"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 25 Mar 2007 11:48:44 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg"
wrote:


George Dishman wrote:

He obviously wants to avoid PSR1613+16 altogether.

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B but I've learned from experience that
you waste a lot of time looking at multiple examples if
you haven't got the software right for the first one.

Henri,

FYI, when George says 'you waste a lot of time looking at
multiple examples if you haven't got the software right'
he is referring to people in general, not just you.
I have made the same mistake more than once, even after
learning the lesson. It is important and necessary to run
several different examples to help determine whether the
software is working correctly, but until you know that it
is working correctly, it is pointless to use it for data
analysis.

It is working perfectly well. It produces the same curve using four
different
methods. Androcles has a similar program that produces the same curves.

George has a strange idea that I am not incorporating the classical
VDoppler
effect that occurs immediately, as distinct from the ADoppler that build
up
over distance and far outweighs the former.

Henry is forgetting that _he_ told me he got no
VDoppler when he set the distance to zero where
there is no ADoppler whatsoever.

George doesn't understand that, in the BaTh, VDoppler does not occur at
the
source.

It looks as though Henry doesn't realise that
VDoppler doen't occur at the source in the source
frame but _does_ occur at the source in the
barycentre frame.

Its effect is operative at the observer end and it is negligible at all
practical star distances. George doesn't understand that my method
precisely
follows the movement of pulses across space and includes both factors.
George believes

George believed Henry when Henry said he got _no_
VDoppler.

George believes my theory requires a high degree of extinction in order
that my
distance settings will match the observed ones.

George believes ballistic theory requires a high
degree of (speed) extinction in order to avoid
multiple images.

.....That WAS the case...but in
light of the fact that I now know the published velocity curves of ALL
pulsars
and variable objects are likely to be very very exaggerated, the need for
extreme light speed unification is negated.

The program now includes what George wanted to see and reveals nothing
new.

We shall see.

Another example of George referring to people in general
when he says 'you' is:

If your theory doesn't match, you discard the theory, not
the observations.

That clearly does not describe you.

....but my theory DOES match...

Let's see the curves then. Be sure to include Y scales
and the phase indication.

George