Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:22:20 -0000, "George Dishman"

wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
....
For the purposes of predicting brightness curves, I only have to
consider edge
on orbits. My 'yaw angle' is that for an edge on orbit. It is not the
conventional definition....but it works and it makes the programming
much
easier.

For elliptical orbits in general you have to consider
the angle between the major axis and the line of sight
which I guess is your yaw, but for J1909-3744 we can
ignore it.

If the orbit is near circular we can.

Eccentricity is 3*10^-7 so negligible.

Yes, what your program really tells you is v*sin(i)
(using the standard convention for inclination)
rather than v itself.

It doesn't tell me anything about v.

I FEED IN the measured value of maximum observed velocity (If I can get
it).

I don't think you quite understand the principle involved George.

Trial and error Henry, you feed what you think is the
true value of v*sin(i) and see whether the curves match
the observations. If not you alter the value until you
get a match and then you have found the value of v*sin(i).
At that point the predicted velocity curve should match
the published curve and you have found the true velocity
which takes into account the effect of ballistic theory
on the Doppler. Isn't that how you use it?

Not exactly.
Unless I have access to a reliable figure for the maximum radial velocity
I
cannot really come to a firm conclusion about distance or unification
rate.

But you cannot ever get that because the variable
speed messes up the Doppler equation. As with any
modelling technique, you put in your initial guess
of the actual parameters, the program caclulates
the observed signals and then you iterate until
the predicted observables match that actuals.

I really need three quantities, Vmax, distance and magnitude change. I can
determine yaw angle and orbit eccentricity when matching the basic SHAPE
of a
brightness curve ....if I have such a curve.

All that can ever be observed are the spectral shift
and brightness for normal stars or the PRF for pulsars.
none of your results are valid unless you are working
back from those.

Anyway, put the numbers into your program and tell
me what you get and then we can discuss their
interpretation. Check the results for zero distance
first and make sure you get the right speed and
phase.

Naturally for zero distance I get no brightness variation. The observed
velocity is in phase with the true velocity.

You should still get a very small variation due to
the conventional bunching you reminded me of at the
top.

Not if the observer is at the orbit centre.

George, I think you are refering to the pulses emitted by the pulsar
itself.
These will be observed to have a cyclic doppler shift.

The 'bunching of pulses' I refer to is not the same.

I will explain for the case of an orbiting star.

The program assumes the star emits identical pulses of light towards the
observer at regular intervals as it moves around its orbit...I can use
20000,
33000 or 60000 points per orbit. 30000 is usually enough to produce a
smooth
curve.

The pulses are assumed to move at (c+v)cos(a) towards a distant observer,
where
a is the angle between the orbit tangent and the LOS.

Rats! I assumed you would ignore the cos(a) term because
the orbit radius is much smaller than the distance to
the system so cos(a) ~ 1. Setting the distance to zero is
then equivalent to finding the rate that the pulses hit
a flat plane perpendicular to the line of sight say just
beyond the orbital radius and before any bunching can take
place, or having the right orbital speed but zero radius.

The program then
calculates the arrival times of all the pulses emitted over a number of
orbits
at the observer distance.
At any instant the pulse positions form a regular spatial pattern. As this
pattern moves past the observer, it gives the impression of brightness
variation. (dn/dt = dn/dx.dx/dt)

Thus, a bunching of pulses shows up as a brightness increase.

That's what I expected. At the distance where the
pulses first overlap (the fast ones catch the slow
ones) you get zero time between pulse arrivals hence
the inverse is an infinite number per second or
infinite brightness. It isn't really infinite as
there are only a finite number of pulses in the
stream but the calculation will go to very high
levels.

Brightness variations are converted to the conventional log output before
being
displayed on the screen.

Then increase the distance to 3 light years
but keep everything else the same and tell me how
the amplitude and phase change. Those two checks
should just confirm your software is working, after
that we can try the more interesting questions of
mass etc. and see if we can put some limits on the
extinction distance.

My software works.

We'll see.

It has been checked thoroughly. Many of the values have been watched
through
the program to see if they are correct.

It predicts brightness curves. Orbit inclination does not affect curve
shape.

I can predict the brightness curve of the dwarf companion. Where can I
find the
observed one?

There is no observed brightness variation reported
but that can probably only be taken to say any
variation is less than 1 mag, the existing single
measurements are no more accurate than that.

Most variations are around 1.5 mag or less.
...and yes, I don't have much faith in the accuracies of many published
figures.

It's not a question of faith, numbers are accurate
but in this case there have only been two measurements
made AFAICS by different groups at different times.
It doesn't really matter, your brightness increase
would just be the number of pulses per second because
each pulse essentially carries the same energy other
than a random variation from pulse to pulse due to
the nature of the source.

I'm not sure what it is you are asking me to do.

OK, let's do it in small steps so that I can
give you clear questions.

Common to all: set the eccentricity to zero, yaw
becomes irrelevant. Set the orbital period to
1.5334494503 days.

Step 1. Set the distance to zero (your sim should
reproduce the conventional theory) and set the
actual velocity to 27983 m/s.

Check that the observed velocity curve you get
matches that and that the maximum velocity is
90 degrees after conjunction.

That wont work.
'Zero distance' means 'at the orbit centre'. Radial velocity is zero...so
is
brightness variation.

....So I'm not with you at all, here.

Understandable, I made an assumption about your
software that wasn't correct. The orbital radius
is 1.9 light seconds so if you set the distance
to one light hour, there should be minimal
bunching as the critical distance (below) is
8 light years and cos(a) = 0.999999861. You
should get the conventional curves to 1 part
in 10^7.

Step 2. Increase the distance until you just get
the velocity curves going to infinity and tell me
what distance you get.

I assume you mean the 'brightness curves'.

Effectively yes. I should have said the speed goes
to c, not to infinity.

Consider the pulsar at four points in the orbit
round the barycentre '+':

D

A + C Earth

B

The diagram assumes the motion is anti-clockwise.

The highest acceleration towards Earth occurs at
point A. Look closer at two consecutive pulses
assuming they occur equally either side of A:

v - * ~ -- slow, c-v
A-(
* - v ~ -- fast, c+v

At the critical distance, the fast pulse just
catches the slow pulse after 8 light years so
they arrive simultaneously for an observer at
that distance.

Compare that with the conventional view. It says
the maximum Doppler would be at point B. For the
pulses to arrive simultanseously, the pulsar would
have to be moving at c to keep up with the first
pulse and emit the second alongside.

I am guessing that the critical distance should be
around 4 light years but let's see what your program
says before we get on to the more interesting stuff.

Period = 0.0042 years
Velocity = 0.0000933c

Critical distance = ~ 8 LYs.

See: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744.jpg

Note that the observed velocity curve (red) is very different from the
real
curve (blue) at that distance.

I asked and you answered:

2) Have you corrected your program to show the velocity curve
that would be derived from the ballistic Doppler shift?[*]

Yes.

At the point where the brightness goes to infinity,
the time between pulses goes to zero and the velocity
curve (red I think) should peak at c. That should be
coincident with point A which should be where your
blue line crosses the white axis and is rising.

(I'm having some trouble producing the right colours with Vbasic on
windowsXP).

The colours are distinguishable on the jpeg so I that's
fine. The real concern is with the phase shift between
the blue and others. I'll have to give a little more
thought to the effect of propagation speed on arrival
time but have a think about what I'm saying and see if
you think your program is producing what I expect.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 16 Feb 2007 00:56:32 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
On 15 Feb, 22:55, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 15 Feb 2007 00:41:00 -0800, "George Dishman"
wrote:
....
More likely he will say the speeds unify so fast
there is no time for the bunching to cause
significant brightness variation. Again that comes
down to the value he chooses for extinction distance
as a function of density.

It's complicated George. For one thing, the effect appears to depend on
orbit
period. ...which stands to reason because obviously the light emitted by
a star
traveling towards us right now cannot unify with light that WILL BE
emitted in
say 8 months time when the star is moving away.

Of course it should, the ISM hasn't changed in
that time. The distance should be independent
of the orbital parameters but probably dependent
on the type of star which will influence the
density of the stellar wind.

'Unification' is not like conventional 'extinction' even though I often
call it
'extinction' for convenience.

Whatever name you use, as you said in another post, it
is regulated by the 'quality [of] space' that the light
is passing through. I talk of the ISM as shorthand but
more likely it is the local stellar wind that controls
it.

On the other hand, the extinction rate for short period contact binaries
is
very high. The required unification distance can be less than 1 LY.

Let's see what you get for J1909-3744.

If I know the details of the dwarf I might be able to tell you something.

Magnitude around 21, variability hasn't been measured,
temperature 8500K, mass 0.2 Msun.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:18:29 +0100, YBM wrote:

Henri Wilson a écrit :
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 23:43:23 +0100, YBM wrote:

Henri Wilson a écrit :
The method I use is to reduce the difference between actual speed and
c by a
fixed factor per unit distance.
speed relatively to what ? Ether ?

If you didn't snip MORON, you would see that I plainly stated the
reference for
speed....the binary barycentre..

I'm not talking about emission speed in your so-called 'model'... but
final
speed.

The final speed is c wrt the barycentre. It is c+u wrt Earth where u is
the
speed of the barycentre wrt earth.
Actually it wont be exactly that for other reasons.

It needs to be c/n to explain frequency-dependent
pulse dispersion, and I would presume you would
then say c/n relative to the medium which produces
that refractive index, i.e. the ISM.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 20:00:07 +0000 (UTC), bz
....
So all double stars (with the right orbital plane) at great distances
should show large brightness variations.

Without unification they would, yes...but they don't...

Exactly.

Actually if the observer lies well beyoind the critical distance, no
brightness
variation is to be expected, even without unification.

I just noticed this in passing, that is not correct
Henry. Brightness variation still occurs but it
grows more slow as the speed difference decays. The
sum under an (inverse) exponential is finite, so
the distance in your program is actually the
integrated effect.

For the pulsar you are modelling for example, if
the area under the speed difference curve adds up
to the same as the initial difference time 8 light
years then the brightness curve will be as you
show here

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744.jpg

even though we are 4000 light years away. In fact
that curve will apply for any Hipparcos distance
more than about 100 light years. In other words,
as long as the observer distance is much greater
than the extinction distance, the D in your program
is actually the latter.

HTH
George

On Feb 17, 5:10 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 16 Feb 2007 13:38:35 -0800, "PD" wrote:



On Feb 16, 2:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 12:24:16 +0100, "Paul B. Andersen"

Henri Wilson wrote:
On Sat, 10 Feb 2007 09:11:59 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:
False! Remember that c + any velocity equals c in relativity.
No theat's not relativity. That's a WIlsonian example of circular logic:

Let w always = c, by postulate.

Therefore
w = c(c+v)/(c+v)
= (c+v)/(1+v/c)
= (c+v)/(1+vc/c^2)
The speed-transformation equation u + w = (u + w)/(1 + uw/c^2)
is a consequence of the postulates of SR.
Would you please explain what's circular about that?

In the case of light, the postulate say its speed wrt an observer is always c
even if the source is moving at v.

The addition equation say if an object moves at u wrt a frame that is moving at
v wrt another frame then the object moves at w = (u + v)/(1 + uv/c^2) wrt the
second frame.

In the case of light, the postulate claims w = c ALWAYS.
So replace u with c and you get w = c = (v+c)/(1+vc/c^2)

I showed that this can be achieved by merely using a trivial circular maths
trick.

How pathetic....

Your stupidities have finally ceased to amaze me.
They are as can be expected from an imbecile.

Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it implies
circularity is what's wrong.

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

I hope this clears things up for you, Henri. At least a little.

You can stay in cuckoo land as long as you like as far as I'm concerned.


As you can see, Henri, I'm not the only person who understands this
about science. Apparently, you don't believe science should work this
way. In that case, you should invent another pursuit and give it a
name. However, you shouldn't use "science" -- that one is taken.

PD

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it implies
circularity is what's wrong.

The rule for combining velocities is not, nor was it ever, used to
assert that the speed of light is constant regardless of reference
frame. The only claim that is made is that the frame independence of
the speed of light is *consistent with* the rule for combining
velocities. Moreover, the experimental evidence in support of the rule
for combining velocities has nothing to do with measuring the speed of
light, but in fact measuring the speed of other particles in different
reference frames -- and it is there that measurements are completely
consistent with the velocity combination rule.

The frame-independence of the speed of light is taken as an unproven
*postulate* in special relativity. It is not necessary in science to
experimentally prove a postulate. One determines the implications of a
postulate (and just as you derived it, the velocity addition rule is
an example of an implication of this postulate) and then tests those
implications against experiment. If the implications match experiment,
and if the postulate is able to generate more successful implications
that match up to experiment than competing postulates, then this is
taken in science to be sufficient grounds for belief in the truth of
that postulate.

In this particular case, the postulate is the frame-independence of
the speed of light. One implication (of numerous implications) is the
rule for combining velocities. The rule for combining velocities has
been tested experimentally in a wide variety of circumstances (without
needing a direct test of the frame-independence of the speed of
light). And because this, and so many other implications, match
experiment so well, we take stock in the truth of the frame-
independence of the speed of light.

....

Well said.

Well, thanks, but Henri will ignore it, since it doesn't feed his
fantasy.

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical circularity.
Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?


Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

PD

Henri Wilson wrote:
The only explanation I can suggest is that all large mass centres are
surrounded by some kind of weak EM reference frame....and these extend well
away from the objects themselves.

:-)

Paul

On 17 Feb 2007 21:55:33 -0800, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


Henri Wilson wrote:

Anyway, put the numbers into your program and tell
me what you get and then we can discuss their
interpretation. Check the results for zero distance
first and make sure you get the right speed and phase.

Naturally for zero distance I get no brightness variation.
The observed velocity is in phase with the true velocity.

You should still get a very small variation due to the
conventional bunching you reminded me of at the top.

Not if the observer is at the orbit centre.

He isn't saying to put the observer at the orbit centre, he
is saying to locate the observer just in front of the light
source so that your program output shows the effect of the
initial bunching of the pulses due to the changing position
of the star, but not the bunching which occurs in transit.

At each iteration, the observer is at zero distance from
the source, but is treated as being motionless, as usual.
It is as if there were 30,000 observers round the orbit,
each motionless relative to the orbit centre, but placed
immediately in front of the source.

If your program is unable to do that, you should be able to
put the observer at the near side of the orbit. Apparently
you have simplified the program to treat an orbiting star
as a reciprocating point, oscillating back and forth in the
line of sight. Just place the observer at the near end of
the stroke.

I can't see the point.
There wil be no opportunity for bunching and no brighness variation.
All I will see is conventional doppler frequency variation using constant c.

George, I think you are refering to the pulses emitted by
the pulsar itself. These will be observed to have a cyclic
doppler shift.

The 'bunching of pulses' I refer to is not the same.

Are you saying that light pulses emitted by pulsars bunch
in a manner different from that of light pulses emitted by
other types of star?

Well basically no.... but it is the way they are handled that matters. Pulsar
pulses don't become any more intense just because they 'bunch'. Nobody talks
about the brightness curve of a pulsar because the pulses are very constant.

I use symbolic pulses from a star of constant brightness emitted at
equi-temporal points around the orbit. These travel at varying c+cos(v) speeds
towards a distant obsever. The rate at which they arrive at the observer should
then simulate its brightness curve there.

There is no observed brightness variation reported
but that can probably only be taken to say any
variation is less than 1 mag, the existing single
measurements are no more accurate than that.

Most variations are around 1.5 mag or less.
...and yes, I don't have much faith in the accuracies of
many published figures.

Aside from dwarf novae, the only regularly-variable dwarf
stars I know of are ZZ Ceti variables. Wikipedia says:
"These non-radially pulsating stars have very short periods
of 0.5 to no more than 25 minutes with tiny fluctuations of
0.001 to 0.2 magnitudes."

there are millions of stars varying by 0.3 to 1.6 mags.
Cepheids (as they are broadly named) are the most interesting.

Leonard

"PD" wrote in
oups.com:

On Feb 17, 5:12 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 17 Feb 2007 08:54:45 -0800, "PD" wrote:

...
Tell me what is wrong with my derivation...

Nothing is wrong with your derivation. Your conclusion that it
implies circularity is what's wrong.

.....

I showed how to derive the formula with trivial mathematical
circularity. Does that make me as great as Einstein ...or greater...?


Well, Henri, as I explained to you in great detail, there is nothing
circular about it. You started with the presumption that c is
constant, independent of the reference frame, and used that derive the
correct rule for the addition of velocities. That is precisely the
right way to do it. Circularity would entail concluding what you
started with, and that is not what you're doing. If you will read my
response quoted above once more, you will perhaps understand that a
little better.

Henri, another way of saying it is this:
If one is speaking of how SR says things 'should be', then one must (at
least for the sake of the discussion in progress) accept the postulates of
SR and the derived conclusions.

If one is doing so, then the BaTh statement c'=c+v would be expressed (in
SR) as c' = composition(c,v) and the results will always be c.

Nothing terribly unexpected about this. But it does invalidate attempts to
say that SR requires photons leaving a moving source to know the velocity
of the target so that they arrive there at c.

The other important point PD made might be reworded as "if we were to
compute the 'relative velocity' using any other rule than the composition
rule, the results would not agree with expermental data".

For example, two particles approach each other at v1 and v2,
if v_effective=v1+v2 were correct, rather than
v_effective=composition(v1,v2)
then dozens of years of expermental data from particle accelerators around
the world would have given much different results from those that have been
seen.

The composition formula gives the correct results for all experiments
anyone has been able to run(as far as I know).

While this does NOT prove SR is correct, it clearly proves that we can NOT
use v_effective = v1+v2 under any circumstances where either v1 or v2 are a
significant fraction of c and get the correct (as verified by experiment)
predictions.



--
bz

please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.

remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap

On Sun, 18 Feb 2007 10:59:26 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 17 Feb 2007 14:22:20 -0000, "George Dishman"



Trial and error Henry, you feed what you think is the
true value of v*sin(i) and see whether the curves match
the observations. If not you alter the value until you
get a match and then you have found the value of v*sin(i).
At that point the predicted velocity curve should match
the published curve and you have found the true velocity
which takes into account the effect of ballistic theory
on the Doppler. Isn't that how you use it?

Not exactly.
Unless I have access to a reliable figure for the maximum radial velocity
I
cannot really come to a firm conclusion about distance or unification
rate.

But you cannot ever get that because the variable
speed messes up the Doppler equation. As with any
modelling technique, you put in your initial guess
of the actual parameters, the program caclulates
the observed signals and then you iterate until
the predicted observables match that actuals.

Ah, but I only need a value for the MAXIMUM orbital speed. The BaTh and SR
doppler equations are effectively the same.
I feed in the max value and then try to match the brightness curve. In doing so
I obtain velocity curves at both the source and the observer.

George, the latest upgrade of my program is now on my website if you would like
to use it. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/variables.exe
I have removed most of the bugs although it doesn't have comprehensive
instructions as yet. Extinction doesn't work for circular orbits.

I really need three quantities, Vmax, distance and magnitude change. I can
determine yaw angle and orbit eccentricity when matching the basic SHAPE
of a
brightness curve ....if I have such a curve.

All that can ever be observed are the spectral shift
and brightness for normal stars or the PRF for pulsars.
none of your results are valid unless you are working
back from those.

Like I said, all I need is period, distance and a value for the maximum radial
velocity.
For elliptical orbits, this has to be corrected for yaw angle, which I can
determine from curve shape.



Not if the observer is at the orbit centre.

George, I think you are refering to the pulses emitted by the pulsar
itself.
These will be observed to have a cyclic doppler shift.

The 'bunching of pulses' I refer to is not the same.

I will explain for the case of an orbiting star.

The program assumes the star emits identical pulses of light towards the
observer at regular intervals as it moves around its orbit...I can use
20000,
33000 or 60000 points per orbit. 30000 is usually enough to produce a
smooth
curve.

The pulses are assumed to move at (c+v)cos(a) towards a distant observer,
where
a is the angle between the orbit tangent and the LOS.

Rats! I assumed you would ignore the cos(a) term because
the orbit radius is much smaller than the distance to
the system so cos(a) ~ 1.


Sorry that should have been c + v.cos(a) where v is the tangential speed at any
point and a a function of time.
This merely describes the radial velocities towards the observer from all
points around the orbit.

Setting the distance to zero is
then equivalent to finding the rate that the pulses hit
a flat plane perpendicular to the line of sight say just
beyond the orbital radius and before any bunching can take
place, or having the right orbital speed but zero radius.

The program then
calculates the arrival times of all the pulses emitted over a number of
orbits
at the observer distance.
At any instant the pulse positions form a regular spatial pattern. As this
pattern moves past the observer, it gives the impression of brightness
variation. (dn/dt = dn/dx.dx/dt)

Thus, a bunching of pulses shows up as a brightness increase.

That's what I expected. At the distance where the
pulses first overlap (the fast ones catch the slow
ones) you get zero time between pulse arrivals hence
the inverse is an infinite number per second or
infinite brightness. It isn't really infinite as
there are only a finite number of pulses in the
stream but the calculation will go to very high
levels.

That's right. It does....but I have realised that this never happens, probably
becasue of extinction. This is why DeSitter was wrong...and his argument has
always been the only 'evidence' against the BaTh.


It predicts brightness curves. Orbit inclination does not affect curve
shape.

I can predict the brightness curve of the dwarf companion. Where can I
find the
observed one?

There is no observed brightness variation reported
but that can probably only be taken to say any
variation is less than 1 mag, the existing single
measurements are no more accurate than that.

Most variations are around 1.5 mag or less.
...and yes, I don't have much faith in the accuracies of many published
figures.

It's not a question of faith, numbers are accurate
but in this case there have only been two measurements
made AFAICS by different groups at different times.
It doesn't really matter, your brightness increase
would just be the number of pulses per second because
each pulse essentially carries the same energy other
than a random variation from pulse to pulse due to
the nature of the source.

If I produce a 'brightness curve' for the pulsar, its height will reflect the
number of pulses arriving per unit time...not its 'brightness'. Pulsars are
constant.


I'm not sure what it is you are asking me to do.

OK, let's do it in small steps so that I can
give you clear questions.

Common to all: set the eccentricity to zero, yaw
becomes irrelevant. Set the orbital period to
1.5334494503 days.

Step 1. Set the distance to zero (your sim should
reproduce the conventional theory) and set the
actual velocity to 27983 m/s.

Check that the observed velocity curve you get
matches that and that the maximum velocity is
90 degrees after conjunction.

That wont work.
'Zero distance' means 'at the orbit centre'. Radial velocity is zero...so
is
brightness variation.

....So I'm not with you at all, here.

Understandable, I made an assumption about your
software that wasn't correct. The orbital radius
is 1.9 light seconds so if you set the distance
to one light hour, there should be minimal
bunching as the critical distance (below) is
8 light years and cos(a) = 0.999999861. You
should get the conventional curves to 1 part
in 10^7.

What curve are you talking about George?
Not the pulsar curve I hope. I don't claim that is a result of the BaTh at all.
It's a spinning neutron star.

Step 2. Increase the distance until you just get
the velocity curves going to infinity and tell me
what distance you get.

I assume you mean the 'brightness curves'.

Effectively yes. I should have said the speed goes
to c, not to infinity.

Consider the pulsar at four points in the orbit
round the barycentre '+':

D

A + C Earth

B

The diagram assumes the motion is anti-clockwise.

The highest acceleration towards Earth occurs at
point A. Look closer at two consecutive pulses
assuming they occur equally either side of A:

v - * ~ -- slow, c-v
A-(
* - v ~ -- fast, c+v

At the critical distance, the fast pulse just
catches the slow pulse after 8 light years so
they arrive simultaneously for an observer at
that distance.

Compare that with the conventional view. It says
the maximum Doppler would be at point B. For the
pulses to arrive simultanseously, the pulsar would
have to be moving at c to keep up with the first
pulse and emit the second alongside.

I am guessing that the critical distance should be
around 4 light years but let's see what your program
says before we get on to the more interesting stuff.

Period = 0.0042 years
Velocity = 0.0000933c

Critical distance = ~ 8 LYs.

See: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/J1909-3744.jpg

Note that the observed velocity curve (red) is very different from the
real
curve (blue) at that distance.

I asked and you answered:

2) Have you corrected your program to show the velocity curve
that would be derived from the ballistic Doppler shift?[*]

Yes.

At the point where the brightness goes to infinity,
the time between pulses goes to zero and the velocity
curve (red I think) should peak at c.

That is correct.

That should be
coincident with point A which should be where your
blue line crosses the white axis and is rising.

No it's more subtle than that. the point varies with distance. There is second
order term involving the 'rate of change of acceleration'. You have omitted it.

(I'm having some trouble producing the right colours with Vbasic on
windowsXP).

The colours are distinguishable on the jpeg so I that's
fine. The real concern is with the phase shift between
the blue and others. I'll have to give a little more
thought to the effect of propagation speed on arrival
time but have a think about what I'm saying and see if
you think your program is producing what I expect.

I have looked closely at this myself before.

The point of maximum brightness moves in phase wrt the source velocity curve as
distance in varied.

You might like to run the 'lightfronts' section of my program. It shows just
how the pulses move away from the source. Increase the time scale to about 20.

George