Why are the 'Fixed Stars' so FIXED?

On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:34:03 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:08 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B ...
...
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.

How do we know the orbital phase of a variable star George?

Who is talking about variable stars Henry? You suggested
I didn't want to look at PSR1613+16 but now you want to
change the subject.


The theory is that its orbit is highly elliptical and precessing at a known
rate. I say this pulsar has a nearly circular orbit and maybe its transverse
velocity could explain that willusion.

I also point out that I don't accept any published astronomical data that is
based on grossly wrong values of orbital velocities.

George



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

On Mar 29, 7:09 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

...





On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:04:19 +0100, "OG" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:01:23 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

That seems a very peculiar thing to believe, given that we know that all
the
light we see at any time in the cycle has the same speed.

If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

Please learn some physics..

I'm happy for you to tell me what 'you' think.
As I said, justify your claim.

Oh what a surprise, HW doesn't respond. Could it be he's wary of
reality?

On 1 Apr 2007 17:08:14 -0700, "OG" wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:09 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message

...





On Thu, 29 Mar 2007 01:04:19 +0100, "OG" wrote:

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:01:23 +0100, "OG"
wrote:

That seems a very peculiar thing to believe, given that we know that all
the
light we see at any time in the cycle has the same speed.

If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

Please learn some physics..

I'm happy for you to tell me what 'you' think.
As I said, justify your claim.

Oh what a surprise, HW doesn't respond. Could it be he's wary of
reality?

Spectral lines don't measure OWLS, idiot.

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 1 Apr 2007 17:08:14 -0700, "OG" wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:09 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message


If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you
poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

Please learn some physics..

I'm happy for you to tell me what 'you' think.
As I said, justify your claim.

Oh what a surprise, HW doesn't respond. Could it be he's wary of
reality?

Spectral lines don't measure OWLS, idiot.
Cut the insults if you want to be taken seriously.

Since spectral lines are narrow we know that all the light measured at on
time was given off at the same point in the velocity-time cycle.

If some light coming from a cepheid was travelling faster than the rest (as
you seem to be proposing) we would get broadening of the spectral lines.

On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:06:42 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
.. .
On 1 Apr 2007 17:08:14 -0700, "OG" wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:09 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message


If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you
poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

Please learn some physics..

I'm happy for you to tell me what 'you' think.
As I said, justify your claim.

Oh what a surprise, HW doesn't respond. Could it be he's wary of
reality?

Spectral lines don't measure OWLS, idiot.
Cut the insults if you want to be taken seriously.

Since spectral lines are narrow we know that all the light measured at on
time was given off at the same point in the velocity-time cycle.

If some light coming from a cepheid was travelling faster than the rest (as
you seem to be proposing) we would get broadening of the spectral lines.

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

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

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On 1 Apr 2007 06:46:07 -0700, "George Dishman"
wrote:

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


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.

What observations george?
Are you sugesting that somebody has actually measured the OW speed of
individual pulsar pulses wrt Earth?

I am pointing out that no observations contradict that
view while if ballistic theory was correct you would
expect many violations, such as multiple images from
binaries.

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.

George, you obviously don't even understand your own stupid theory. IT
SAYS
JUST WHAT I WROTE ABOVE. Don't deny it.

Sorry Henry, shouting doesn't make errors any less wrong.
I know you are aware of this, I have corrected you on it
dozens of times over what must be nearly a decade now.

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.

My original method is 100% OK fall al prcactica purposes. You suggestion
is
very good and much faster but involves some complicated programming and
leaves
a lot of gaps in the curve because the x coordinate is rounded off to the
nearest integer....and a number of readings may produce the same integer.
Still
it will work for single stars in most instances.

That's often the way, a faster program takes a bit more
thought. The choice is yours as to whther the extra
complexity is worth the effort.

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.

We don't need to know the phase.

Yes we do, that is the key as I have been telling you
for several weeks, it allows you to distinguish VDoppler
from ADoppler which is hard to do any other way unless
you are lucky enough to have an eclipsing situation.

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 are effectively the same at low speeds.

Yep, but since you emphasised "classical" I thought I
should pick that nit.

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.

SR, LET and BaTh produce almost the same VDoppler shift for speeds c.
You should know that.

So what, the curve that is matched is the change of the
orbit resulting from the energy loss through gravitational
radiation.

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.

Well it is probably not exactly circular. maybe e=0.02-04

Fine, you were the one claiming it was circular.

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.

Well what is YOUR explanation of the pulse origin George?

I'm not clear on the details but I understand it to be
basically cyclotron radiation in particles pulled from
the stellar surface by electrostatic fields. The magnetic
field creates the beam by aligning the spiralling of the
charges:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0303204842.htm

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 faintest idea how to come
up with an alternative that actually explains what we
see.

'What we see' is the willusion of what happens.
Explaining WHAT IS REALLY HAPPENING is not easy George.

It is quite easy Henry, the system emits gravitational
radiation exactly as Einstein's maths predicts.

I suggest many possibilities but you never listen.

I listen but so far they have all been laughable.

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.

The analysis did not take all factors into account.

It was in the non-rotating frame Henry, have you got
that now?

It took into account all the factors in your diagram.

..and it still showed that a fringe shift should occur.

No, it showed there would be _no_ shift. That's why you
had to go looking for alternatives.

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.

So?

So you can re-interpret the observations using ballistic
theory to produce your predicted orbital parameters but
you cannot ignore the data, only the conventional analysis.

They measure the bunching of pulses from J1909-3744 and assume it is
caused
by conventional VDoppler!

Which you model will confirm when you do the analysis
thoroughly.

Then they arrive at velocities that are grossly
exaggerated.
Surely you can see that by now.

I'm waiting for you to work out what parameters will
match the observations. I have given you hints about
what the answers will turn out to be but you need to
do it yourself, I know you won't believe what I tell
you without confirming it for yourself.

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.

Where is evidence of this phase error?
Where is proof that it is a Shapiro effect?

Where is your fit of the ballistic theory model to the
observed data? When you do that, the results will be
quite clear.

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

So where DOES the supposed Shapiro peak occur?

It happens when the LoS passes close to the companion as
shown in the diagram:

http://www.physorg.com/news9837.html

In the observations, it is at a phase of 0.25 (90 degrees)
which is when the Doppler is zero and rising as the source
is at its greatest distance from us. See figure 1 of:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0507420

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

Other than your 90 degree phase error of course.

I don't have that problem any more.

You may be thinking of an older problem of brightness phase
relative to velocity which I suspect has been cleared up.
Here I mean the observed phase is not compatible with the
Doppler being mostly ADoppler, it needs to be predominantly
VDoppler.

That in itself isn't a problem, it simply gives an upper
limit to the speed equalisation distance.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:36:54 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 23:34:03 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007 12:04:08 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:

Not at all, I expect you to model J1909-3744, PSR1613+16
and J0737-3039A/B ...
...
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.

How do we know the orbital phase of a variable star George?

Who is talking about variable stars Henry? You suggested
I didn't want to look at PSR1613+16 but now you want to
change the subject.


The theory is that its orbit is highly elliptical and precessing at a
known
rate.

Try to take more care with your terms henry, the theory
is GR. That the orbit is elliptical and precessing is
the best model fit.

I say this pulsar has a nearly circular orbit and maybe its transverse
velocity could explain that willusion.

Baseless handwaving.

I also point out that I don't accept any published astronomical data that
is
based on grossly wrong values of orbital velocities.

Of course not. Produce your best fit of your model to
the observations and then we will see whether you
agree the rate of orbital change or not. So far you
have no evidence to suggest the conventional values
are wrong.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 14:54:22 +0100, "George Dishman"
wrote:
"Leonard Kellogg" wrote in message
groups.com...

Henri Wilson wrote:

[grammatical errors corrected to improve readability]

Hold a circle (or an ellipse) in front of you at any angle.
Rotate your head until you find an axis in the plane of the
circle that is horizontal to the line between your eyes,
and is also perpendicular to the LOS. (one always exists)
ALL the radial velocities and the accelerations around the
orbit are then multiplied by the same factor, cos(pitch),
where the pitch angle refers to the rotation around the
above axis.

Rotating one's head is irrelevant. The rotation that you
describe (A "roll" of either the head or the projected
ellipse) simply puts the long axis of the projected ellipse
on the viewer's X axis. That is convienient but has no
effect on the process of multiplying radial velocities and
accelerations around the orbit by a factor of cos(pitch).

You said this previously and I do not understand why George
did not point out its irrelevancy at that time.

Do I understand your terminology correctly as saying that
the "pitch" of an orbit is zero when seen edge-on and 90
degrees when seen face-on?

If so, your term "pitch" means the same as "inclination",
which is the term everyone else uses in astronomy. Though
it is often measured as angular deviation from face-on
rather than from edge-on. That is how it is used in arXiv
astro-ph/0507420.pdf (Table 1, "Orbital inclination, i")

To double-check that we are talking about the same thing,
see the illustration of "yaw", "pitch", and "roll" near the
top of this page:

Leonard, I think Henry has just swapped some definitions
for convenience. His cos(pitch) is the same as the usual
sin(inclination). I'm less clear about his yaw but I'm
fairly sure it is directly related to the longitude of
the ascending node.

It is the angle between the LOS and the major axis, in the edge on
position.

Any edge on orbit can be rotated about the axis perpendicular to the LOS.
At
any particular angle, all RADIAL velocities and accelerations will be
multiplied by the same factor, my cos(pitch).

ALL POSSIBLE ORBIT CONFIGURATIONS (WRT EARTH) CAN BE CREATED IN THIS WAY.

Think about it.

I don't need to, I think there is a trivial relationship
between your angles and the conventional ones. For example

pitch = 90 - inclination

I haven't bothered working out the yaw but I'm sure something
similar will result.

George

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Mon, 2 Apr 2007 19:06:42 +0100, "OG" wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
. ..
On 1 Apr 2007 17:08:14 -0700, "OG" wrote:

On Mar 29, 7:09 pm, "OG" wrote:
"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message


If you haven't anything more constructive to say, go away....you
poor
indoctrinated fool....

OK, so how am I wrong? We DO know that all the light we see is
coming
towards us with the same speed. Spectral lines demonstrate this.

Please learn some physics..

I'm happy for you to tell me what 'you' think.
As I said, justify your claim.

Oh what a surprise, HW doesn't respond. Could it be he's wary of
reality?

Spectral lines don't measure OWLS, idiot.
Cut the insults if you want to be taken seriously.

Since spectral lines are narrow we know that all the light measured at on
time was given off at the same point in the velocity-time cycle.

If some light coming from a cepheid was travelling faster than the rest
(as
you seem to be proposing) we would get broadening of the spectral lines.

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

So what's your explanation then?

"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
...
On Sun, 1 Apr 2007 15:04:46 +0100, "George Dishman"

wrote:


"Henri Wilson" HW@.... wrote in message
news
On 29 Mar 2007 10:25:26 -0700, "George Dishman"

wrote:


For years you have been saying that Cepheids were plain
constant-luminosity stars and the variation was due to
c+v effects because they are in binary systems that have
not been recognised as such.

No I changed that opinion some time ago George. I accepted that the
presence of
harmonics in the brightness curves was pretty hard to explain on purely
'orbit'
grounds.
So it is quite likely that two factors are contributing to the
brightness
curves of these stars. Their orbit motion and the huff-puffing of their
surfaces.

Given that you now accept the huff-puff nature, you
need to reconsider your justification for saying
that Cepheids that are currently thought of as
isolated might actually be part of a binary.

Every one I read about seems to have a companion star.

Put "solitary cepheid" into Google and you get a number
of hits. At least one was a survey listing both categories
with similar numbers of entries. I looked it up earlier
at work and don't have the reference here and it was in
postscript but I'm sure you can find a readable version
with a little hunting.

If you are now switching to say they are single stars, why
on Earth would your software be modelling binary systems
and restricting the solutions to Keplerian orbits when the
motion of the surface is due to internal pressure?

I think it is my turn to say you are getting very confused
Henry.

It is a fact that most 'cepheids' appear to have a companion...

It is a fact that something around half of _all_ stars
are in binary systems so there is no reason why Cepheids
should be an exception.

...all stars are obiting some kind of mass centre.

They all orbit the galaxy, so what. The orbital period
needs to be a few years or less for any significant
effects to show up.

which means they
are in some kind of orbit.
I reckon the movement of their surfaces would feature similar radial
velocities
to those of an orbit. It is distinctly possible that the huffing is
linked
to
the orbit period. It is also possible that the stars are in tidal lock
..

It is certainly possible, especially for close binaries,
but less likely for those with greater separations.

and
distorted into some kind of dumbell shape,

No, each would be more like an egg shape. Look up "Roche Lobe".

Yes, egg shaped...that would cause a brightness variation at double the
orbit
frequency.

leading to a brightness variation as
they orbit....but that wouldn't account for the short periods of many of
them.

It wouldn't account for any where the period of the Cepheid
differs from the orbital period, nor does it account for those
that are not in binary systems.

That is true. That's why I accept the possibility.
However it doesn't make any difference to the fact that the brightness
variation of huff-puff stars conforms with BaTh.

First you need to model them correctly. Your new program
should do that if you match the red velocity curve to the
published data. The grre curve then gives the luminosity
variation due to c+v and any extra is intrinsic. So Henry,
revisit your matches and tell me how much is c+v and how
much is intrinsic for some examples 1.5 magnitude variation

In every paper I have read about cepheids, the authors admit the have no
theory
to link the surface movement to the brightness curve.

I won't comment on that without doing some study for myself.

George