Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On 25 Mar 2007 11:48:44 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg" wrote:


George Dishman wrote:

He obviously wants to avoid PSR1613+16 altogether.

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B but I've learned from experience that
you waste a lot of time looking at multiple examples if
you haven't got the software right for the first one.

Henri,

FYI, when George says 'you waste a lot of time looking at
multiple examples if you haven't got the software right'
he is referring to people in general, not just you.
I have made the same mistake more than once, even after
learning the lesson. It is important and necessary to run
several different examples to help determine whether the
software is working correctly, but until you know that it
is working correctly, it is pointless to use it for data
analysis.

It is working perfectly well. It produces the same curve using four different
methods. Androcles has a similar program that produces the same curves.

George has a strange idea that I am not incorporating the classical VDoppler
effect that occurs immediately, as distinct from the ADoppler that build up
over distance and far outweighs the former.
George doesn't understand that, in the BaTh, VDoppler does not occur at the
source. Its effect is operative at the observer end and it is negligible at all
practical star distances. George doesn't understand that my method precisely
follows the movement of pulses across space and includes both factors.
George believes my theory requires a high degree of extinction in order that my
distance settings will match the observed ones. .....That WAS the case...but in
light of the fact that I now know the published velocity curves of ALL pulsars
and variable objects are likely to be very very exaggerated, the need for
extreme light speed unification is negated.

The program now includes what George wanted to see and reveals nothing new.

Another example of George referring to people in general
when he says 'you' is:

If your theory doesn't match, you discard the theory, not
the observations.

That clearly does not describe you.

.....but my theory DOES match...

The only thing Einstein's SR matches is LET.

Leonard


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:08 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
...and by the way, have you noticed that George tries to ignore the fact
that I
have provided a perfect match for the velocity curve of PSR1613+16?

He obviously wants to avoid PSR1613+16 altogether.

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B but I've learned from experience that
you waste a lot of time looking at multiple examples if
you haven't got the software right for the first one.

The original software is correct to 1 part in c/v...except maybe for a few
orbit diameters from the source.

The _original_ software was wrong by four orders of
magnitude, but that's going back a bit and I think
you fixed that. More recently you said you didn't
get a phase shift at near zero distance when I
asked what distance gave 45 degrees. Hopefully you
have now fixed that.

The pulse separation method is completely accurate for circular obits,
(for
one star only)
You George, have never produced even ONE brightness curve...nor are you
capable
of doing so.

I did last year, or have you forgotten.

When you can plot linear velocities (blue and red) with
scales in m/s and brightness curves in magnitude as well
as relate them to the orbital phase using the Shapiro
effect and use those to determine the orbital parameters
and the speed equalisation distance, then we will look at
all three. My guess is that you will find more excuses
for not doing the work because you are scared of what you
will find.

You are asking me to match data, wrongly interpreted with Einsteiniana, ..

No, I'm challenging you to match the data recorded at
the observatory using ballistic theory only, but that
includes matching the orbital phase.

using a
theory that ridicules Einsteiniana. That's a bit pointless isn't it?

That's only a guess, I don't know what they will show
myself, but you won't take the risk whereas I will. Sort
your program, then we can put it to use.

My program is sorted George...
It isn't available yet though.

OK, I'll wait.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 25 Mar 2007 11:48:44 -0700, "Leonard Kellogg"
wrote:


George Dishman wrote:

He obviously wants to avoid PSR1613+16 altogether.

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B but I've learned from experience that
you waste a lot of time looking at multiple examples if
you haven't got the software right for the first one.

Henri,

FYI, when George says 'you waste a lot of time looking at
multiple examples if you haven't got the software right'
he is referring to people in general, not just you.
I have made the same mistake more than once, even after
learning the lesson. It is important and necessary to run
several different examples to help determine whether the
software is working correctly, but until you know that it
is working correctly, it is pointless to use it for data
analysis.

It is working perfectly well. It produces the same curve using four
different
methods. Androcles has a similar program that produces the same curves.

George has a strange idea that I am not incorporating the classical
VDoppler
effect that occurs immediately, as distinct from the ADoppler that build
up
over distance and far outweighs the former.

Henry is forgetting that _he_ told me he got no
VDoppler when he set the distance to zero where
there is no ADoppler whatsoever.

George doesn't understand that, in the BaTh, VDoppler does not occur at
the
source.

It looks as though Henry doesn't realise that
VDoppler doen't occur at the source in the source
frame but _does_ occur at the source in the
barycentre frame.

Its effect is operative at the observer end and it is negligible at all
practical star distances. George doesn't understand that my method
precisely
follows the movement of pulses across space and includes both factors.
George believes

George believed Henry when Henry said he got _no_
VDoppler.

George believes my theory requires a high degree of extinction in order
that my
distance settings will match the observed ones.

George believes ballistic theory requires a high
degree of (speed) extinction in order to avoid
multiple images.

.....That WAS the case...but in
light of the fact that I now know the published velocity curves of ALL
pulsars
and variable objects are likely to be very very exaggerated, the need for
extreme light speed unification is negated.

The program now includes what George wanted to see and reveals nothing
new.

We shall see.

Another example of George referring to people in general
when he says 'you' is:

If your theory doesn't match, you discard the theory, not
the observations.

That clearly does not describe you.

....but my theory DOES match...

Let's see the curves then. Be sure to include Y scales
and the phase indication.

George

On 25 Mar 2007 05:25:34 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 23 Mar 2007 01:15:37 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

George, if anything your sagnac analysis suggests a local aether-like
frame
exists.

Explain it any way you like Henry, it proves
your claim that light moves at c relative to
the source is wrong.

What happens in a local EM FoR is not what happens in 'empty space'.

What happens locally is that the light is emitted at
the same speed whether the source is moving or not
which proved ballistic theory to be wrong.

Typicaly relativist statement...
....speed wrt what, George?

The only reference light has is its source.
I moves at c wrt that.

besides, I showed you why your sagnac analysis is wrong.

See below.

I don't believe the 'dwarf' exists.

Fair enough. Here is its spectrum

http://www.georgedishman.f2s.com/Hen...f_spectrum.png

All speculative.

Nope, a simple measurement. It exists.

It looks like what would be emitted if a very strong magnetic
beam hit a big volume of hydrogen mixed with a few other atoms.

Utter rubbish.

Why?

Wel Jerry has pointed out the spectral problems

Jerry is a first year trainee nurse...What would she know?

so I'll
mention the dynamic one, you are trying to suggest the
neutron star isn't moving much so the companion must
orbit round it instead, but you cannot have a large
nebula of hydrgen gas in a 1.5 day orbit around a
neutron star, the star would be embedded _in_ the nebula.

You speak as though you think you know everything there is to know about the
universe George....not a good attitude I'm afraid.

I wouldn't believe a word of it George.

Of course not Henry, you can't handle reality.

I doubt if there is any dwarf.

Except that we can see it with a telescope and it
has a spectrum just like lots of other white dwarfs.

...what, an ordinary black body spectrum?
That could be anything.

No Henry, you really need to learn a little astronomy.
It is actually very hard to produce a black body and
the temperature and luminosity together tell you the
surface area, it cannot be large area like a nebula,
it has to be a small star.

Well I reckon it is a lot of rubbish formed into a thin disk around the star.
The latter rotates so that its beam cuts the disk twice every rotation and
emits a sharp pulse of broad EM. The thinner the disk, the sharper the
pulse...as with J1909-3744.

There could easily be a white dwarf circling around too.


Light initially moves at c wrt its source.

Not in the Sagnac experiment as we proved with
that diagram and my algebra that went with it.

No used tried to use a rotating frame and ended up in a mess.

No Henry, this is the fifth time I have reminded you
that the diagram _you_ drew was in the lab frame. You
are still in denial.

no george, It showed that two beams which left together 90 apart did not
reunite at the same point OR phase.

There has never been any direct proof of Einstein's stupid theory.

Yep, Sagnac proves it directly, it measures the
one-way speed from a moving source and the answer
is the same as for a static source.

I showed you how two beams that start out 90 apart end up displaced
sideways.

And I pointed out that since wavefronts are perpendicular
to the direction of propagation, that creates no phase
shift.

How do you know? Sideways displacement suggests a length difference.
Anyway, YOUR only explanation is the aether one.

...and I exlained to you that you weren't including the 'centrifugal
effect'.

That was in reference to the fibre-optic gyros, not
Sagnac's experiment at all, and I pointed out that
the necessary equation meant the light would be
slowed to walking pace by the time it got round the
fibre hence a failed concept to start with. Besides
the whole basis of "speed equalisation" the ballistic
supporters cam up with was that light at c-v speeded
up, it didn't slow down more.

I also pointed out that rotation of the 'photon axis' was probably the main
factor involved in sagnac, not just path length difference.

You're too narrow in your views George.

Simple differentiation Henry, as you said yourself.
I note you can't actually point out any error in
what I wrote, just the usual ad hominem that you
resort to in such cases. It's a shame because we
have managed to hold a polite, friuendly and, I
think, constructive conversation up to now.

But George, Shapiro delay should not have a sharp peak.

Do the sums Henry, the sharpness of the peak depends
on how close the line of sight passes to the other
body, and in both J1909-3744 and J0737-3039A the
observed curve exactly matches for one inclination.

I would say that applies to gravitational lensing not Shapiro effect.


This is impossible.

It's the best I can do in ASCII, the general shape
is right but obviously it should be rounded.

That's right.. it should be rounded.

Shapiro effect would not cause a sharp peak.

Yes it does, if the Shapiro effect was a rounder
peak there would be a difference between that and
the sharp measured peak and when you subtract the
two you should get an odd-shaped remainder. That
difference is the lower curve and as you can see
there is no shape there, just noise. The calculated
Shapiro shape exactly matches the measured shape.

Well I reckon the effect is probably casued by some kind of lensing.

Yes, as both Jerry and I already said in other posts
the same mechanism produces both the Shapiro delay
and lensing, and of course a lens has most effect when
it is in the line of sight.

No matter what you say, it still gives you an orbital
phase reference.

It might provide some information...but you should be careful how that is
interpreted. The BaTh can easily produce a sharp blip like the one shown.

You should try to understand that technique of
producing a "residual" curve because if you want to
claim ballistic theory matches Cepheid curves you
need to produce residuals for both the velocity and
brightness curves to prove it.

Well basicaly, the velocity and brightness curves should be
similar...except
for the fact that the brightness curve will include contributions from
other
members of the group and the velocity may experience some considerable
extinction near the source.

You miss the point, no matter what parameter you are
plotting you judge whether two curves match by
comparing the residuals. I'm saying you need to add
that curve to your software before you can justify
the claim.

I can already add any curve to my program for comparison. I do that all the
time. It compes up in a separate window where I can adjust hte with and height
of my generated curve.
If you ran the program you would see how.

It sounds more like a bull**** effect to me.

It sounds to me as though you don't understand the
concept of a residual.

I guess you mean subtracting one curve from another. That's not hard.

Exactly. You need to read in a file of the observed
values and plot the difference, not hard at all but
the only justification others will accept for your
claim to have found a match.

George, Where have you been? I have presented many such comparisons. See for
instance: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/group1.jpg.

The coloured curves are mine. The dots are published curves.

The main problem involves finding accurate published curves.

Fine, but a circular orbit stays circular so how do you
model the change of periastron over the two decades it
has been tracked?

Where's the evidence of that?

In 30 years worth of measurements.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0407/0407149.pdf

Figure 1.

They call it the 'observed change in epoch of periastron'.

Yep.

That can be probably be explained by the pulsar's proper motion in which
case a
small eccentricity would show up. The pulsar will also be in a large orbit
of
some kind and this will cause a varying period.

ROFL, what a remarkable coincidence that it is
exactly following the curve predicted 20 years ago
given by an equation written neartly a century ago.

If the faith is sufficiently strong, evidence for it can be seen everywhere....

You would have to add straight line proper motion to
your model and then plot a graph of apparent change
of periastron to justify that claim and that is going
to be much harder.

George, you are asking me to explain phenomena that has been 'deduced' using
entirely wrong data.
.....get it into your head, nothing that has been written about pulsars or any
other heavenly object can be believed...the interpretation of everything
observed is now under question.

No, you just said ballistic theory could explain it and
before that you said it couldn't be measured, both of
which are untrue. The known Shapiro effect _does_ exactly
fit however.

If anything, it looks to me more like gravitational lensing.

Well that's actually right, gravitational lensing
happens because the wavefront nearest the star
travels slower and the direction of propagation is
perpendicular to the wavefront. The fact remains
that gravitational lensing happens when one body
is one the line of sight to another so it still
tells you the phase which is all we need.

but the orbit is supposed to be a circular... why does it matter?

Because knowing the time when the bodies are aligned
lets you distinguish ADoppler from VDoppler in your
theory and that then lets you work out the extiction
distance. It moves _your_ model forward Henry.

George, the VDoppler YOU are trying to investigate is that which would occur if
all the pulses were emitted simultaneously from equidistant points around the
orbit. In that case, the ones emitted from the sides WOULD arrive at a faster
(or slower) rate than those emitted from the near and far points.
That is not the situation at all. There is a delay between consecutive pulse
emissions.... and the program measures the arrival rate and compares that with
the emission rate. As you can see, if you think about it, there should be no
difference between the emission and arrival rates of consecutive pulses emitted
from points on the sides...because there is no acceleration there.

What I said before and the figures I gave were wrong. I incorrectly added an
additional doppler term.

So back to your program, what parameters do you get
for the orbit and maximum extinction distance if you
match the velocity curve _including_ the phase?

I'm not ready to provide those figures yet.

Well that's what you should be working towards, you
cannot claim to have a match if you are not ready to
publish the results.

The phase difference remains at 90, always. There is NO VDoppler effect.

but for a pulsar the velocity phase
should generally be the same as my 'brightness phase' if some eccentricity
exists.

They should have the same phase regradless of the
eccentricity.

Generally, when the brightness is maximum, the velocity should be about zero,
ready to increase. When the brightness has decreased to about half, the
velocity should be maximum positive (towards the observer)
..

So you would also expect radial speed to be high. Any evidence for that?
I
would expect they all appear heavily redshifted.

Arre any blue shifted, George?

How would you measure the shift Henry, there are no
spectral lines? If you want to know I suggest you
look up a survey and see if radial speeds are given,
I don't know off-hand.

.........the same shift should occur in the spectrum if your imaginary
dwarf.
You said H lines are detected. What do you know about their doppler shift?

We only have that single reading and the Doppler shift
would be affected by gravitational redshift and the
orbital motion at that time as well as the proper motion.
However, bear in mind that on average the transverse
motions will be high too and other techniques can measure
that. The high speeds of pulsars is well documented.

Yes I noticed that. Is there a plausible explanation?

George


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 00:31:31 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:45:26 -0000, "George Dishman"
wrote:


Actually there is considerable doubt about both its value and its
variation. At
4000 Lys, there could be quite a deal of 'time compression' if it is in a
large
orbit..

It's the period of the orbit that we are discussing.

Also, how can you be sure there is only one pulse emitted per rotation and
not
two or more?

Do you mean per rotation of the pulsar? I thought
you were talking about the _orbital_ period because
of what you said next:

and that its orbital velocity is supposed to vary by about 1
part in 11000 during each cycle.

We know the pulsar produces pulses regularly every
2.285ms and it doesn't matter whether that is one
or two or 27 per rotation, all that matters is that
we can measure that they are emitted with a regularity
almost as good as an atomic clock.

I was under the imp[ression that the observed pulse was slowly changing too.
Not to worry...

Not quite, you are jumping ahead and making the mistake
you accuse me of. What we know is the _TDoppler_ factor.
Orbital velocity has to be determined from that and
other information using your software.

The VDoppler contribution is negligible...forget it.

Nope, the simple indication from the phase is that
it is completely dominant. If you want to forget it
you have to show an alternative model, such as a
higher eccentricity, that explains the phase. I'm
not saying you can't, only that you cannot just wave
your hands and pretend the phase data doesn't exist.

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.

That is the figure I have to match for my
linear 'brightness' reading if ADoppler is responsible.

We generally don't have a brightness curve for pulsars
(though there is one for J0737-3039A) but if you have
incorporated the corrections in your program as you said
you did then you should match your linear scale red
velocity curve to the TDoppler.

Remember, my 'brightness curve' corresponds with what is assumed to be the
obserevd Vdoppler curve.

I thought you had fixed the velocity curve so the
red velocity cyurve gave the right values now? Are
you saying the program is _still_ not fixed?

The program is correct to 1 part in c/v at all practical distances.

The rate of arrival of pulses is assumed to be a result of pure VDoppler.
That
is the source of error.

You said you had corrected that too so that it
includes both A and V parts. It sounds as though
you have been lieing again.

There is NO VDoppler effect George. Start rethinking now.
The program measures pulse arrival separation INTERVAL and compares that with
pulse emission separation INTERVAL. They are the same where there is zero
acceleration.


I can only produce a figure for the product (distance x velocity). The
45
degree phase difference is independent of v so that is no help.

The product is of a combination of velocity and
acceleration multiplied by a composite distance which
depends on both the observer's actual distance and the
characteristic distance for speed equalisation.

We don't necessarily need this any more...not to the extent we previously
assumed anyway...

OK, tell me the orbital parameters that match both the
velocity curve and the phase.

I can only give you a product (velocity x distance)

We know
the latter is much smaller than our true distance so you
can treat the observer as being at infinity and the
distance is then that of the speed equalisation only
(the curves are asymptotic to those at infinity and
within 0.1% at 7 times the equalisation distance).

I understand you point.

There are two options.

There are at least three.

You are concentrating on one..

No, what I tried to do was walk you through each option
in turn, first low orbital velocity, then high inclination
and finally speed equalisation.

..that which incorporates a large degree of speed
unification. ..and VDoppler is dominant at small distances.
I am now leaning towards a much lower rate of unification and a very small
orbit diameter and speed.

OK, but the phase may be wrong unless you can compensate
in some other way and you will probably get a value for
the stellar masses that is not tenable. I think you'll
need the speed unification but working through the
alternatives is the best way to understand why so carry
on and I'll see if I can ask the awkward questions.

I'll let you absorb what I have said above before I continue this...


For J1909-3744 we know from the Shpiro delay (or the
side effect of gravitational lensing if you like) that
we see the orbit close to edge on and that the velocity
curve has a phase that corresponds to purely VDoppler
for a near circular orbit. You tell me what your program
parameters need to be to match that curve.

I don't agree that the effect to which you refer is an indication that
the
orbit is nearly edge on...

In that case you would need to give an alternative
explanation for the pulse delay and explain why that
effect is not seen in other tests.

George, I am questioning the very way pulses are created.

I don't really care about that, I want to know why they
are delayed after they have been created.

Are they delayed or advanced?

All we have is a
theory. It might be completely wrong.
How do YOU explain the existence of pulses.

The source emits a beam and spins like a lighthouse, you
know that already.

I don't know that any more. I dont think that explains what is observed.
Do you think the beam is a narrowly focussed 'pencil'... or is it a plane?

The shape exactly
matches the known effect seen many ways in the Solar
System as Leonard listed so your rejection of it is
neither credible nor understandable. I could
understand if you objected to the Shapiro effect in
general since it's the wrong way for ballistic theory
but I am not arguing that.


George, GR and the BaTh have the same equations as regards the slowing of
light
or the distortion of space to maintain its speed at c.

No they don't Henry, nothing like it.

George, the BaTh says light speed increases when light falls down a gravitty
wwell just like anyhting else does. GR effectively says the light seed remains
constant and SPACE contracts to make that so.
As the Pound- Rebka experiment showed, both approaches give the same answer.
.....just as the Ptolmeic theory worked to a point.

If there IS a Shapiro effect then both theries should agree.

They don't, we worked through ballistic theory some time
ago and you eventually agreed that it predicted an advance
instead of a delay. Don't you remember?

You left out a '-'. The effects should be the same.

although it really matters not. If it is, then the
orbit and the peripheral velocity are very small...no real problem
there.
It would probably indicate that your 'dwarf' was not a dwarf at all but
more
likely a pocket of H2 or a ring of gas.

No, a ring wouldn't produce a Doppler shift of the
neutron star and a neither would emit sufficient
flux it has to be a small star.

....the ring doesn't have to be 'balanced'. Of course there could still be
an
orbit.

Forget it Henry, we see a white dwarf where one is
expected and you couldn't get anything like the
right spectrum or intensity any other way.

We see a bright dot in the sky George. It could be anything.

For an edge-on low velocity model, you will get a mass
for the pulsar which is of the order of millions of
solar masses (caveat: mental arithmetic), at (or a bit
below) the bottom end of the 'super-massive black hole'
category and that can be ruled out by the lack of
gravitational disruption of nearby stars.

You're not thinking rationally any more George.

Back to the abuse Henry? I'm just applying Kepler's
laws and you say your program uses them so it should
agree.

Well you got the VDoppler business wrong for a start...

..just starting to rave like
the rest...
Try cleansing your mind of just about everything you ever learnt about
astronomy. It is nearly ALL wrong.

ROFL, so far all your program has done is prove it
all correct, the phase means the TDoppler must be
pure VDoppler which means all the standard results stand.

there is NO VDoppler George.

Once you have done that, you can try the same with
J0737-3039A where we have a flat brightness curve
with an eclipse lasting just 2 degrees of the phase,
a large coincident Shapiro delay and a simple velocity
curve.

You are telling me about things that were derived entirely on the basis
that
light speed is source dependent.

No, I'm telling you nothing more than what is obvious
in the measurements. The light curve is flat over
358 degrees of the orbit and goes to zero for 2 degrees.

There could easily be some kind of eclipse.

Yes Henry, it isn't actually the other pulsar that
blocks the view, it's too small. It's the opaque
plasma (like the "solar wind") that eclipses the
primary pulsar but the fact is that you only get
an eclipse when the opaque material is in the line
of sight, and that tells you the phase.

Theories, theories...all based on wrong data...
What is the truth?

There could easily be another
explanation...for instance whatever the magnetic field reacts with has a
dip in
it.

But the field rotates hundreds of times a second and the
eclipse last 48 seconds every 2.4 hours (figures estimated
from memory but right order of magnitude).


But what is the form of the magnetic field? How can a magnetic field escape a
neutron star when light cannot?

I don't accept any of them George.

Tough Henry, observations are what they are, you can
produce alternative explanations but you cannot change
reality.

How we interpret wilusions from 4000LYs is wide open to error.
Using constant c is the major source of that error.

An eclipse isn't hard to interpret.

Oh but it is.
The Bath expects many orbiting stars to appear as though they are eclipsing.
All that is required is a moderately eccentric orbit and a periastron approx.
nearest to the observer.

There are other entirely different explanations if you would care to
look.

Of course Henry, and that is what I am suggesting you
do since that is how all theories are tested. Get your
program working, fit the curves to what is seen using
_all_ the available data, not just the convenient bits
and then say what your program gives as the alternative
explanation. I've been waiting a long time now.

George, my program has clear limitations. It is designed to predict
variable
star brightness curves. ..and it does that far more accurately than the
methods
used to measure the observed curves.
It cannot take into account all the possible ways a pulsar pulse can be
created.

It doesn't need to, only the delays that occur after the
pulse has been emitted and it should be perfectly capable
of doing that. Stop looking for excuses.

It is perfectly reasonable to consider that the mechanism by which the pulses
are formed might have some kind of additional periodic variation.
Everything written about pulsars is speculative at best and likely to be very
wrong.


Nope, I haven't told you derived stuff, just what is
observed. You should by now have realised that I know
at least as much about Ritzian theory as you and in
some areas even more.

George I'm not quite sure what we are arguing about half the time.

That's because you assume we are arguing when in fact I'm
just helping you get your program working accurately. After
that I'll challenge you to match the observations and you
will learn what you need to do to the theory to make it
work.

Indeed you HAVE helped. One of my program's procedures is even named after
you....'GEORGE'.
You have help solve one of my biggest worries. ....the 'distance anomaly'.

You must know that your whole Einsteinian approach is based on the
existence of
an absolute aether...and you must know that such doesn't exist.

What I know is that it doesn't use an aether at all and
you already know that, but you keep trying to throw in
these silly remarks just to change the subject when you
feel threatened. It really is a very obvious ploy, and
completely useless.

Einstein merely reinvented LET in a very roundabout and cleverly disguised
manner. The theories are identical.

So why don't you just accept the fact that light speed from remote objects
must
be source dependent and investigate what that means to astronomical
observations..

Because it was proven that the speed is independent of
the speed of the source by Sagnac nearly a century ago,
but again you're just trying to change the subject so
I'll snip there.

Nonsense...


Now how about getting back to the question in hand?

Why don't you have a rethink about VDoppler?


George



"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On 25 Mar 2007 01:41:16 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 24 Mar 2007 01:49:50 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:


Image Size: 1 arcminute x 1 arcminute
Survey DSS-1
Output format: Download as a GIF file

Either way, you get the same field. Smack dab in
the middle of the field is the white dwarf optical
counterpart to PSR J1909-3744. A most ordinary
looking image of a most ordinary looking star.
No swirling clouds of gases, no accretion disk...

Good....now can you provide me with its brightness curve?

Sure. The white dwarf has virtually constant brightness.

Evidence please....

As dead stars which do not support thermonuclear reactions,
white dwarf stars in general lack "heat engines" which would
support oscillatory pulsations such as might be exhibited by,
say, dwarf Cepheids.

theories, theories....

This is not to say that the surface of the white dwarf companion
of PSR J1909-3744 is non-turbulent. Far from it. Tidal effects
from the closely orbiting pulsar would be expected to drive
complex "weather" patterns on its surface. However, any
luminosity variances due to these effects would be completely
negligible relative to the flux of black body radiation.

The pulsar isn't orbiting the star...it barely moves.

The rate of mass transfer from white dwarf to pulsar which in
the distant past resulted in the speedup of the pulsar's rotation
rate to its current 340 Hz has dropped to negligible levels.
Currently, there is virtually no contribution to the measured
luminosity from any accretion disk on the pulsar.

theories, theories...
Are you saying that the dwarf's axis of rotation is the same as that of the
pulsar?


Why are you so focused on the white dwarf companion? The major
focus of observations on this and other orbiting pulsars is
on the pulsar itself.

If I know its brightness curve I can tell you a lot more about the whole
complex...according to BaTh.

What brightness variations does BaTh predict for the pulsar at
radio frequencies? Have these brightness variations ever been
observed?

My term 'brightness variations' means 'pulse bunching' in the case of pulsars.
However, I would be interested to know if every second pulsar pulse was
slightly different. One would expect two pulses every rotation would one not?



Like what?

If you knew anything about physics you wouldn't ask questions
like that.


Being evasive means that you don't have an answer.

Well please tell me how a magnetic field can escape a neutron star when light
cannot....




Yes, OF COURSE the Shapiro effect is a consequence
of lensing!

hahahhohoho!

So you agree that the Shapiro effect is responsible
for the measured shape. At least you've agreed on
SOMETHING.

Now go match it with your program.

It is some kind of physical effect not covered by my program.
..nor is it supposed to be.

In other words, your program is incapable of explaining the
Shapiro delay.

Even though you previously said it would...

It can produce a dip or a peak very similar to the type of effect you are
calling 'Shapiro delay'.

Since everything written about pulsars is likely to be completely wrong, how
can I comment.



So back to your program, what parameters do you get
for the orbit and maximum extinction distance if you
match the velocity curve _including_ the phase?

I'm not ready to provide those figures yet.
but for a pulsar the velocity phase should
generally be the same as my 'brightness phase'
if some eccentricity exists.

Fine. Provide the figures. Until you do so,
consider your theory a failure.

..why don't you go and empty a few bedpans......


It all boils down to this:

Your program consistently fails to fit the measured data, whether
it be from orbiting millisecond pulsars or Cepheid variables.

After considerable debugging with George Dishman's help, your
program is considered to represent an accurate implementation of
Ritzian theory modified to take into account extinction effects.

My program didn't need George's help.
George is confused about VDoppler.

Since your program fails to predict important features of these
stars, BaTh is falsified.

Those 'important features' are mainly 'wrong interpretations of willusions'.

Good job!

Back to studying..

Have you learnt how to turn the patients over yet?

Jerry


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On 25 Mar 2007 05:54:00 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 25, 2:41 am, "Jerry" wrote:

This is not to say that the surface of the white dwarf companion
of PSR J1909-3744 is non-turbulent. Far from it. Tidal effects
from the closely orbiting pulsar would be expected to drive
complex "weather" patterns on its surface.

That, of course, is assuming that the white dwarf is not
in a state of tidal lock, with one face always directed
towards the pulsar. Even so, the gradual cooling of the
white dwarf should drive convective effects. Stellar
surfaces are not quiescent, even on dead stars.

However, any
luminosity variances due to these effects would be completely
negligible relative to the flux of black body radiation.

There could, of course, be minor variations due to the
white dwarf not being entirely spherical due to tidal
distortion, etc.

theories, theories.....all based on completely wrong interpretations of basic
data.


Jerry



"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On 25 Mar 2007 07:36:34 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 25, 2:41 am, "Jerry" wrote:

This is not to say that the surface of the white dwarf
companion of PSR J1909-3744 is non-turbulent. Far from it.
Tidal effects from the closely orbiting pulsar

Bad choice of words. Sorry. I see there has been some
confusion in this thread about who was orbiting whom. The
pulsar weighs 1.438 +/- 0.024 solar masses, and its companion
weighs 0.2038 +/- 0.022 solar masses, so if anything, one
should say that the white dwarf orbits the pulsar.

Actually, of course, they orbit around their common
barycenter, so what's the big deal?

It is very BIG.

It means I don't need anywhere near as much extinction to explain the distance
anomaly. Orbit pitch can also be included in the equation.

would be expected to drive complex "weather" patterns on
its surface. However, any luminosity variances due to
these effects would be completely negligible relative to
the flux of black body radiation.

Jerry


"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know
him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
--Jonathan Swift.

On Mar 25, 6:21 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:
On 25 Mar 2007 01:41:16 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 24, 4:22 pm, HW@....(Henri Wilson) wrote:

Good....now can you provide me with its brightness curve?

Sure. The white dwarf has virtually constant brightness.

Evidence please....

CORRECTION

A relatively young white dwarf, whose thermonuclear heat engine
has only recently been extinguished, may very well go into
an oscillatory phase as it cools through the instability strip.

A brief period of oscillation is part of the normal dying
behavior of many white dwarfs.

My rough plot of the white dwarf companion of PSR J1909-3744
on an H-R diagram shows that it has long cooled past any
possible presence on the instability strip.

Therefore it has constant brightness.

As dead stars which do not support thermonuclear reactions,
white dwarf stars in general lack "heat engines" which would
support oscillatory pulsations such as might be exhibited by,
say, dwarf Cepheids.

Change that statment to read, "white dwarf stars in general
lack 'heat engines' which would support SUSTAINED oscillatory
pulsations..."

Jerry

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message ...
On 25 Mar 2007 07:36:34 -0700, "Jerry" wrote:

On Mar 25, 2:41 am, "Jerry" wrote:

Actually, of course, they orbit around their common
barycenter, so what's the big deal?

It is very BIG.

It means I don't need anywhere near as much extinction to explain the distance
anomaly. Orbit pitch can also be included in the equation.

What's this, Wilson?
How can you get pitch from a point source, Wilson?
All orbits are edge-on, Wilson, you said so.
In fact you don't need ANY extinction, it is ALL explained by pitch,
you stupid old wabo.