Gamma ray bursts and Fast radio bursts: A Theoretical model

Gammaraybursts and Fast Radio Bursts: A Classical Model.
This page was originally published 2000-2014 at gammarayburst.com

The following description of a GRB model can also be used to explain
more recent FRB observations. Essentially a FRB is a very fast GRB where
wavelengths shorter than radio are too short in duration to be observed.

In a non expanding universe of infinite age and size, observors should see
emr from all directions and from great cosmological distances. This assumes
a non Big Bang universe  not conforming to the laws of relativity. At these
scales some stellar sources will actually be moving away from the earth at
speeds greater than c. The earth then must be travelling away from the
source, at speeds greater than c and we would therefore overtake this light
and "see" the light in reverse. That is, what appears to be a flash above us is
actually light we are overtaking from the opposite direction below our feet.
Much as a fast boat can overtake slower waves on water and the waves
appear to be coming towards the observer in the prow of the boat when
in fact they are travelling in the same direction as the boat but at a slower
speed. Taking into account the assumption that we would always be
decellerating in relation to the source of the light, the burst would first
be seen as more blue shifted (at the gamma end of the spectrum) and as
time progresses observations in longer wavelengths would be observed.
So the original gamma lightcurve profile would be seen stretched out
over longer time frames in longer wavelengths . If the burst was for
20 seconds in gamma and 200 in optical and then it would be seen for
2000 sec in radio. But always show the same distinctive profile for each
burst in various parts of the observed spectrum.
For a brief visual explanation of this see..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLSfmvFcLB8

The model I describe here predicts that the afterglows in different parts
of the emr spectrum will be similar in profile to that of the gammaray
lightcurve, but with different timescales. This is consistent with all
observations and shown in the illustration below. The graph below shows
this in data from grb 970508. Using gamma, optical and radio observations.
The prediction would be that other unmeasured lightcurves like x-rays
would also have similar profiles as their counterpart in gamma.
The shorter the wavelength the shorter the timescale. That is; in x ray
the burst duration would be shorter than optical and longer than gamma.
In the comparison graph below, between the 3 lightcurves,  a self
similarity of lightcurve profiles from different parts of the emr spectrum
is observed. The length of the afterglow is directly proportional to the
wavelength. It also indicates that if  gamma and optical burst time lengths
very were small, on the order of smaller than milliseconds. Then in radio,
these bursts would be observed having time scales in millisconds. And
that there would be measurable delays between shorter and longer
radio wavelengths. This is confirmed by recent Fast Radio Burst
observations.

 

 
 

Fractal Atomic numbers

 

The illustration/graph compilations on this page highlite the

similarities  between features in the graphs of atomic number

vs. element conductivity.  Repeating patterns and self

similarity between small and large sections  of the original

red graph suggest a fractal element to the arrangement

of  atomic numbers and their associated properties.

Initially consider the the four highest conducting elements

(Be, Al, Cu, Ag and Au) They increase their atomic numbers

at very near the same  rate as the increase seen in the noble

gases  The increases are shown in the example below .

For instance, between Ag and Au the increase in conductivity

is 32. Note the same increase in atomic number, 32, is

seen in the noble gases between Xe and Ra...

Be(4)    Al (13)  Cu(29)  Ag (47)  Au ( 79) - best conductors

         9            16       18         32

Ne(10)  Ar(18)   Kr( 36)  Xe (54)  Ra (86)  - noble gases

         8           18        18        32
 

In the illustrations supplied the original graph of element

conductivity vs atomic number is in red. Overlayed in the

illustrations are graphs of various repeating patterns. These

graph sections are taken from the original red graph and

either placed size as in different parts of  the illustration

or enlarged or reduced and repositioned onto the red graph

to show similarities in profile.
In the first illustration these samples are labelled as sets
1 to 5 in the table below. For instance, sets 3,4 and 5 show
how the main peaks in the red conductivity graph between
Calcium (20) and Copper (29),  are in fact a repeating
pattern found in other parts of the red graph.
Also, set 1 shows how the section from the  main red graph 

between Be (4) and Ag (47) , once enlarged , very closely

matches that of the section in the main red graph between

Be (4)  and  Au (79).
In the second illustration a section from the red graph up to
atomic number of Ag is stretched to 2 different sizes and
re-overlayed onto the red graph to show how a fractal element
can be seen in small and large sections of the red graph

 

 

Set 1

Be  Ca  Cu  Ag  Au

4    20   29   47  79

matches

Be  Al   Ca  Cu  Ag

4    13  20   29   47

Set 2

Cu  Rb  Mo  Ag

29  37   42   48

matches

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27   29

REPEATING PATTERNS...

Set 3

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  2 7   29

matches

Be -     Na   Al

4    -     11  13

Set 4

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27  29

matches

Rb  Mo  Rh  Ag

37   42  45  48

Set 5

Ca  Cr  Co  Cu

20  24  27  29

matches

Yb  W  Ir    Au

70  74  77  79

 

 

How the ancients cut their stone slabs

There are stones found in prehistoric sites that are unusually smooth and flat.
With joins that have very tight fits. And very flat outer surfaces. There are two
possible low-tech methods that I thought could explain the flatness and
smoothness of the stones The first is a method I saw as kid on an NFB short
about Inuit igloo making skills. As the blocks of hardened snow have to be snug
fit and at odd angles due to the dome shape, the Inuit rough cut the hardened
snow blocks with little metal hand saws ( the snow is  easy to cut).
They then rough fit them in place and then using the saw they saw up and down
in the joining space between the blocks. Slowly removing any uneven surfaces
on either block. The result is a tight fit at the right angle.
Although rock is a different harder material I thought a similar technique could
be used. Rough cut the blocks. Put in place, and then between the two blocks that
need fitting, insert a large metal saw and start cutting up and down in the crack.
Every so often opening up the space between the two blocks and blowing out the
sandy residue.
Theoretically this would, like the igloo snow blocks, remove any unevenness
between the blocks and presumably give a join that's straight and snug.

The second is how to get a flat outer face on the large slabs. One idea I had
was based on the milling stones that grind flour...Place the rough cut
5 X 10 foot slab that needs to be smoothed onto the ground. With the face up
that needs to be flattened and smoothed. Then place on top, a large circular
milling stone preferably already sufficiently flat. Make it 10 foot diameter
with a handle(s) on its perimeter inserted to allow slaves to rotate and grind
the slab underneath. Although Ive never tried this myself I think it might give
a flat surface if enough circular grinding is applied to the lower slab. It may
be important to *not* allow the circular grinding stone to always rotate on the
same spot as this may not give such a flat finish.