Fast Radio Burst mystery solved. They are short Gammaraybursts.

As usual the theorists haven’t the faintest idea about what mechanism produce Fast radio bursts and Gammaraybursts. In their ignorance they think imaginary massive explosions caused by imaginary black holes etc produce these flashes. Some fantasists have even imagined there is a time reversal structure, so desperate is their desire to try to explain why their “explosion” model always fails to model each successive new observation of either Gamma or Fast ray burst data. As these following links show:

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-fast-radio-approach-characterize-behavior.html

https://phys.org/news/2024-04-astrophysics-advances-gamma-ray.html

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/aad335/pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927324000793?via%3Dihub

The actual mechanism of gamma and fast radio bursts is well described by a simple classical model where light is a wave only. GRB and FRB data is only consistent with a model where the universe is infinite and not expanding. And the speed of light is always and only c relative to its source. In other words ignore the all relativity based physics.

DO NOT make up a fantasy model that continually needs to be corrected as the actual data comes in as all established models currently do. Instead base your model on the data first and foremost. Not as an afterthought. If you do, as I do, it will always correctly predict any subsequent new observation. As the link below explains.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2019/12/grb-190114c.html

To start with all current data on Fast radio bursts is consistent with them being just very short Gammaraybursts where the burst time line itself is so short that all data above radio frequencies occurs too fast to be measured by our instrumentation above the background noise. So for instance if a FRB is observed to last only seconds, then it’s optical counterpart will be a flash in less then a thousandth of a second and the gammaray part of the burst will last in even smaller timeframes of millionth of a second or less. Too small a time to be measured currently by our latest technology.

Proof of this model is that if one looks at any FRB lightcurve it will always show an exponential decay in peak fluence from hi to low frequencies. Proportional to wavelength. The fluence of the FRB lightcurve lasts for longer times at longer wavelengths. This same decay rate is also observed in all GRB data for all observed wavelengths. Confirming that an FRB is just a very short GRB. 

So that for instance if in a GRB, the gamma lightcurve peaks at t_0 seconds and lasts 20 seconds, then the xray peak will be delayed slightly and last longer. And this trend will continue. Optical peaks later than xray and lasts for even longer. And, the trend continues through IR, far Infrared through to radio. Where shorter radio wavelength parts of the electromagnetic spectrum of the burst will not peak for hours or even days after gamma peaks. And the radio lightcurve also lasts for days and weeks longer than gamma. This model is confirmed by ALL grb and FRB data since they were first observed in the 1990’s.

The delay and stretch of each part of the EM spectrum of any burst will always follow this rule. That is that it will peak and decay later and longer proportional to wavelength.

This model of mine first developed in 1990 when GRBs were not known even to be isotropic. And, not only did I successfully predict  in 1990 that they would be isotropic. I also succesfully predicted that similar rebrightenings in all other wavelengths and lightcurves would be observed to be delayed proportional to wavelength. When no such data had yet even been observed. Nor even considered possible by the fantasies of the ridiculous fact free Neil Gehrels explosion model.

And to date, 35 years later, my models predictions have always been confirmed with each successive year. Whilst the explosion progenitor model’s predictions have failed each year since 1990.

Links to my own theories articles and videos cited above describe in more detail how this “Doppler” effect of light in a classical model can explain all GRB and FRB data. 

But in a nutshell let me here offer a simple analogy: Imagine a gedanken of a flat surface of a large body of water. Create a series of waves of a particular wavelength on this surface. Now imagine you are on a motorboat travelling with and at the same speed as those waves as they propagate across the surface of the water. You don’t measure any up and down of the waves because your are moving at the same speed as those waves. Now speed up and slowly overtake these wavefronts. What do you see or measure? Your boat now bounces up and down slowly as it overtakes/passes each wave crest. Speed your boat up again and those waves will appear to you to be at an even higher frequency. Thus the faster your boat moves, the higher the observed frequency of those waves you overtake will appear to be. Do this same gedanken with lightwaves in a non BBT universe and you will get a GRB.

This is just a Doppler effect. That is what GRB and FRB’s are. No explosions involved

Tired Light and cosmological redshift

Some “tired light” theorists have suggested that the reason light redshifts over distance is due, not to expansion, but to light slowing down as it travels from a distant source to an observer on earth. Although I have previously agreed in this blog with the non expanding model of the universe, unfortunately I have to find fault with the suggested cause of the observed Hubble redshift being due to light losing speed over distance.

The problem with a reducing speed of c over distance is that it would result in no observed redshifting of light! Contrary to the misconceptions made by authors in Various published papers. The reason for this is simple. If light waves reduced speed over distance then they would have to be be travelling at a slower speed then any light waves later emitted by the same source. The obvious conclusion of this model is that: Any wavefronts emitted by a source would always be slowly “catching up” with those wavefronts already emitted by the source at an earlier time. And the distance between successive wavefronts emitted would always have to decrease to accommodate the different speeds between each successive wavefront.

Taking this into account it becomes clear that even though if the speed of the wave slows, because the distance between wavefronts also diminishes...the observed frequency would still remain the same over any distance. In other words the observed frequency of light would not decay over great cosmological distances in any model where light speed is asssumed to decrease over distance. And as we know this conclusion is ruled out by the observed Hubble redshift 

So my conclusion is that although yes I agree with the non expanding model of a universe, I don’t believe a slowing of light speed over distance can explain the observed decay of frequency over distance as observed in cosmological redshift.

And here is another interesting piece from the historical record quoted below. Looks like in 1929 Hubble knew “expansion” was not real. He just couldn’t attribute it to a failure of Einsteins photon model. Because Albert was just too famous to challenge. Seeing as Albert had just won the Nobel prize for saying that light does *not* lose energy/frequency over distance!

“Hubble concluded that his observed log N(m) distribution showed a large departure from Euclidean geometry, provided that the effect of redshifts on the apparent magnitudes was calculated as if the redshifts were due to a real expansion. A different correction is required if no motion exists, the redshifts then being due to an unknown cause. Hubble believed that his count data gave a more reasonable result concerning spatial curvature if the redshift correction was made assuming no recession. To the very end of his writings he maintained this position, favouring (or at the very least keeping open) the model where no true expansion exists, and therefore that the redshift "represents a hitherto unrecognized principle of nature". This viewpoint is emphasized (a) in The Realm of the Nebulae, (b) in his reply (Hubble 1937a) to the criticisms of the 1936 papers by Eddington and by McVittie, and (c) in his 1937 Rhodes Lectures published as The Observational Approach to Cosmology (Hubble 1937b). It also persists in his last published scientific paper which is an account of his Darwin Lecture (Hubble 1953).”

https://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/1996/sandage_hubble.html