On 25 Mar 2007 05:25:34 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Mar 2007 01:15:37 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

George, if anything your sagnac analysis suggests a local aether-like
frame
exists.

Explain it any way you like Henry, it proves
your claim that light moves at c relative to
the source is wrong.

What happens in a local EM FoR is not what happens in 'empty space'.

What happens locally is that the light is emitted at
the same speed whether the source is moving or not
which proved ballistic theory to be wrong.

Typicaly relativist statement...
....speed wrt what, George?

The only reference light has is its source.
I moves at c wrt that.

besides, I showed you why your sagnac analysis is wrong.

See below.

I don't believe the 'dwarf' exists.

Fair enough. Here is its spectrum

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...f_spectrum.png

All speculative.

Nope, a simple measurement. It exists.

It looks like what would be emitted if a very strong magnetic
beam hit a big volume of hydrogen mixed with a few other atoms.

Utter rubbish.

Why?

Wel Jerry has pointed out the spectral problems

Jerry is a first year trainee nurse...What would she know?

so I'll
mention the dynamic one, you are trying to suggest the
neutron star isn't moving much so the companion must
orbit round it instead, but you cannot have a large
nebula of hydrgen gas in a 1.5 day orbit around a
neutron star, the star would be embedded _in_ the nebula.

You speak as though you think you know everything there is to know about the
universe George....not a good attitude I'm afraid.

I wouldn't believe a word of it George.

Of course not Henry, you can't handle reality.

I doubt if there is any dwarf.

Except that we can see it with a telescope and it
has a spectrum just like lots of other white dwarfs.

...what, an ordinary black body spectrum?
That could be anything.

No Henry, you really need to learn a little astronomy.
It is actually very hard to produce a black body and
the temperature and luminosity together tell you the
surface area, it cannot be large area like a nebula,
it has to be a small star.

Well I reckon it is a lot of rubbish formed into a thin disk around the star.
The latter rotates so that its beam cuts the disk twice every rotation and
emits a sharp pulse of broad EM. The thinner the disk, the sharper the
pulse...as with J1909-3744.

There could easily be a white dwarf circling around too.


Light initially moves at c wrt its source.

Not in the Sagnac experiment as we proved with
that diagram and my algebra that went with it.

No used tried to use a rotating frame and ended up in a mess.

No Henry, this is the fifth time I have reminded you
that the diagram _you_ drew was in the lab frame. You
are still in denial.

no george, It showed that two beams which left together 90 apart did not
reunite at the same point OR phase.

There has never been any direct proof of Einstein's stupid theory.

Yep, Sagnac proves it directly, it measures the
one-way speed from a moving source and the answer
is the same as for a static source.

I showed you how two beams that start out 90 apart end up displaced
sideways.

And I pointed out that since wavefronts are perpendicular
to the direction of propagation, that creates no phase
shift.

How do you know? Sideways displacement suggests a length difference.
Anyway, YOUR only explanation is the aether one.

...and I exlained to you that you weren't including the 'centrifugal
effect'.

That was in reference to the fibre-optic gyros, not
Sagnac's experiment at all, and I pointed out that
the necessary equation meant the light would be
slowed to walking pace by the time it got round the
fibre hence a failed concept to start with. Besides
the whole basis of "speed equalisation" the ballistic
supporters cam up with was that light at c-v speeded
up, it didn't slow down more.

I also pointed out that rotation of the 'photon axis' was probably the main
factor involved in sagnac, not just path length difference.

You're too narrow in your views George.

Simple differentiation Henry, as you said yourself.
I note you can't actually point out any error in
what I wrote, just the usual ad hominem that you
resort to in such cases. It's a shame because we
have managed to hold a polite, friuendly and, I
think, constructive conversation up to now.

But George, Shapiro delay should not have a sharp peak.

Do the sums Henry, the sharpness of the peak depends
on how close the line of sight passes to the other
body, and in both J1909-3744 and J0737-3039A the
observed curve exactly matches for one inclination.

I would say that applies to gravitational lensing not Shapiro effect.


This is impossible.

It's the best I can do in ASCII, the general shape
is right but obviously it should be rounded.

That's right.. it should be rounded.

Shapiro effect would not cause a sharp peak.

Yes it does, if the Shapiro effect was a rounder
peak there would be a difference between that and
the sharp measured peak and when you subtract the
two you should get an odd-shaped remainder. That
difference is the lower curve and as you can see
there is no shape there, just noise. The calculated
Shapiro shape exactly matches the measured shape.

Well I reckon the effect is probably casued by some kind of lensing.

Yes, as both Jerry and I already said in other posts
the same mechanism produces both the Shapiro delay
and lensing, and of course a lens has most effect when
it is in the line of sight.

No matter what you say, it still gives you an orbital
phase reference.

It might provide some information...but you should be careful how that is
interpreted. The BaTh can easily produce a sharp blip like the one shown.

You should try to understand that technique of
producing a "residual" curve because if you want to
claim ballistic theory matches Cepheid curves you
need to produce residuals for both the velocity and
brightness curves to prove it.

Well basicaly, the velocity and brightness curves should be
similar...except
for the fact that the brightness curve will include contributions from
other
members of the group and the velocity may experience some considerable
extinction near the source.

You miss the point, no matter what parameter you are
plotting you judge whether two curves match by
comparing the residuals. I'm saying you need to add
that curve to your software before you can justify
the claim.

I can already add any curve to my program for comparison. I do that all the
time. It compes up in a separate window where I can adjust hte with and height
of my generated curve.
If you ran the program you would see how.

It sounds more like a bull**** effect to me.

It sounds to me as though you don't understand the
concept of a residual.

I guess you mean subtracting one curve from another. That's not hard.

Exactly. You need to read in a file of the observed
values and plot the difference, not hard at all but
the only justification others will accept for your
claim to have found a match.

George, Where have you been? I have presented many such comparisons. See for
instance: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg.

The coloured curves are mine. The dots are published curves.

The main problem involves finding accurate published curves.

Fine, but a circular orbit stays circular so how do you
model the change of periastron over the two decades it
has been tracked?

Where's the evidence of that?

In 30 years worth of measurements.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0407/0407149.pdf

Figure 1.

They call it the 'observed change in epoch of periastron'.

Yep.

That can be probably be explained by the pulsar's proper motion in which
case a
small eccentricity would show up. The pulsar will also be in a large orbit
of
some kind and this will cause a varying period.

ROFL, what a remarkable coincidence that it is
exactly following the curve predicted 20 years ago
given by an equation written neartly a century ago.

If the faith is sufficiently strong, evidence for it can be seen everywhere....

You would have to add straight line proper motion to
your model and then plot a graph of apparent change
of periastron to justify that claim and that is going
to be much harder.

George, you are asking me to explain phenomena that has been 'deduced' using
entirely wrong data.
.....get it into your head, nothing that has been written about pulsars or any
other heavenly object can be believed...the interpretation of everything
observed is now under question.

No, you just said ballistic theory could explain it and
before that you said it couldn't be measured, both of
which are untrue. The known Shapiro effect _does_ exactly
fit however.

If anything, it looks to me more like gravitational lensing.

Well that's actually right, gravitational lensing
happens because the wavefront nearest the star
travels slower and the direction of propagation is
perpendicular to the wavefront. The fact remains
that gravitational lensing happens when one body
is one the line of sight to another so it still
tells you the phase which is all we need.

but the orbit is supposed to be a circular... why does it matter?

Because knowing the time when the bodies are aligned
lets you distinguish ADoppler from VDoppler in your
theory and that then lets you work out the extiction
distance. It moves _your_ model forward Henry.

George, the VDoppler YOU are trying to investigate is that which would occur if
all the pulses were emitted simultaneously from equidistant points around the
orbit. In that case, the ones emitted from the sides WOULD arrive at a faster
(or slower) rate than those emitted from the near and far points.
That is not the situation at all. There is a delay between consecutive pulse
emissions.... and the program measures the arrival rate and compares that with
the emission rate. As you can see, if you think about it, there should be no
difference between the emission and arrival rates of consecutive pulses emitted
from points on the sides...because there is no acceleration there.

What I said before and the figures I gave were wrong. I incorrectly added an
additional doppler term.

So back to your program, what parameters do you get
for the orbit and maximum extinction distance if you
match the velocity curve _including_ the phase?

I'm not ready to provide those figures yet.

Well that's what you should be working towards, you
cannot claim to have a match if you are not ready to
publish the results.

The phase difference remains at 90, always. There is NO VDoppler effect.

but for a pulsar the velocity phase
should generally be the same as my 'brightness phase' if some eccentricity
exists.

They should have the same phase regradless of the
eccentricity.

Generally, when the brightness is maximum, the velocity should be about zero,
ready to increase. When the brightness has decreased to about half, the
velocity should be maximum positive (towards the observer)
..

So you would also expect radial speed to be high. Any evidence for that?
I
would expect they all appear heavily redshifted.

Arre any blue shifted, George?

How would you measure the shift Henry, there are no
spectral lines? If you want to know I suggest you
look up a survey and see if radial speeds are given,
I don't know off-hand.

.........the same shift should occur in the spectrum if your imaginary
dwarf.
You said H lines are detected. What do you know about their doppler shift?

We only have that single reading and the Doppler shift
would be affected by gravitational redshift and the
orbital motion at that time as well as the proper motion.
However, bear in mind that on average the transverse
motions will be high too and other techniques can measure
that. The high speeds of pulsars is well documented.

Yes I noticed that. Is there a plausible explanation?

George


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.