On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:22:12 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Apr 2007 06:46:07 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Yes, that's what the observations say they do.

What observations george?
Are you sugesting that somebody has actually measured the OW speed of
individual pulsar pulses wrt Earth?

I am pointing out that no observations contradict that
view while if ballistic theory was correct you would
expect many violations, such as multiple images from
binaries.

That idea went out the window long ago.

You are claiming that as each pulse is emitted, its
speed becomes magically adjusted to exactly that of all the previous
ones.

Nope, and you know pefectly well that's a load of crap
Henry, you've been told what SR says far too many times
over the years. You are just inventing yet another
deliberate distortion to hide from reality.

George, you obviously don't even understand your own stupid theory. IT
SAYS
JUST WHAT I WROTE ABOVE. Don't deny it.

Sorry Henry, shouting doesn't make errors any less wrong.
I know you are aware of this, I have corrected you on it
dozens of times over what must be nearly a decade now.

George, SR says that light emitted from differently moving source at the same
point will travel through space at the same speed .
Are you now denying the very existence of Einstein's second postulate?


My original method is 100% OK fall al prcactica purposes. You suggestion
is
very good and much faster but involves some complicated programming and
leaves
a lot of gaps in the curve because the x coordinate is rounded off to the
nearest integer....and a number of readings may produce the same integer.
Still
it will work for single stars in most instances.

That's often the way, a faster program takes a bit more
thought. The choice is yours as to whther the extra
complexity is worth the effort.

Both methods have advantages and disadvantages. I am trying to include both
options in the one program but it's a hell of a job.


Speed isn't the key part, remember you said there was
no phase shift for zero distance where the VDoppler
should dominate so clearly you had a fundamental error.
We need to know the phase so your program was unusable
at that point.

We don't need to know the phase.

Yes we do, that is the key as I have been telling you
for several weeks, it allows you to distinguish VDoppler
from ADoppler which is hard to do any other way unless
you are lucky enough to have an eclipsing situation.

I have already done that.
I gave you the figures.
....but they are just a geometric phenomenon.


George, the published 'pulse bunching' curve was used by misguided
astrophysicists to determine the velocity curve USING CLASSICAL DOPPLER
EQUATIONS.

I think they would be using the GR equations Henry.

They are effectively the same at low speeds.

Yep, but since you emphasised "classical" I thought I
should pick that nit.

They don't apply...and the figures, upon which the rest of the
theory is based, are completely wrong.

The theory was written in 1917 Henry, it wasn't based on
Hulse and taylor's figures, and the observations exactly
match that theory. Yous eem to be getting confused with
the Ritzian analysis which would be quite different.

SR, LET and BaTh produce almost the same VDoppler shift for speeds c.
You should know that.

So what, the curve that is matched is the change of the
orbit resulting from the energy loss through gravitational
radiation.

I'm reasonably happy with the idea of energy loss due to a number of
factors....although I'm sure matter falling into the pulsar would also slow it
down.



George, I told you how that can appear to happen.

Let me give you a hint Henry, circular orbits don't
have a periastron.

Well it is probably not exactly circular. maybe e=0.02-04

Fine, you were the one claiming it was circular.

I have to compare its curve with a sine wave and look at residuals. .



Utter rubbish Henry, the pulse is seen in the radio
frequencies below microwave and is a broad band
signal, the signals couldn't pulse as fast as they
do because the heated gas would cool slowly and the
radiation from the disc would be nearly omni-directonal
other than some shadowing by other parts of the disc
and the star.

Well what is YOUR explanation of the pulse origin George?

I'm not clear on the details but I understand it to be
basically cyclotron radiation in particles pulled from
the stellar surface by electrostatic fields. The magnetic
field creates the beam by aligning the spiralling of the
charges:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303204842.htm

there are many theories George. Nobody really has much of a clue.


Maybe, but you don't have the faintest idea how to come
up with an alternative that actually explains what we
see.

'What we see' is the willusion of what happens.
Explaining WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING is not easy George.

It is quite easy Henry, the system emits gravitational
radiation exactly as Einstein's maths predicts.

Oh crap!
As the pope said to allah, "if the faith is strong enough, you can find
evidence for it everywhere you look".

Don't you think there might be some degree of magnetic damping?

I suggest many possibilities but you never listen.

I listen but so far they have all been laughable.

They're no funnier than your claim that Einstein's second postulate doesn't
really operate even though you have staked your whole reputation on the theory
that follows it.

YOUR 'sagnac analysis' did nothing more than epitomise the stupidity of
trying
to use rotating frames of reference.

Sixth time now Henry, the analysis you agreed was in the
non-rotating frame. Your denial is getting severe, try to
calm down a bit.

The analysis did not take all factors into account.

It was in the non-rotating frame Henry, have you got
that now?

It took into account all the factors in your diagram.

Photon axis, centrifugal force, sideways displacement....etc, etc....

..and it still showed that a fringe shift should occur.

No, it showed there would be _no_ shift. That's why you
had to go looking for alternatives.

I'm not discussing it futrther here. If you want to stick with the aether
explanation then go ahead. There could easily be a local EM FoR that behaves
like an aether.


No Henry data are the observatory records on which the
interpretations are based.

So?

So you can re-interpret the observations using ballistic
theory to produce your predicted orbital parameters but
you cannot ignore the data, only the conventional analysis.

They measure the bunching of pulses from J1909-3744 and assume it is
caused
by conventional VDoppler!

Which your model will confirm when you do the analysis
thoroughly.

The analysis IS thorough and it demonstrates my point perfectly.
All doppler calculated velocities are likely to be very wrong.

Then they arrive at velocities that are grossly
exaggerated.
Surely you can see that by now.

I'm waiting for you to work out what parameters will
match the observations. I have given you hints about
what the answers will turn out to be but you need to
do it yourself, I know you won't believe what I tell
you without confirming it for yourself.

I've already done it for J1909-3744.
For a distance of 3Lys, the (orbital velocity x cos(pitch)) = about 30 m/s.
(for a bunching factor, 1 in 10^4)

This implies that the pulsar is in a quite small orbit that is somewhat face
on.

For instance using VDoppler equations to analyse ADoppler bunching of
poulasar
pulses.

Except that ADoppler gives a phase error, that's why the
Shapiro effect is important.

Where is evidence of this phase error?
Where is proof that it is a Shapiro effect?

Where is your fit of the ballistic theory model to the
observed data? When you do that, the results will be
quite clear.

We observe the Shapiro
effect to coincide with a point of negligible Doppler
shift, you want it to be 90 degrees away from where we
see it sonow you have stopped talking about the science
and started getting abusive instead. Maybe that's a sign
that you know subconciously that your claims are
unsupportable but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
and wait to see if you can return to the technical
discussion.

George. I'm not particularly interested in whether or not a Shapiro
effect
exists because it makes no difference to what my program achieves..

Of course it does Henry, you have to match the phase and
Shapiro tells you that

So where DOES the supposed Shapiro peak occur?

It happens when the LoS passes close to the companion as
shown in the diagram:

http://www.physorg.com/news9837.html

That's 180 out.

In the observations, it is at a phase of 0.25 (90 degrees)
which is when the Doppler is zero and rising as the source
is at its greatest distance from us. See figure 1 of:

Where does it say doppler is zero at that point?

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507420

Theories, theories, George...all based on the wrong velocity figures.

I wouldn't believe anything in a paper like this. It's nothing but pure
speculation set around statistically manipulated figures.

..the BaTh
matching of just about any star curve...and pulsar 'velocity curve'....

Other than your 90 degree phase error of course.

I don't have that problem any more.

You may be thinking of an older problem of brightness phase
relative to velocity which I suspect has been cleared up.
Here I mean the observed phase is not compatible with the
Doppler being mostly ADoppler, it needs to be predominantly
VDoppler.

I don't know what the starting phase is in the above figure. I don't understand
their phasing at all.

Something is 90 out wrt something else yet longitude of periastron (deg) =
155.7452858095 ± 7. What are these two 'somethings'?

That in itself isn't a problem, it simply gives an upper
limit to the speed equalisation distance.

OK, I understand what you are saying but I can't relate it to this figure.

George



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