its me who was right
on those points and my critics who were wrong.
Care to supply any evidence that shows that CM MH and JL
didnt insist that power law smoothing was the only option
as Stanek shows? Care to supply any evidence that I didnt
make specific predictions based on theory that power law
smoothing was an unsuitable method? Care to explain why
you seem to think that my predictions of real numerous
fluctuations , now verified by Stanek , are not a priori
predictions and cant be considered as proof of theory? Or
do you think that a priori predictions that are verified
can only be used if the theory is the one you support?
Is that maybe why you avoided answering the main point
of my post as you realize I was right about power law
use etc.? I think so.
Maybe thats why you try to change the subject and
insinuate that I am somehow wrong by instead bringing
up a completely unrelated point, regarding redshifts.
And you do that my misquoting me and claiming I said
something that in fact I never had. Please George.
The fact is I never said redshifts of grbs couldnt
be measured. I said the following...
"Any apparent point like source is an illusion and this
may be shown by SWIFT by there being no observable or
confirmable z value....If SWIFT is able to take multiple
spectrum images of early optical bursts in the first few
hours post grb detection..."
Notice I specifically say *Swift* , in the context of
*spectra* of OT`s. Which I refer to several times in
the paragraphs following that quote. As far as I`m
aware Swift has yet to supply a spectral redshift in
Optical of any GRB. Have you access to information it
does? I doubt it.
Craig tried to argue once, I believe, that implying
Lyman break gave Swift spectral redshift capabilities.
To start with thats NOT a spectral redshift, and
secondly he forgets that my theory
predicts that over time the intensity of brightness will
fade first for the shorter wavelengths. Numerous quotes
predicting this and dating back at least to 2001 and on
my website can be found. Hence the same info used to
imply a Lyman break redshift by him in fact implies
something different *and* is predicted a priori by my
theory . I predicted that grb afterglows
would always peak later in longer wavelengths. So UV may
peak at 10 second post burst and fade while V and R etc
are still visible. Then V fades and only R may be above
threshold. If you look at the Swift data it confirms that
trend. And as the longer wavelengths are brighter for
longer times in my theory this means that V
and R should be more frequently `observed` in Swifts
UVOT. And they are. Just go through all the data .
So the observed data I use as verification of another
prediction for my theory is used in a different way to
imply pseudo redshift by beamed theory supporters.
Does that somehow imply then that my a priori prediction
isnt valid because the same data can be used in
a different context to support a different theory?
Who`s right ? Well its true both theories can use the
same data as proof... Thats why I specifically predicted
a *SPECTRAL* non-redshift from Swift in optical. And
thats in my quotes above from 2004.
So the fact is I havent had a prediction contradicted
by Swift. The fact is,.. you misquoted me.
And just in case you have a problem understanding that
I predicted no redshift from SWIFT specifically heres a
bit of an explanation to help you understand the
science behind my theory.
I have clearly argued in 2004, *before then*,.. and
after, that the usual approach of ground based
telescopes to measure redshift of grb`s (like power
law smoothing ) is an unnacceptable method of measuring
grbs as far as ascribing a grb a fixed distance.
The reason why I specifically made that claim that you
misquote from 2004 vis a vis redshifts was exactly
because I didnt accept at the time the validity of
ground based spectra of purported grb OT`s and I
felt the only way to supply any other countermanding
evidence to support my claim was to rely on upcoming
space based spectra from Swift. Unfortunately Swift
doesnt supply any in optical. I was hoping it would.
In fact I believe you *can* see examples in the grb
databases that show contradictions in redshifts for
the same bursts. Or redshift measurements that
contradict observed V-R magnitudes. Etc. For instance
grb 060218 has some contradictory redshift conclusions
from observed data-measured redshift of supposed host
galaxy. See gcn 4790 & 4792 & 4805. Even 4809 although
purporting to confirm an extragalactic source doesnt
quite get around to admitting that new lines , not
reflecting z=0.33 are showing up. They are unable to
explain these , so invoke an SN! But note that with
gcn 4846 there is a sudden lack of interest in observing
this grb . Why? Is it because it doesnt make sense under
beamed theory the fact that the unusual observed spectra
isnt due to an off axis event which for beamed theory
is the only way to explain the chromatic nature of the
afterglow lightcurve? Does it mean maybe they cant blame
it on a underlying SN? I dont know as its all gone quiet
there. Too quiet. They re confused that their pet
theories have such unreliable predictive powers.
And another hint of confusion can be found in grb060206
gcn 4703. Is it a z=4.01, z=2.1 or z=1.4?
So not only did Stanek prove my prediction correct after
all, he validified my unothordox approach of claiming
that using chi squared power law smoothing wasnt suitable
in grb studies. And regarding redshifts well,.. Im on
the record also for saying that ultimately one way or
the other researchers will have to accept that grb
redshifts are contradictory and not an accurate
indication of distance. That will take more time and
more research. But it will be a published fact. I hope
sooner than later. And when Stanek or someone else
publishes this confirmation of another of my
predictions, I will then repost again here on sci
astro showing quotes of my predictions that observed
and implied grb redshifts are ultimately misleading
and unusable, quotes of my critics arguments to the
contrary and finally the papers quotes confirming my
I imagine the paper will say something like this....
... " we must accept that observed and calculated
redshifts do not match each other as a norm and
not the exception as previously thought. Current
theory cannot explain this ambiguity in grb
And when that paper comes out, believe me, Ill
also be quoting from your post and mine as proof
I predicted it a priori.