On 4 Apr, 09:51, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 00:30:36 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 4 Apr, 00:17, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 07:02:49 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
On 3 Apr, 01:25, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:51:01 +0100, "George Dishman" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
George if you can tell me how much matter is falling into the star and what is
its relative angular momentum, I might be able to provide some kind of answer.
You would also have to assume something about magnetic damping and tidal
effects due to gaseous atmosphere around it. ..and what is the curvature of its
transverse motion?

How anyone can seriously claim that it is exactly in line with GR predictions
is really funny.

Nobody claimed it was in line with any GR predictions,
you said it was "exactly what the BaTh predicts".

That paper you referred me to claimed it was.

I'm surprised but I don't have that one handy. Are you sure you
aren't thinking of the Hulse and Taylor paper? Pulsar rate slowing
is due to the magnetic field and I don't think GR even comes into
it, nor does ballistic theory AFAICS.

Every second paper I read about pulsars makes some kind of claim that they
support GR.

That's because they are a very good vehicle for
testing GR in strong field conditions that are hard
to produce other ways.

Why is it still so important to 'prove' GR ...

Because in science any theory is only trusted in
regions that have been tested. The more extreme
the conditions under which it is tested, the more
we can be sure the predictions will be accurate.
Also there is always the hope that some small
deviation will be found which can be the beginning
of the next theory. That's how science works.

... when people like yourself are
absolutely sure it is correct?

Who said I was sure it was correct? I am fairly
sure it will need changes to accomodate QM and
may need a change to explain dark energy (not
dark matter though).

George, the BaTh says all light leaving the pair will be slowed slightly,
causing an overall redshift that may or may not be counterbalanced by the blue
shift arising from its accelerated approach to our galaxy and Earth.

Henry, have a look at the earlier message in this thread where
we discussed this:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...3b2a017ef89b9b

Your conclusion was:

Right so the signal arrives earlier, it is not a delay.
The gravitational redshift is identical in each case as
is the eventual speed.

that's right.

When the star is on the near side, the bending of light by the dwarf more than
compensates for the increase in average light speed.
So The BaTh says that there should be a shapiro type slowing.

Let's see the maths Henry. If you are right then you can
add that curve to you program and then we will see if
you can really match the curves.

George, I don't believe the pulses originate anywhere near the neutron star
itself.

Running away Henry? Show me the maths that led to
your conclusion.

I don't believe the effect to which you are refering is necessarily a
shapiro type effect. I am not going to continue to speculate about something I
don't believe happens.

Fine, if you think you can match the curves without
it but you will then be in the position of explaining
why something that does happen in the Solar system
doesn't happen in the double pulsar system where we
know they are in an eclipsing configuration.

....
I don't even accept that this is the real source of pulses.

I don't really care what you accept, all that matters
is that pulses are produced and we can use them as a
testbed.

Fair enough...but the distance of their origin from the pulsar could be
important for the BaTh.

I doubt it unless it was well outside the binary system but
then there would be little variation in any of the parameters.

George, the pulse we detect is NOT just a magnetic one. Somewhere along the
line EM is generated and sent in many directions. Hte theory says something
about charges being moved along the magnetic field. That doesn't add up because
charges would more likey want to move ACROSS the field.

Correct, in fact the charges move in spirals around a field
line which means it is highly accelerated which means they
radiate. It is called syncrotron radiation as Jerry told you.


Even the 'magnetic field' idea is an assumption.

There is a lot of evidence backing that up.

It could for instance be a beam of radiation that excites surounding gas..

No, the excitation would take far too long to decay
and the pulse would probably have a longer tail.

theories, theories.....

Common sense Henry, you cannot heat up a stellar mass
and cool it down again in 45 microseconds. Get real
for goodness sake.

You know you can say just about anything because nobody is going up there to
prove you wrong.

There are nuts out there who will argue almost anything.

....
No. The BaTh expects the same kind of delay due to bending and increased light
path lengths. I was wrong about the 180 difference.

OK, so now show me the maths you used to find that there
is an overal delay.

It should be the same as the GR delay ...

Nope, if you do the maths, it is an advance. As I asked,
if you disagree, show me your calculation.

The terms are fairly standard and you should be able
to convert to other angles easily. These should help:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitu...ascending_node

you see I don't use this convention.

Maybe not but you need to understand it if you want
to know what a longitude of periastron of 155 degrees
means in your terms.

yes I'll try to translate it.
It is my Yaw angle...opposite sense and their zero is my 90.
So 155 is my -65 deg Yaw angle, I think.

It should be something like that. Given the conventional
eccentricity is 10^-7, the curve must be so close to a
sine wave it doesn't matter for J1909-3744 but it will
matter when you look at PSR1316 and J0737-3039.

....
and the pulses should
start out at maybe c/2. ...this is why I don't believe the pulses are actually
produced near the pulsar itself but at a considerable distance away.

The slow initial speed would just give an overall distance
value that is higher than actual, but only by a few light
hours at most and we don't know the distance better than
tens of light years, and since the error would be constant,
it doesn't have any effect we can measure.

So you still believe the speed aof all the emitted light miraculously adjusts
to c wrt little planet Earth, do you George?

c wrt the 'space'through which it is travelling. That
is what your "extinction" (or "speed equalisation" as
I prefer to call it) means, isn't it?

I am discussing J0737-3039 which is a double pulsar system
with an eclipse. The velocity curve should be easy to find
or perhaps figure out from the orbital elements (as before
work back using conventional theory to find the observations
then re-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

OK. If you can add a curve for the ballistic theory Shapiro effect,
then we can really see how well you can match the observations.

I have finally managed to use your method to add the contributuons of two
members of a binary. The programming has nearly driven me up the wall.

Neat but I think we generally only need to treat them
separately, at least for pulsars and Cepheids.
Spectroscopic binaries where only a composite light
curve is available would be a different matter of course.

George