On 5 Apr, 00:14, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 4 Apr 2007 02:49:56 -0700, "George Dishman" wrote:
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:

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.

No, it's because relativists are becoming desperate.

ROFl, Henry you are a card. Some are perhaps getting
frustrated because every test performed shows GR is
perfect but we know it is incompatible with QM. They
NEED a discrepancy so they can test string theory and
hopefully point at something better.

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.

Well I might suggest tha BaTh is the one that will replace all of ths nonsense
that has prevailed for over 100 years.

Not a chance, it can't even explain Sagnac, and
tell me Henry, how does ballistic theory explain
gravity?

... 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).

You also need change to accommodate the absolute aether that you obviously
require to make the theory work.

Keep repeating that lie often enough and you might
convince yourself it is true even though your
animation proved it false. Oh, I forgot, you left
out the second part so you didn't have to admit
you did that.

restoring context
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.

The obvious fact is that they would be traveling at maybe c/2 towards Earth if
they did. They would be extremely redshifted. Maybe they are! Maybe they start
out as UV moving at c/2 wrt us.

Try to change the subject again Henry? I am still waiting
for you to show your maths that says ballistic theory
predicts a delay for the Shapiro effect.

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.

Until I can find more indo about the dwarf - eg, its brightness curve and
spectral data - I wont comment.

Why do you need to know about the dwarf to explain an
effect within the solar system? That is the weakest
excuse you have come up with yet.

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.

OK maybe..

It is a mojor energy loss in accelerators, hence the name.

but how far away from the neutron star does this occur. I say it
could continue for LYs.

The star rotates at 435 Hz. At what radius would
the field be moving tangentially at the speed of
light? It can't be more than 115 km by mental
arithmetic. Think before typing Henry.

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.

It isn't a stellar mass. It's a pocket of gas...being momentarily ionised as
the beam flashes through.

Rubbish, 45 microseconds is 13km so that is the maximum
radius of your pocket even if the whole thing was heated
and cooled instantly. A bigger region would produce a
longer pulse as the light from the limb would take longer
than the light from the facing surface.

Now work out the surface brightness given that we see the
signal in RF but not visible so it must be cool, then work
out the luminosity. There's no way you can get anywhere
near the energy levels observed.

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.

That's funny coming from you George.

Look at Sean's idea on how light travels in a cycloid!

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 calculation should produce GR's result..or thereabouts.

There is no reason why it should and we went over
the ballistic model in the previous post, reference
above, and you folllowed why it is an advance. It
is the opposite of what GR predicts.

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?

No George. That's your aether idea.

It was your phrase "quality of space" that gave me that
impression.

Mine is 'speed wrt other light going in
the same direction'.

Now that is nuts. How does one pulse know what any
other pulse is doing Henry, are there superluminal
particles flying between them to transfer momentum
and equalise their speeds? How does each pulse know
which other pulses to match to, they can't equalise
with light from other stars going the other way or
they will all stop !!!

'Speed' is not a good word though...better to say, "the
relative positions of photons moving in any one direction tend to become
stabilized with distance".

Hilarious Henry, it's great watching you backpedal
when you have shot yourself in the foot :-)

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.

Probably....and many variables are orbitted by a WCH.

What?

Spectroscopic binaries where only a composite light
curve is available would be a different matter of course.

Yes. These can be interesting.

Easy but uninformative.

Anyway have another look at that reference you gave to the brightness and
velocity curves of cepheids.
It is exactly what I have been saying., They are the same curve...the only
differences being due to contributions from the other member of the pair.

This is really terrific evidence in favour of the BaTh.

No it isn't. I'm still waiting for you to calculate
how much is due to c+v and how much is intrinsic
for one of these examples. You will understand why
it isn't evidence in your favour when you do that.

George