On 1 Apr 2007 07:57:46 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

On 26 Mar, 00:56, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
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:
...
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...

Pulsars are normally slowing very slightly but it
is _very_ gradual:

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/educat...ryone/pulsars/

"For example, a pulsar called PSR J1603-7202 is known to have
a period of 0.0148419520154668 seconds. However the periods
of all radio pulsars are increasing extremely slowly. The
period of PSR J1603-7202 increases by just 0.0000005 seconds
every million years!"

...which is exactly what the BaTh predicts for a pulsar that is in a very large
orbit. ..but it is also to be expected that they should be slowing as they lose
energy. I see no problem there.

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.

We have since corrected that, your new numbers are
realistic.

The 'correction' is negligible.

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...

Time to continue then.

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?

Ballistic theory says they should be advanced but they
are actually delayed.

No. The BaTh should be in agreement with GR.

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?

See the illustration here

http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/educat...ryone/pulsars/

In one of the papers I cited some time ago, there was a
diagram shoing a cross-section where precession means we
have stripes across the beam, like the scan lines of a TV.

It's a pretty crappy article.

Quote:
"The time between pulses, the period, is the time that it takes for the neutron
star to rotate once. "

Why aren't two pulses emitted per rotation?

and:

"Therefore the most likely explanation is that a pulsar is a neutron star that
spins rapidly and emits radio waves along its magnetic axis. However, not all
neutron stars are necessarily detectable as pulsars. The beams from some
neutron stars may never pass the Earth and will therefore not be detected.
Also, other neutron stars may have been pulsars in the past, but the process
that causes the beam of radiation (which is not fully understood) may have
turned off or is just too weak to be detected. "

In other words, they don't know.


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.

Yes, so the signals from the pulsar when it is on the far side
of the companion should be accelerated towards us and then
slowed to the original speed once it has passed the dwarf and
is en route to us. That would produce an advance of the arrival
time as we discussed some time ago. You appeared to agree the
mechanism then so can you go back and have another read, I don't
want to write all the same stuff again.

GR says the same.

GR effectively says the light s[p]eed remains
constant and SPACE contracts to make that so.
As the Pound- Rebka experiment showed, both approaches give the same answer.

Pound-Rebka showed that processes seem to go slower when
viewed from a higher potential. In GR the light seems to
move slower when it is close to the companion hence it
predicts a delay.

But the companion is orbiting the star....not vice versa...

The pulsar is barely moving.

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.

Go back and read it, there were no equation, just a simple
(hough slighly ambiguous) diagram which I clarified when
you and Jeff both queried it.


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.

No Henry, it could not "be anything", it is a white dwarf
because it has the spectrum that falls into that
classification.

Well if it can be positively identified let''s see its brightness curve.
Do you think we can ask someone to try to measure it for us?
Are you in touch with any astronomers?



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...

Strange how you now agree with me.

I agree ..but it is a negligible effect .....and not related to extinction.

..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.

You know better now, my point stands.

it is a negligible effect .....and not related to extinction.

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?

The truth is that the luminosity drops to near zero
for 2 degrees of the orbit, that is the data and it
is not an interpretation.

eclipses CAN occur.
....but there can also be eclipse-like dips in brightness curves caused purely
by c+v.


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?

Why do you say light cannot escape Henry, of course it
escapes or we couldn't receive the pulses.

I was under the impression that no light can escape from the neutron star
itself.


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.

Go on then, show how your program produces a drop to zero
luninosity, or say by just five or six magnitudes, for just
two degrees of the orbit with no variation at any other time.
That is what the program is for isn't it?

Sure.
www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/narrow.jpg

George


Einstein's Relativity - the greatest HOAX since jesus christ's mother.