Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:23:35 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:29:54 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


Poor boy! You're not related to eric geese by any change, are you?

So what's your explanation then?

Explanation of WHAT? You haven't even described a problem yet.

You need it spelling out?

1 You seem to argue that the light we see from gas that is moving away
from
us is coming towards us slower than light from gas that is coming towards
us.

That's correct. Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt us.

2 You also seem to be saying that Cepheid variability is due to 'faster'
light catching up with (and adding to the brightness of) slower light as
stars move in binary orbits or expand/contract as Cepheids do.

Well the light curves match perfectly...that's alI can produce as
evidence..

3 Doppler shift - speed of emitting gas towards us or away from us changes
the wavelength of the light as we receive it. We can measure the motion of
the gas because spectral lines are narrow and the wavelength can be
measured
precisely.

According to BaTh, the frequency of arrival of 'wavecrests' varies with
incoming light speed. The BaTh doppler equation is virtually the same as
those
of SR and LET for vc.

If 2 and 3 are true, then the spectral lines from cepheids _should_ show a
range of wavelengths representing the whole spread of speeds from the
fastest to the slowest at any one time. This range of speeds would be
greatest when the fastest was catching up the slowest (at maximum
brightness
I assume)

This is not true. It is apparent that no 'fast light' ever catches the
slower
light because of extinction.
For cepheids, a range should be observed because the spherical surface
will be
expanding at different rates accros the disk.

4 However, we do not see broad spectral lines from cepheid variables -
hence
at any one time the light that we are receiving was all emitted at the
same
speed relative to us.

You WOULD EXPECT to see broadened lines from huff-puff cepheids for the
above
reason.
If they are narrow, then it backs up the BaTh and the theory that they are
really just ordinary stars in orbit..

If you accept 3 and propose 1 to be true, and imply that 2 is a
consequence
of 1, then observation 4 is a problem for you.

Thankyou Og for backing up the BaTh and shooting yourself in the foot.


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

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.

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.

Fit your model to the observed data. I think you will find
it is dominant.

I think there is a certain amount of circularity in the logic behind the
shapiro delay business.

None at all, just comparison against an empirical curve.

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.

It isn't, it ballistic theory predicts an advance, GR
predicts a delay.

There is a180 phase difference. How can anyone say which is right?

What is observed is a delay when the Sun is close to
the line of sight to spaecraft and when radar signals
are bounced off Venus and so on. There is no question
about the observation within the Solar system and both
GR and ballistic theory say the effect should be largest
when the light passes closest to the body (obviously).
The main difference is the sense of the effect.

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.

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.

Why aren't two pulses emitted per rotation?

You are probably thinking of something like the animation
on this page:

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/help...als/pulsar.htm

Yes.
I would expect two pulses per rotation from many pulsars..

A smaller second pulse half a rotation later is seen
from some.

yes.

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.

In reality, it is probably more like the earlier static picture
where the angle between the rotational and magnetic axes is
smaller. The second beam is always pointing away from us.

Maybe..but I would have thought the field is more like a broad plane than a
beam.

They seem to produce a cone shaped beam or pencil
beams, sometimes both. The whole thing is very
complex. See section 4 and Figure 2 of

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149

Note the signal is low in the centre and highest along
the 'hourglass' shaped contour.

Yes.

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..
Anyway I suppose it doesn't matter much for our purposes.

"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.

In other words :

a) the beams are thin so we expect to see only a fraction of
the total number of pulsars.

Possibly,..maybe not.

Only if all the pulsars in the galaxy happen to
point at us. I doubt that.

b) the energy to produce the beam runs out eventually.

It will.

Both pretty obvious really.

Reasonably.

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.

No, it predicts a delay.

Then it has the star's position 180 out...that's all.

We see a delay that peaks like this:

_/\_____

An advance shifted by 180 degrees would look like this:
_____ _
\/

Not even close.

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

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...

Doesn't matter, only the relative speed matters. Move your
finger in front of a light or move the light behind your
finger and it gets blocked either way.

but it doesn't get blocked in the pulsar.

One pulsar is blocked by the other. Remember this
was discussing the dual pulsar system.

The pulsar is barely moving.

You have no model fit that predicts that, it is just
handwaving and will turn out to be wrong when you do
the work.

I gave you some figures.

Yes, you have looked at a number of test scenarios most of
which I asked about to show how they could be eliminated
from consideration.

What I mean is that you haven't worked through the whole
problem to find a single set of numbers that fits all the
observational data. It's not a criticism Henry, we just
haven't reached that stage yet.

I'm a bit confused as to which pulsar we are discussing now.

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.

It is not _related_ to extinction but it allows us to put
an upper limit on the distance over which extinction occurs.
Fit your model and you'll see what I mean.

..explain the phasing in diagram1 and I will try.

As I understand it, the phase is like this:


A


B + D Earth


C


A = 0.00 & 1.00
B = 0.25
C = 0.50
D = 0.75

I don't like their method anyway.

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. My pitch is not quite the same as their
inclination because I rotate my head around the LOS until the line joining the
yellow and grey sections is perpendicular to the LOS.
Such a line can always be found....for any orbit. The ecliptic plane is simply
rotated.
Having done that, their 'longitude of ascending node' becomes my yaw angle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_of_periapsis

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/~seb/cele...eadsheets.html

All these angles are irrelevant in my method.

You might like this too, I came across it by accident

http://voyager2.dvc.edu/faculty/kcas...tar%20Dat3.htm

Yes I found that one some time ago. I already matched one of the curves there.

There's a bit of a glossary at the bottom.

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.

And statistically we expect to see some. There is no
reason to think this isn't one and the Shapiro delay
matches.

Where is evidence of the eclipse?

The fact that the flux dips to near zero coincident
with the Shapiro delay maximum, point B on the above
diagram.

Is this still with reference to the dual pulsar system?
If so there should be two Shapiro effects per cycle.

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.

No, that only happens for black holes. In fact we see
some pulsars in x-ray and gamma produced by infalling
matter hitting the surface.

theories, theories, again George.

No Henry interpretations. You really should know what
the word "theory" means by now and not be using it
like a layman.

I'm not saying they are wrong...just suspicious...

These are all areas of on-going research but it is
a fact that we see X-ray and gamma emissions and I
believe the spctra can give some indication of the
surface composition. Anyway, there is no reason why
we shouldn't see the surface, the free-fall speed
would be about half the speed of light so there
would be _significant_ gravitational redshift.

So what is the actual doppler shift of the EM that makes up the actual pulses
of a neutron star? It should be very heavily redshifted 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.

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

Nice. However, don't you get the same shape for the
red velocity curve? I think you have used an extreme
eccentricity and you are forgetting that the red
velocity curve has to be a match to a Keplerian orbit
of a much lower value.

Yes...but I hadn't forgotten. I'm trying to find velocity curves for so called
eclipsing binaries because they should reveal a great deal about this whole
approach.
I'm still not convinced that the 'compressible pulse width' method we're using
for pulsars applies to light from stars.

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
thenre-interpret using ballistic theory).

I'll see what I can find.

George


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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:23:35 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:29:54 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


Poor boy! You're not related to eric geese by any change, are you?

So what's your explanation then?

Explanation of WHAT? You haven't even described a problem yet.

You need it spelling out?

1 You seem to argue that the light we see from gas that is moving away
from
us is coming towards us slower than light from gas that is coming towards
us.

That's correct. Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt us.

2 You also seem to be saying that Cepheid variability is due to 'faster'
light catching up with (and adding to the brightness of) slower light as
stars move in binary orbits or expand/contract as Cepheids do.

Well the light curves match perfectly...that's alI can produce as
evidence..

3 Doppler shift - speed of emitting gas towards us or away from us changes
the wavelength of the light as we receive it. We can measure the motion of
the gas because spectral lines are narrow and the wavelength can be
measured
precisely.

According to BaTh, the frequency of arrival of 'wavecrests' varies with
incoming light speed. The BaTh doppler equation is virtually the same as
those
of SR and LET for vc.

What is BaTh?

If 2 and 3 are true, then the spectral lines from cepheids _should_ show a
range of wavelengths representing the whole spread of speeds from the
fastest to the slowest at any one time. This range of speeds would be
greatest when the fastest was catching up the slowest (at maximum
brightness
I assume)

This is not true. It is apparent that no 'fast light' ever catches the
slower
light because of extinction.

That's convenient - you had better explain 'extinction and why it only
affects some light and not all of it

For cepheids, a range should be observed because the spherical surface
will be
expanding at different rates accros the disk.

Agreed, but the profile will be modulated as the sine of the cepheid's
surface so that majority of the light emitted will be relatively close to
the actual surface velocity. The shape of a spectral line is known and
explained.

4 However, we do not see broad spectral lines from cepheid variables -
hence
at any one time the light that we are receiving was all emitted at the
same
speed relative to us.

You WOULD EXPECT to see broadened lines from huff-puff cepheids for the
above
reason.

See the above.

If they are narrow, then it backs up the BaTh and the theory that they are
really just ordinary stars in orbit..

No because you haven't explained 'extinction'

Nor does it explain why different elements have different velocity profiles
across the light curve.

If you accept 3 and propose 1 to be true, and imply that 2 is a
consequence
of 1, then observation 4 is a problem for you.

Thankyou Og for backing up the BaTh and shooting yourself in the foot.

On the contrary - you need to explain yourself

So 3 questions
What is BaTh ?
What is extinction and how precisely does it prevent fast light from
catching up slow light?
What is your explanation for the variable light curve of cepheids

I'm away from fast internet for the next few days so you can take your time
over these answers.

On Apr 3, 5:07 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:23:35 +0100, "OG" wrote:

4 However, we do not see broad spectral lines from cepheid
variables - hence at any one time the light that we are
receiving was all emitted at the same speed relative to us.

You WOULD EXPECT to see broadened lines from huff-puff cepheids
for the above reason.
If they are narrow, then it backs up the BaTh and the theory
that they are really just ordinary stars in orbit..

If you accept 3 and propose 1 to be true, and imply that 2
is a consequenceof 1, then observation 4 is a problem for you.

Thankyou Og for backing up the BaTh and shooting yourself
in the foot.

Actually, Henri, you've just shot YOURSELF in the foot.

Periodic broadening and narrowing of the spectral lines of Cepheids
is a well documented phenomenon. This periodic Doppler broadening
results from three phenomena operating concurrently:

1) Projection effect. The parts of the photosphere pulsating in
our line of sight show greater Doppler shift than the parts of
the photosphere which are pulsating tangentially with respect
to us.
2) Thermal effect. Doppler broadening due to kinetic effects
varies as the Cepheid heats and cools through its cycle.
3) Turbulence effect. Spectral lines show periodic Doppler
broadening as the Cepheid "boils up" and relaxes.

Here is a good reference for you to read.
http://www.obs-hp.fr/www/preprints/pp119/pp119.html

BaTh fails yet again!!!!!

Jerry

On 3 Apr 2007 17:19:13 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Apr 3, 5:07 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:23:35 +0100, "OG" wrote:

4 However, we do not see broad spectral lines from cepheid
variables - hence at any one time the light that we are
receiving was all emitted at the same speed relative to us.

You WOULD EXPECT to see broadened lines from huff-puff cepheids
for the above reason.
If they are narrow, then it backs up the BaTh and the theory
that they are really just ordinary stars in orbit..

If you accept 3 and propose 1 to be true, and imply that 2
is a consequenceof 1, then observation 4 is a problem for you.

Thankyou Og for backing up the BaTh and shooting yourself
in the foot.

Actually, Henri, you've just shot YOURSELF in the foot.

Periodic broadening and narrowing of the spectral lines of Cepheids
is a well documented phenomenon. This periodic Doppler broadening
results from three phenomena operating concurrently:

1) Projection effect. The parts of the photosphere pulsating in
our line of sight show greater Doppler shift than the parts of
the photosphere which are pulsating tangentially with respect
to us.
2) Thermal effect. Doppler broadening due to kinetic effects
varies as the Cepheid heats and cools through its cycle.
3) Turbulence effect. Spectral lines show periodic Doppler
broadening as the Cepheid "boils up" and relaxes.

Here is a good reference for you to read.
http://www.obs-hp.fr/www/preprints/pp119/pp119.html

BaTh fails yet again!!!!!

Where did I disagree with any of the above....?

I suggest you go back to sticking needles in dead bodies...


Jerry





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

On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 00:28:34 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 3 Apr 2007 01:23:35 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 22:29:54 +0100, "OG"
wrote:


Poor boy! You're not related to eric geese by any change, are you?

So what's your explanation then?

Explanation of WHAT? You haven't even described a problem yet.

You need it spelling out?

1 You seem to argue that the light we see from gas that is moving away
from
us is coming towards us slower than light from gas that is coming towards
us.

That's correct. Light moves at c wrt its source and c+v wrt us.

2 You also seem to be saying that Cepheid variability is due to 'faster'
light catching up with (and adding to the brightness of) slower light as
stars move in binary orbits or expand/contract as Cepheids do.

Well the light curves match perfectly...that's alI can produce as
evidence..

3 Doppler shift - speed of emitting gas towards us or away from us changes
the wavelength of the light as we receive it. We can measure the motion of
the gas because spectral lines are narrow and the wavelength can be
measured
precisely.

According to BaTh, the frequency of arrival of 'wavecrests' varies with
incoming light speed. The BaTh doppler equation is virtually the same as
those
of SR and LET for vc.

What is BaTh?

If 2 and 3 are true, then the spectral lines from cepheids _should_ show a
range of wavelengths representing the whole spread of speeds from the
fastest to the slowest at any one time. This range of speeds would be
greatest when the fastest was catching up the slowest (at maximum
brightness
I assume)

This is not true. It is apparent that no 'fast light' ever catches the
slower
light because of extinction.

That's convenient - you had better explain 'extinction and why it only
affects some light and not all of it

For cepheids, a range should be observed because the spherical surface
will be
expanding at different rates accros the disk.

Agreed, but the profile will be modulated as the sine of the cepheid's
surface so that majority of the light emitted will be relatively close to
the actual surface velocity. The shape of a spectral line is known and
explained.

4 However, we do not see broad spectral lines from cepheid variables -
hence
at any one time the light that we are receiving was all emitted at the
same
speed relative to us.

You WOULD EXPECT to see broadened lines from huff-puff cepheids for the
above
reason.

See the above.

If they are narrow, then it backs up the BaTh and the theory that they are
really just ordinary stars in orbit..

No because you haven't explained 'extinction'

Nor does it explain why different elements have different velocity profiles
across the light curve.

If you accept 3 and propose 1 to be true, and imply that 2 is a
consequence
of 1, then observation 4 is a problem for you.

Thankyou Og for backing up the BaTh and shooting yourself in the foot.

On the contrary - you need to explain yourself

So 3 questions
What is BaTh ?
What is extinction and how precisely does it prevent fast light from
catching up slow light?
What is your explanation for the variable light curve of cepheids

I'm away from fast internet for the next few days so you can take your time
over these answers.

Why should I bother to answer at all?



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

On Apr 3, 10:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 17:19:13 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

BaTh fails yet again!!!!!

Where did I disagree with any of the above....?

So you admit it! BaTh fails EVERY test!

Jerry

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.

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.

Fit your model to the observed data. I think you will find
it is dominant.

I think there is a certain amount of circularity in the logic behind the
shapiro delay business.

None at all, just comparison against an empirical curve.

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.

It isn't, it ballistic theory predicts an advance, GR
predicts a delay.

There is a180 phase difference. How can anyone say which is right?

What is observed is a delay when the Sun is close to
the line of sight to spaecraft and when radar signals
are bounced off Venus and so on. There is no question
about the observation within the Solar system and both
GR and ballistic theory say the effect should be largest
when the light passes closest to the body (obviously).
The main difference is the sense of the effect.

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.

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.

In reality, it is probably more like the earlier static picture
where the angle between the rotational and magnetic axes is
smaller. The second beam is always pointing away from us.

Maybe..but I would have thought the field is more like a broad plane than a
beam.

They seem to produce a cone shaped beam or pencil
beams, sometimes both. The whole thing is very
complex. See section 4 and Figure 2 of

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0407149

Note the signal is low in the centre and highest along
the 'hourglass' shaped contour.

Yes.

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.

Anyway I suppose it doesn't matter much for our purposes.

Not really.

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.

No, it predicts a delay.

Then it has the star's position 180 out...that's all.

We see a delay that peaks like this:

_/\_____

An advance shifted by 180 degrees would look like this:
_____ _
\/

Not even close.

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.


One pulsar is blocked by the other. Remember this
was discussing the dual pulsar system.

The pulsar is barely moving.

You have no model fit that predicts that, it is just
handwaving and will turn out to be wrong when you do
the work.

I gave you some figures.

Yes, you have looked at a number of test scenarios most of
which I asked about to show how they could be eliminated
from consideration.

What I mean is that you haven't worked through the whole
problem to find a single set of numbers that fits all the
observational data. It's not a criticism Henry, we just
haven't reached that stage yet.

I'm a bit confused as to which pulsar we are discussing now.

The history is lost in the snipping but different bits
of the post refer to different systems. The eclipsing
system is J0737-3039 which is two pulsars.

..explain the phasing in diagram1 and I will try.

As I understand it, the phase is like this:

A

B + D Earth

C

A = 0.00 & 1.00
B = 0.25
C = 0.50
D = 0.75

I don't like their method anyway.

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.

....
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.

And statistically we expect to see some. There is no
reason to think this isn't one and the Shapiro delay
matches.

Where is evidence of the eclipse?

The fact that the flux dips to near zero coincident
with the Shapiro delay maximum, point B on the above
diagram.

Is this still with reference to the dual pulsar system?

Yes.

If so there should be two Shapiro effects per cycle.

There should but the pulses from the second pulsar are
very hard to detect. They have only recently caught them
for a small part of the orbit. Again, being a thin beam
there is a finite chance that it won't sweep over us. Now
that it has been found there might be a more extensive
study in the future.

These are all areas of on-going research but it is
a fact that we see X-ray and gamma emissions and I
believe the spctra can give some indication of the
surface composition. Anyway, there is no reason why
we shouldn't see the surface, the free-fall speed
would be about half the speed of light so there
would be _significant_ gravitational redshift.

So what is the actual doppler shift of the EM that makes up the actual pulses
of a neutron star? It should be very heavily redshifted ..

AFAIK it is a continuum with no lines to be measured. Remember
we are talking about radio signals in the VHF to microwave bands.

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.


Yes...but I hadn't forgotten. I'm trying to find velocity curves for so called
eclipsing binaries because they should reveal a great deal about this whole
approach.
I'm still not convinced that the 'compressible pulse width' method we're using
for pulsars applies to light from stars.

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.

George

On 3 Apr 2007 21:57:53 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Apr 3, 10:09 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 3 Apr 2007 17:19:13 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

BaTh fails yet again!!!!!

Where did I disagree with any of the above....?

So you admit it! BaTh fails EVERY test!

Silly lttle girl..!


Jerry


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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Wed, 4 Apr 2007 00:28:34 +0100, "OG" wrote:

On the contrary - you need to explain yourself

So 3 questions
What is BaTh ?
What is extinction and how precisely does it prevent fast light from
catching up slow light?
What is your explanation for the variable light curve of cepheids

I'm away from fast internet for the next few days so you can take your
time
over these answers.

Why should I bother to answer at all?

No reason - if you don't want to support your claims, I can't force you to.
You are in the position of wanting to promote your hypothesis, if you don't
want to support it . . .