On 12 Mar, 10:33, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 12 Mar 2007 01:16:33 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 11 Mar, 23:09, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Sun, 11 Mar 2007 21:23:02 -0000, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in messagenews:sfm8v2lhfb6vmn9nf8ck6n61hlp3dg2rdh@4ax .com...
....
The next question, again assuming no extinction, is what
orbital inclination would you need to get a reasonable
radius. If you don't follow my reason for asking, it is
that a nearly face-on orbit will give a low radial
component of the velocity even for high actual speeds.

Using my definition of Yaw angle, you just have to divide by cos(pitch) to get
the true 'blue velocity' value....

So for a true speed of 27983 m/s for example, the
pitch would be acos(0.0013/297983) = 89.9999973
degrees or face-on to within 9.6 milli-arcseconds?

Yes....but that is almost certainly not the true speed...or anything like it.

Right, it is just a step along the way. As you say
later there should be a statistical spread and if
you predicted every pulsar orbit had to be within
a few mas of face-on, it would indicate a problem.

This now becomes very interesting because, whereas pitch is automatically
included when radial velocities are determined using standard doppler, this is
no longer the case.

George, you might have completely destroyed not only my incompressible photon
and speed unification models but also Einstein's relativity.. I think this also
explains why my predicted velocity curve for RT Aur is 90 out of phase compared
to the observed one.

Without doubt your "incompressible photon" idea
conflicts with ballistic theory.

Not so George.
I gave you one model where the 'absolute wavelength' was independent of source
acceleration.

You described that but you didn't derive it by
applying ballistic theory to a waveform and you
won't be able to. What you need to do is go back
to the basics of quantisation and think about why
Planck suggested it in the first place. What you
will find is that ballistic theory requires
decoupling of the frequency (and wavelength) from
the energy carried by a photon, and the frame
dependence of the energy then falls back to the
velocity difference, kinetic energy as you briefly
touched on before. However, I don't want to get
into a long discussion of that until we wrap up
looking at what the pulsar can tell us.

However, I was
going to point out that a face-on conflicts with
the observation of a Shapiro delay so we can
discard that idea.

But the phase of the supposed Shapiro delay is based on standard Doppler.

No, the Shapiro delay must peak at the time of
superior conjunction when the line of sight
passes closest to the dwarf. That is controlled
solely by the geometry of the orbit so it
provides a _reference_ against which the phase
of the Doppler can be measured. Conventionally
for a circular orbit it would be at a point of
zero shift but for ballistic theory the Doppler
will be a combination of velocity and acceleration
terms so the phase relative to the reference can
tell you the ratio of the velocity and acceleration
contributions.

...you seem to be having trouble riding your mind of everything you have been
taught in the past George.

You seem to have trouble realising that phase
tells you lots about the situation :-)

The next step I was to set the
orbit back to edge on, or better about 11 degrees
from that IIRC, the published value, and then find
out what extinction gives the right values.

I'm goint to work on the pitch angle.

Yes, that's important too.

I'm not sure how it will explain the relatively high orbital speeds calculated
using standard doppler. These are typically 50 to 250 kms/sec for periods of
less than two days.
It is possible that the true speeds are considerably less than this but that
would mean the orbit diameters would have to be even smaller.

You said above for 12 light days, the blue velocity
was 150 m/s but the interesting question then is
what phase does that give?

Unfortunately, the curve is just a straight line at this level. I will have to
amplify it somehow without it going off screen. I thought I had achieved that
already by something seems to be wrong.
I should imagine the phase difference is pretty close to 90.

I expect that too. The interesting question that
we will get to soon is what extinction distance
changes the phase to 45 degrees. You might have
to think a bit to see what that will tell us ;-)

Streamlining will help but probably more important
will be including some way to measure the phase
shift between the red and blue curves. I think you
are starting to appreciate how important that factor
is in deciding if you have a match.

I already know it asymptotes towards 90.

Yes, but at the other end I think you will find it
will be very sensitive to the extinction distance.
Anyway, let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.

George