On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:31:31 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:45:26 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Actually there is considerable doubt about both its value and its
variation. At
4000 Lys, there could be quite a deal of 'time compression' if it is in a
large
orbit..

It's the period of the orbit that we are discussing.

Also, how can you be sure there is only one pulse emitted per rotation and
not
two or more?

Do you mean per rotation of the pulsar? I thought
you were talking about the _orbital_ period because
of what you said next:

and that its orbital velocity is supposed to vary by about 1
part in 11000 during each cycle.

We know the pulsar produces pulses regularly every
2.285ms and it doesn't matter whether that is one
or two or 27 per rotation, all that matters is that
we can measure that they are emitted with a regularity
almost as good as an atomic clock.

I was under the imp[ression that the observed pulse was slowly changing too.
Not to worry...

Not quite, you are jumping ahead and making the mistake
you accuse me of. What we know is the _TDoppler_ factor.
Orbital velocity has to be determined from that and
other information using your software.

The VDoppler contribution is negligible...forget it.

Nope, the simple indication from the phase is that
it is completely dominant. If you want to forget it
you have to show an alternative model, such as a
higher eccentricity, that explains the phase. I'm
not saying you can't, only that you cannot just wave
your hands and pretend the phase data doesn't exist.

If you read what I said in tyhe other message you will now know that the
VDoppler effect doesn't exist...as I originally thought.

That is the figure I have to match for my
linear 'brightness' reading if ADoppler is responsible.

We generally don't have a brightness curve for pulsars
(though there is one for J0737-3039A) but if you have
incorporated the corrections in your program as you said
you did then you should match your linear scale red
velocity curve to the TDoppler.

Remember, my 'brightness curve' corresponds with what is assumed to be the
obserevd Vdoppler curve.

I thought you had fixed the velocity curve so the
red velocity cyurve gave the right values now? Are
you saying the program is _still_ not fixed?

The program is correct to 1 part in c/v at all practical distances.

The rate of arrival of pulses is assumed to be a result of pure VDoppler.
That
is the source of error.

You said you had corrected that too so that it
includes both A and V parts. It sounds as though
you have been lieing again.

There is NO VDoppler effect George. Start rethinking now.
The program measures pulse arrival separation INTERVAL and compares that with
pulse emission separation INTERVAL. They are the same where there is zero
acceleration.


I can only produce a figure for the product (distance x velocity). The
45
degree phase difference is independent of v so that is no help.

The product is of a combination of velocity and
acceleration multiplied by a composite distance which
depends on both the observer's actual distance and the
characteristic distance for speed equalisation.

We don't necessarily need this any more...not to the extent we previously
assumed anyway...

OK, tell me the orbital parameters that match both the
velocity curve and the phase.

I can only give you a product (velocity x distance)

We know
the latter is much smaller than our true distance so you
can treat the observer as being at infinity and the
distance is then that of the speed equalisation only
(the curves are asymptotic to those at infinity and
within 0.1% at 7 times the equalisation distance).

I understand you point.

There are two options.

There are at least three.

You are concentrating on one..

No, what I tried to do was walk you through each option
in turn, first low orbital velocity, then high inclination
and finally speed equalisation.

..that which incorporates a large degree of speed
unification. ..and VDoppler is dominant at small distances.
I am now leaning towards a much lower rate of unification and a very small
orbit diameter and speed.

OK, but the phase may be wrong unless you can compensate
in some other way and you will probably get a value for
the stellar masses that is not tenable. I think you'll
need the speed unification but working through the
alternatives is the best way to understand why so carry
on and I'll see if I can ask the awkward questions.

I'll let you absorb what I have said above before I continue this...


For J1909-3744 we know from the Shpiro delay (or the
side effect of gravitational lensing if you like) that
we see the orbit close to edge on and that the velocity
curve has a phase that corresponds to purely VDoppler
for a near circular orbit. You tell me what your program
parameters need to be to match that curve.

I don't agree that the effect to which you refer is an indication that
the
orbit is nearly edge on...

In that case you would need to give an alternative
explanation for the pulse delay and explain why that
effect is not seen in other tests.

George, I am questioning the very way pulses are created.

I don't really care about that, I want to know why they
are delayed after they have been created.

Are they delayed or advanced?

All we have is a
theory. It might be completely wrong.
How do YOU explain the existence of pulses.

The source emits a beam and spins like a lighthouse, you
know that already.

I don't know that any more. I dont think that explains what is observed.
Do you think the beam is a narrowly focussed 'pencil'... or is it a plane?

The shape exactly
matches the known effect seen many ways in the Solar
System as Leonard listed so your rejection of it is
neither credible nor understandable. I could
understand if you objected to the Shapiro effect in
general since it's the wrong way for ballistic theory
but I am not arguing that.


George, GR and the BaTh have the same equations as regards the slowing of
light
or the distortion of space to maintain its speed at c.

No they don't Henry, nothing like it.

George, the BaTh says light speed increases when light falls down a gravitty
wwell just like anyhting else does. GR effectively says the light seed remains
constant and SPACE contracts to make that so.
As the Pound- Rebka experiment showed, both approaches give the same answer.
.....just as the Ptolmeic theory worked to a point.

If there IS a Shapiro effect then both theries should agree.

They don't, we worked through ballistic theory some time
ago and you eventually agreed that it predicted an advance
instead of a delay. Don't you remember?

You left out a '-'. The effects should be the same.

although it really matters not. If it is, then the
orbit and the peripheral velocity are very small...no real problem
there.
It would probably indicate that your 'dwarf' was not a dwarf at all but
more
likely a pocket of H2 or a ring of gas.

No, a ring wouldn't produce a Doppler shift of the
neutron star and a neither would emit sufficient
flux it has to be a small star.

....the ring doesn't have to be 'balanced'. Of course there could still be
an
orbit.

Forget it Henry, we see a white dwarf where one is
expected and you couldn't get anything like the
right spectrum or intensity any other way.

We see a bright dot in the sky George. It could be anything.

For an edge-on low velocity model, you will get a mass
for the pulsar which is of the order of millions of
solar masses (caveat: mental arithmetic), at (or a bit
below) the bottom end of the 'super-massive black hole'
category and that can be ruled out by the lack of
gravitational disruption of nearby stars.

You're not thinking rationally any more George.

Back to the abuse Henry? I'm just applying Kepler's
laws and you say your program uses them so it should
agree.

Well you got the VDoppler business wrong for a start...

..just starting to rave like
the rest...
Try cleansing your mind of just about everything you ever learnt about
astronomy. It is nearly ALL wrong.

ROFL, so far all your program has done is prove it
all correct, the phase means the TDoppler must be
pure VDoppler which means all the standard results stand.

there is NO VDoppler George.

Once you have done that, you can try the same with
J0737-3039A where we have a flat brightness curve
with an eclipse lasting just 2 degrees of the phase,
a large coincident Shapiro delay and a simple velocity
curve.

You are telling me about things that were derived entirely on the basis
that
light speed is source dependent.

No, I'm telling you nothing more than what is obvious
in the measurements. The light curve is flat over
358 degrees of the orbit and goes to zero for 2 degrees.

There could easily be some kind of eclipse.

Yes Henry, it isn't actually the other pulsar that
blocks the view, it's too small. It's the opaque
plasma (like the "solar wind") that eclipses the
primary pulsar but the fact is that you only get
an eclipse when the opaque material is in the line
of sight, and that tells you the phase.

Theories, theories...all based on wrong data...
What is the truth?

There could easily be another
explanation...for instance whatever the magnetic field reacts with has a
dip in
it.

But the field rotates hundreds of times a second and the
eclipse last 48 seconds every 2.4 hours (figures estimated
from memory but right order of magnitude).


But what is the form of the magnetic field? How can a magnetic field escape a
neutron star when light cannot?

I don't accept any of them George.

Tough Henry, observations are what they are, you can
produce alternative explanations but you cannot change
reality.

How we interpret wilusions from 4000LYs is wide open to error.
Using constant c is the major source of that error.

An eclipse isn't hard to interpret.

Oh but it is.
The Bath expects many orbiting stars to appear as though they are eclipsing.
All that is required is a moderately eccentric orbit and a periastron approx.
nearest to the observer.

There are other entirely different explanations if you would care to
look.

Of course Henry, and that is what I am suggesting you
do since that is how all theories are tested. Get your
program working, fit the curves to what is seen using
_all_ the available data, not just the convenient bits
and then say what your program gives as the alternative
explanation. I've been waiting a long time now.

George, my program has clear limitations. It is designed to predict
variable
star brightness curves. ..and it does that far more accurately than the
methods
used to measure the observed curves.
It cannot take into account all the possible ways a pulsar pulse can be
created.

It doesn't need to, only the delays that occur after the
pulse has been emitted and it should be perfectly capable
of doing that. Stop looking for excuses.

It is perfectly reasonable to consider that the mechanism by which the pulses
are formed might have some kind of additional periodic variation.
Everything written about pulsars is speculative at best and likely to be very
wrong.


Nope, I haven't told you derived stuff, just what is
observed. You should by now have realised that I know
at least as much about Ritzian theory as you and in
some areas even more.

George I'm not quite sure what we are arguing about half the time.

That's because you assume we are arguing when in fact I'm
just helping you get your program working accurately. After
that I'll challenge you to match the observations and you
will learn what you need to do to the theory to make it
work.

Indeed you HAVE helped. One of my program's procedures is even named after
you....'GEORGE'.
You have help solve one of my biggest worries. ....the 'distance anomaly'.

You must know that your whole Einsteinian approach is based on the
existence of
an absolute aether...and you must know that such doesn't exist.

What I know is that it doesn't use an aether at all and
you already know that, but you keep trying to throw in
these silly remarks just to change the subject when you
feel threatened. It really is a very obvious ploy, and
completely useless.

Einstein merely reinvented LET in a very roundabout and cleverly disguised
manner. The theories are identical.

So why don't you just accept the fact that light speed from remote objects
must
be source dependent and investigate what that means to astronomical
observations..

Because it was proven that the speed is independent of
the speed of the source by Sagnac nearly a century ago,
but again you're just trying to change the subject so
I'll snip there.

Nonsense...


Now how about getting back to the question in hand?

Why don't you have a rethink about VDoppler?


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.