Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

Just getting a chance to do some checks, this reply
from last week seems to hav been lost by my ISP:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:32 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 10:11:54 GMT, (Paul Schlyter) wrote:



I fully agree with PD, and I too applaud George's very patient effort
with Henri. I've had Henri killfiled for some time now, but I've
been following George's posts and the way he guided Henri up to the
point where Henri refused to go futher. Perhaps Henri will reconsider
in the future, I hope so.

Not a chance.

Gawd! Another brainwashed fool.
How does a pulse from an orbiting pulsar know how to travel to little
planet
Earth at the same speed as one emited 180 dgrees before?

You see Paul? Henry knows that SR says the pulse also travels
at c relative to the centre of the galaxy and the Andromeda
galaxy and in every other inertial frame yet he deliberately
pretends he is ignorant of that in order to pretend that it
means Earth is in some way special just so he can be insulting

George, remove the Earth and everything else from the universe.

Your stupid rehashed aether theory says that all the pulses emitted by the
orbiting pulsar will remain in a fixed spatial relationship with EACH
OTHER as
they traverse space. In other words, they are traveling at the same speed
to
wherever they are going.

Yes, that's what the observations say they do.

You are claiming that as each pulse is emitted, its
speed becomes magically adjusted to exactly that of all the previous ones.

Nope, and you know pefectly well that's a load of crap
Henry, you've been told what SR says far too many times
over the years. You are just inventing yet another
deliberate distortion to hide from reality.

I ask, are the fairies involved?...or do you still insist that space has
absolute qualities?

Your assessment of his approach is entirely correct, but since
he knows I'm just helping him speed up his software and get the
predictions to be correct for ballistic theory, I'm not a threat
and he can hold the conversation. Why he got defensive when I
pointed out he could use the Shapiro delay to determine the
phase is a bit of a mystery to me.

George, your method is not good for elliptical orbits or for adding the
brightness contributions of a pair. It requires at least eight more arrays
and
is likely to cause gaps in the output curve.

Well obviously you need to sort out the details. You
described the method you were using and I pointed out
some details you had missed that needed fixing. The
way I would have written the software would have
allowed the method I suggested to work but there's as
many styles of writing as there are programmers so you
have to fix it your way.

It is one helluva thing to program
compared with MY slightly slower but very acccurate method..

Speed isn't the key part, remember you said there was
no phase shift for zero distance where the VDoppler
should dominate so clearly you had a fundamental error.
We need to know the phase so your program was unusable
at that point.

The reason George perseveres with me is that he knows I'm right.

Nah, I just got fed up seeing you claim to have matched various
Cepheid curves when your software obviously contained the same
mistake as Sekerin so gave incorrect results and in fact ballistic
theory can't match them at all.

Oh rubbish George, The curves are accurate to 1 part in c/v.
I can make them dead accurate but why bother...

That accuracy would be fine, but you had a 90 degree phase
error which is not acceptable.

...but he cannot let himself accept the fact that his whole belief
system is
wrong...so he is going down fighting. He wont even comment on this:

http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/psr1913+16.jpg

A perfect match to GR of course, but not much use for your
purposes since there is no brightness curve (there is no
variation) and there is no way to determine true phase.

George, the published 'pulse bunching' curve was used by misguided
astrophysicists to determine the velocity curve USING CLASSICAL DOPPLER
EQUATIONS.

I think they would be using the GR equations Henry.

They don't apply...and the figures, upon which the rest of the
theory is based, are completely wrong.

The theory was written in 1917 Henry, it wasn't based on
Hulse and taylor's figures, and the observations exactly
match that theory. Yous eem to be getting confused with
the Ritzian analysis which would be quite different.

The observed bunching is that produced by a pulsar in CIRCULAR orbit, not
an
elliptical one....as the confused astronomers believe..
...
Henry still has to explain how the periastron of a circular
orbit can advance ;-)

George, I told you how that can appear to happen.

Let me give you a hint Henry, circular orbits don't
have a periastron.

It is all to do with the way
the pulses are created. The neutron star has around it a mass of swirling
gasses, shaped into a thin dick, somewhat like the rings of Saturn... only
lumpy and sufficiently irregular to cause the star to move in a small
orbit. As
the star spins, its magnetic field cuts the disk and initiates a bright
pulse
of mainly H spectrum light from certain parts of he disk. ...

Utter rubbish Henry, the pulse is seen in the radio
frequencies below microwave and is a broad band
signal, the signals couldn't pulse as fast as they
do because the heated gas would cool slowly and the
radiation from the disc would be nearly omni-directonal
other than some shadowing by other parts of the disc
and the star.

The precession of the
disk matter may give the impression of a small movement of periastron...or
the
effect you claim might be nothing more than a beat between the orbit
period and
the pulsar spin rate. There are endless possibilities.

Maybe, but you don't have the faitest idea how to come
up with an alternative that actually explains what we
see.

So George, if you actually would succeed at some point to make Henri
abandon his bath light theory, don't expect him to be grateful
afterwards...

Don't worry, Henry is incapable of that, he has painted
himself into a corner. If he could change his mind, the
Sagnac proof which he agreed would have been adequate.

YOUR 'sagnac analysis' did nothing more than epitomise the stupidity of
trying
to use rotating frames of reference.

Sixth time now Henry, the analysis you agreed was in the
non-rotating frame. Your denial is getting severe, try to
calm down a bit.

My MO is simpler, I take the approach that good science
must be able to prove itself so all I have been doing is
a peer review of his software to get the bugs out and some
digging to see if we can find observational data to match.
Whether Ritzian theory can model that data or not is
something I leave to the whim of the gods, all I expect is
that the model should be accurately based on the theory.
I think Henry (or whoever) is reasonably in touch with what
the theory implies now and his program is probably getting
quite accurate but I don't think he has fully grasped the
use of residuals in determining whether he has a match or
not. One day perhaps ....

Your problem is that you accept the 'data'....when it is completely
wrong.

I accept_observations_ which in science are taken as the
driving force. If your theory doesn't match, you discard
the theory, not the observations.

It is the interpretations of the observations that produce the wrong data.

No Henry data are the observatory records on which the
interpretations are based.

For instance using VDoppler equations to analyse ADoppler bunching of
poulasar
pulses.

Except that ADoppler gives a phase error, that's why the
Shapiro effect is important.

We observe the Shapiro
effect to coincide with a point of negligible Doppler
shift, you want it to be 90 degrees away from where we
see it sonow you have stopped talking about the science
and started getting abusive instead. Maybe that's a sign
that you know subconciously that your claims are
unsupportable but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt
and wait to see if you can return to the technical
discussion.

George. I'm not particularly interested in whether or not a Shapiro effect
exists because it makes no difference to what my program achieves..

Of course it does Henry, you have to match the phase and
Shapiro tells you that

..the BaTh
matching of just about any star curve...and pulsar 'velocity curve'....

Other than your 90 degree phase error of course.

George